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
Oct 29, 2013, 6:25 am
#1936
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: United Plat 2MM, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,727
I'd like to see more discussion on the CR-1 issue. The PE/PG/tier argument has been going around in circles, with nothing new said in months. People have different opinions about what this promise meant, and ultimately it looks like a court will settle it.
The CR-1 issue looks completely different. United was continuing to promise this at the same time they were making their plans to break this promise. This may be legal, but will not play well in the court of public opinion.
Oct 29, 2013, 6:45 am
#1937
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
However, if they don't win that first argument, then they'll have to start parsing the specifics of what they did promise. My contention is that, aside from the other benefits mentioned, the promise of "Premier Executive" status itself is ambiguous. What happens if that name is no longer used and/or the MP program is radically restructured with no single clearly corresponding level?
The people who hope for specific performance are living in a dream, because it aint going to happen.
Oct 29, 2013, 8:49 am
#1938
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sunny SYDNEY!
Programs: UA Million Miler. (1.9M) Virgin Platinum. HH Diamond + SPG Gold
Posts: 32,330
To my way of thinking, anyone that was promised a certain benefit (i.e. -Premier for Life, 2 RPU's, Lifetime UC membership at 2MM's) are legally entitled to what ever they were promised, at the time they received that promise and fulfilled their end of the bargain, and which were attained PRIOR TO whenever the promising entity decided that they were changing the rules.
UAL MP certainly has the right to change rules as to how many miles one can be granted for flights taken and how many miles it takes to purchase a flight, using those miles, however, once a pax pursues a certain level of status, after being promised a reward once you get that plateau, and then parses the word "Lifetime" by saying that MM status ain't really a part of the MP program, is just double talk, and b.s.!
UA promised certain things to MMs for LIFE, once they jumped a certain bar.
Once that bar was jumped UA has no option but to keep their word. It will be a no brainer for a Judge.
Folks like Colpuck somehow got far more benefits than he was ever promised so not sure why he is so sour on those getting what they WERE promised. Has NOTHING to do with him.
This is what we got promised in writing on the UA website .. they must honour it.
Oct 29, 2013, 9:00 am
#1939
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 4,511
Should it come to that, the settlement will put an arbitrary dollar amount on the benefits then, the benefits now, and have UA pay the difference with the program continuing on as is.
The people who hope for specific performance are living in a dream, because it aint going to happen.
The people who hope for specific performance are living in a dream, because it aint going to happen.
Oct 29, 2013, 9:05 am
#1940
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sunny SYDNEY!
Programs: UA Million Miler. (1.9M) Virgin Platinum. HH Diamond + SPG Gold
Posts: 32,330
Yes, UA offering all real MM'ers 2 x Regional upgrades a year is a keystroke - adding in the past year ones they owe in another keystoke.
A Judge ruling in claimants favour will simply order that and other remedies be made. AND retrospectively I am sure.
Effective $$