Oct 1, 2013, 3:03 pm
Last edit by: Ari
PLEASE READ FIRST: WIKIPOST and MODERATOR NOTE
MODERATOR NOTE:
Please note: Insensitive or attacking posts, discussion about other posters and their motives, and other off-topic posts/comments are not allowed, per FlyerTalk Rules.
--> If you have a question or comment about moderation, use the "Alert a Moderator" button
left of every post, or send a PM. Do not post such comments/questions on-thread. Thank you.
N.B. Please do not alter the above message.
--> If you have a question or comment about moderation, use the "Alert a Moderator" button
left of every post, or send a PM. Do not post such comments/questions on-thread. Thank you. N.B. Please do not alter the above message.
• • • • •
[Please post
NLY status updates and relevant Q&A here.]Plaintiff: George Lagen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Defendant: United Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc.
Filed In The United States District Court For The Northern District Of Illinois Eastern Division
Case No. 1:12-cv-04056
Filed: 05/24/2012
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber
Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim
Proposed class: All persons, as of midnight, December 31, 2011, who were members of the Million Mile Program under United Airlines’ Mileage Plus frequent flyer program.
Filings/rulings can be found on www.pacer.gov (requires registration)
12 June 2012 - Amended Class Action Complaint filed
Spring 2013 - Court denies United's request to close case
Spring 2013 - Plaintiff files for suit to become a class action, United asks Judge before he decides if there could be limited discovery (which typically happens after case becomes class-action). Judge allows it.
August 2013 - Depositions/Limited Discovery completed and transcripts were handed over to the court.
22 October 2013 - Pursuant to an order of the Court, both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment:
Plaintiff contends that he is a United pre-merger Million Miler, that United promised Million Miler fliers certain lifetime benefits on its web site, including two regional upgrades every year and Premier Executive status, which provided certain delineated benefits (e.g., 100% mileage bonus). Plaintiff cites deposition testimony from United stating "lifetime" means: "as long as they were really able to fly … as long as someone is coming on a plane and alive and capable of flying." Plaintiff concludes by stating that United has breached its contract with its pre-merger Million Miler fliers by reducing the lifetime benefits they were promised.
United contends in its motion that Million Miler is part of the MileagePlus program, that United reserved the right to make any changes it wishes to the MileagePlus program, and that the changes it made that plaintiff now complains of are therefore contractually permissible. United does not admit, and does not address, the "lifetime" benefit statements that it made on its website.
23 January 2014 - Judge denies Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grants United's cross-motion for summary judgment. Judgment entered in favor of United.
The Judge begins his Opinion with a quote from Job: “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away” and then holds that Plaintiff has not produced any evidence that UA made him an offer to participate in a separate MM program.
The Court noted that: “The sum total of his evidence is vague references to ‘electronic and written correspondence’ from United, which, in both instances postdates his qualification as a Million Mile flyer and was not directed to him; and a 1997 Newsletter from United announcing the creation of the program he could not remember receiving. However the card he did receive from United, admitting him to MililionMile Flyer Program, shows that his new status is clearly a status within the Mileage Plus Frequent Flyer Program, as does the form letters United sent to applicants advising them of their admission to the MillionMile Flyer program. In fact, Plaintiff in his Complaint alleges that the MillionMile Flyer program was part of the Mileage Plus program. He has not produced any document that comes close to substantiating that the programs were separate and distinct."
Bottom line: The Court agreed with United's position that the Plaintiff had not proved the existence of a separate contract between itself and the Million Milers.
Full decision: http://media.wandr.me/MMerOpinion.pdf
20 February 2014
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's decision. The record on appeal is due by March 13, 2014.
Appeal docs available at:
- http://media.wandr.me/UAL-MM-Appeal-filed-2-20-14.pdf
- http://media.wandr.me/UAL-MM-letter-of-appeal.pdf
8 September 2014
Oral arguments were heard by a three judge panel. Links to the original MP3 of the Court's recording and also some transcription can be found around post 2350 and for several more following that.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/23496499-post2361.html
22 December 2014
Affirmed over a dissent.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D12-22/C:14-1375:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:1474449:S:0
Million Miler Sues United [Judgment for UA Jan 2014] Judgment Affirmed Dec 2014
Sep 9, 2013, 12:40 am
#1771
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
Legally, it has to do with whether you had vested benefits or not.
Those who had earned a MM were legally vested and those who did not are not.
Remember, once you are a MM, there is a separate set of specific promises made. Prior to making MM, UA retained the right to make whatever changes it wanted in the program.
It is conceptually no different than being in the military for 19-years and complaining you get no pension. Prior to 20-years, you get nothing. Once hitting 20, you do.
For me, the best settlement would be to carve out pre-merger UA Million Milers, give them two regional upgrades a year and give them all the benefits Premier Exec had at the time the benefits were withdrawn (Star Gold status, 100% RDM bonus, etc.). Of course, they would have to retroactively provide the regional upgrades (so give four a year until the gap is covered when none were issued) and bonus RDMs.
Frankly, it wouldn't cost UA that much to do this and it would save them from the bashing they take from anyone I can get to listen. Who knows? They might even get some good will out of it and defectors might come back.
-
I like your idea/settlement suggestion.
In fact, I like it so much, I might copy your post and post it in this thread about as often as I post the two breached regional upgrades. I might even post it more often than I post the breached upgrades.
Maybe UA will see this and take your suggestion. That could (maybe) end the lawsuit and, as you wrote, some defectors might return to UA.
image-
Last edited by iluv2fly; Sep 10, 2013 at 2:52 pm Reason: spelling/image
Sep 9, 2013, 3:44 am
#1772
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago USA
Programs: *A Junkie, SQ PPS, Skywards Gold, 2 Million Mile Flyer;*wood LT Plat, BA MM
Posts: 1,762
Legally, it has to do with whether you had vested benefits or not.
Those who had earned a MM were legally vested and those who did not are not.
Remember, once you are a MM, there is a separate set of specific promises made. Prior to making MM, UA retained the right to make whatever changes it wanted in the program.
It is conceptually no different than being in the military for 19-years and complaining you get no pension. Prior to 20-years, you get nothing. Once hitting 20, you do.
For me, the best settlement would be to carve out pre-merger UA Million Milers, give them two regional upgrades a year and give them all the benefits Premier Exec had at the time the benefits were withdrawn (Star Gold status, 100% RDM bonus, etc.). Of course, they would have to retroactively provide the regional upgrades (so give four a year until the gap is covered when none were issued) and bonus RDMs.
Frankly, it wouldn't cost UA that much to do this and it would save them from the bashing they take from anyone I can get to listen. Who knows? They might even get some good will out of it and defectors might come back.
Maybe.
Those who had earned a MM were legally vested and those who did not are not.
Remember, once you are a MM, there is a separate set of specific promises made. Prior to making MM, UA retained the right to make whatever changes it wanted in the program.
It is conceptually no different than being in the military for 19-years and complaining you get no pension. Prior to 20-years, you get nothing. Once hitting 20, you do.
For me, the best settlement would be to carve out pre-merger UA Million Milers, give them two regional upgrades a year and give them all the benefits Premier Exec had at the time the benefits were withdrawn (Star Gold status, 100% RDM bonus, etc.). Of course, they would have to retroactively provide the regional upgrades (so give four a year until the gap is covered when none were issued) and bonus RDMs.
Frankly, it wouldn't cost UA that much to do this and it would save them from the bashing they take from anyone I can get to listen. Who knows? They might even get some good will out of it and defectors might come back.
Maybe.
I would do what Baxe did, write to the Plaintiffs lawyers showing support and tell them not to forget the ones close to MM. Keep it simple.
And it's not just the material on the web site. I still have my 2010 welcome letter spelling out the perks:
It still surprises me that one poster here says those are worth about as much as a rock in a box and that UA can do anything they want to do with my lifetime benefits. It's just very difficult to buy into that policy after this letter promising exactly the opposite.
It still surprises me that one poster here says those are worth about as much as a rock in a box and that UA can do anything they want to do with my lifetime benefits. It's just very difficult to buy into that policy after this letter promising exactly the opposite.
Cross your fingers.
I like your idea/settlement suggestion.
In fact, I like it so much, I might copy your post and post it in this thread about as often as I post the two breached regional upgrades. I might even post it more often than I post the breached upgrades.
Maybe UA will see this and take your suggestion. That could (maybe) end the lawsuit and, as you wrote, some defectors might return to UA.
image
-
Agreed -
I tend to be a bit of a cynic, but I suspect that defining the proposed class as solely those individuals who were already MM on 12/31/11 is not really driven by the quality of the legal arguments being better around their claims than those who were not MM on 12/31/11.
I would hazard to guess that the proposed class was defined in that fashion to facilitate easier settlement by the parties.
The lawyers have no incentive to fight the latter battle, because they want to get paid early, and the class representatives don't care about the rest of the affected population, because they're part of the defined class likely to get taken care of. The rest of the MP public is basically being told to go away and be quiet.
Greg
I would hazard to guess that the proposed class was defined in that fashion to facilitate easier settlement by the parties.
The lawyers have no incentive to fight the latter battle, because they want to get paid early, and the class representatives don't care about the rest of the affected population, because they're part of the defined class likely to get taken care of. The rest of the MP public is basically being told to go away and be quiet.
Greg
Last edited by iluv2fly; Sep 10, 2013 at 2:52 pm Reason: multi-quote should be used/image
Sep 9, 2013, 5:31 am
#1773
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,432
n?
Sep 9, 2013, 6:20 am
#1774
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 4,511
How about giving the claimants/class (however that is eventually defined) a one-time, binding choice: the original, pre-merger UA MM benefits or the new benefits (e.g., spouse status, etc.)? Believe or not, I think quite a few would take the second choice (if for no other reason than to keep a spouse happy).
Sep 9, 2013, 6:36 am
#1775
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,745
How about giving the claimants/class (however that is eventually defined) a one-time, binding choice: the original, pre-merger UA MM benefits or the new benefits (e.g., spouse status, etc.)? Believe or not, I think quite a few would take the second choice (if for no other reason than to keep a spouse happy).
Sep 9, 2013, 10:35 am
#1776
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sunny SYDNEY!
Programs: UA Million Miler. (1.9M) Virgin Platinum. HH Diamond + SPG Gold
Posts: 32,330
Legally, it has to do with whether you had vested benefits or not.
Those who had earned a MM were legally vested and those who did not are not.
Remember, once you are a MM, there is a separate set of specific promises made. Prior to making MM, UA retained the right to make whatever changes it wanted in the program.
It is conceptually no different than being in the military for 19-years and complaining you get no pension. Prior to 20-years, you get nothing. Once hitting 20, you do.
For me, the best settlement would be to carve out pre-merger UA Million Milers, give them two regional upgrades a year and give them all the benefits Premier Exec had at the time the benefits were withdrawn (Star Gold status, 100% RDM bonus, etc.).
Of course, they would have to retroactively provide the regional upgrades (so give four a year until the gap is covered when none were issued) and bonus RDMs.
Frankly, it wouldn't cost UA that much to do this and it would save them from the bashing they take from anyone I can get to listen. Who knows? They might even get some good will out of it and defectors might come back.
Maybe.
Going forward, getting a million is a lot easier, but a few years back it was still pretty hard for most flyers. 100% UA, no Star partners, no credit card bonuses, no COS bonuses. A million REAL miles. .
I personally spent a great deal of my money to get there, well before the guillotine dropped 2 years back.
United made me written promises and I'd like to see them meet them.
Sep 9, 2013, 10:39 am
#1777
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,172
Sep 9, 2013, 10:44 am
#1778
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Jersey Shore/YYZ
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Plat, Hilton Diamond, Hertz PC
Posts: 12,521
This does not defeat your "All were BIS' argument, but at least lay full transparency out there. (To be fair, considering your locale, you were in all likelihood true BIS).
I think his point (more like a jab) was that for many of us here (pmCO, like myself), we were "inflated" up until the adjustment, and will have it easier than others to get there due to the previous boost.
These are in the same vein as the threads about not giving government Y fares upgrades, or disdain concerning the 1Ks who earn on MRs.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Sep 9, 2013 at 10:52 am Reason: merge
Sep 9, 2013, 11:07 am
#1779
Join Date: Jan 2000
Programs: UA 1k, AA EXPLT, NZ GE, VA PLT Hyatt Diam, Marr Plat, HH Diam
Posts: 3,445
Have you considered taking them to small claims (or your equivalent) court in Australia? Would anticipate they wouldn't spend the $ to fight it ... would establish a great precedent!! Have you considered this?
Sep 9, 2013, 11:22 am
#1780
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: DEN
Programs: UA 1P-1MM, Marriott LT Titanium
Posts: 3,930
Going forward it isn't easier to get to MM, it's all BIS. Yes, there was the one-time true up where we got a bump towards the next level, but now we're back to BIS only for the rest of the miles needed to make that next level. You can include COPA flights, so that makes it a bit easier for a % of people.
Sep 9, 2013, 12:54 pm
#1781
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 1,653
You forgot to quote the rest:
"Of course, as this case proceeds, it will be Plaintiff’s burden to prove (not plead) that a contract exists between Plaintiff’s proposed Million Miler class and United that differs from the Mileage Plus contract United argues is the contract Plaintiff seeks to enforce. In order to make this showing, Plaintiff will need to provide the Court more than mere allegations."
Last edited by iluv2fly; Sep 10, 2013 at 2:49 pm Reason: merge
Sep 9, 2013, 1:56 pm
#1782
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
-
"Of course, as this case proceeds, it will be Plaintiff’s burden to prove (not plead) that a contract exists between Plaintiff’s proposed Million Miler class and United that differs from the Mileage Plus contract United argues is the contract Plaintiff seeks to enforce. In order to make this showing, Plaintiff will need to provide the Court more than mere allegations."
-
"Of course, as this case proceeds, it will be Plaintiff’s burden to prove (not plead) that a contract exists between Plaintiff’s proposed Million Miler class and United that differs from the Mileage Plus contract United argues is the contract Plaintiff seeks to enforce. In order to make this showing, Plaintiff will need to provide the Court more than mere allegations."
-
Here is an excellent piece of "evidence" confirming that the contract for MM was different. This screen shot discusses "lifetime" benefits that applied only to MM fliers and not to the general frequent flier population.
As most readers know, UA has not honored this written lifetime commitment.
image-
Last edited by iluv2fly; Sep 10, 2013 at 2:53 pm Reason: wrong word/image
Sep 12, 2013, 9:44 pm
#1783
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,745
To be technically correct, those who flew a lot of segments had a lot of 500-mile minimums thrown in there.
This does not defeat your "All were BIS' argument, but at least lay full transparency out there. (To be fair, considering your locale, you were in all likelihood true BIS).
This does not defeat your "All were BIS' argument, but at least lay full transparency out there. (To be fair, considering your locale, you were in all likelihood true BIS).
Frankly, there aren't all that many segments that are less than 500-miles, and those that are aren't a whole lot less than 500-miles, so I think it is practically irrelevant.
Besides, if someone made MM on 500-mile segments, they would have flown 2,000 of them. Glad it wasn't me.
Sep 13, 2013, 7:44 am
#1784
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
MINUTE entry before Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber:Status hearing held on 9/10/2013. Cross motions for summary judgment with supporting briefs to be filed by 10/22/2013. Responses to be filed by 11/21/2013. Reply briefs due by 12/20/2013. The court will rule orally on 1/16/2014 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (wp, ) (Entered: 09/10/2013)
Sep 13, 2013, 7:50 am
#1785
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Jersey Shore/YYZ
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Plat, Hilton Diamond, Hertz PC
Posts: 12,521
It wasn't like you received 500-miles for free. You simply had a segment that was somewhat less than 500-miles and they upped the actual flight miles from that to 500, so it is only the difference between the actual flight miles and 500-miles that was an artificial bump.
Frankly, there aren't all that many segments that are less than 500-miles, and those that are aren't a whole lot less than 500-miles, so I think it is practically irrelevant.
Besides, if someone made MM on 500-mile segments, they would have flown 2,000 of them. Glad it wasn't me.
Frankly, there aren't all that many segments that are less than 500-miles, and those that are aren't a whole lot less than 500-miles, so I think it is practically irrelevant.
Besides, if someone made MM on 500-mile segments, they would have flown 2,000 of them. Glad it wasn't me.
Last edited by aacharya; Sep 13, 2013 at 10:48 am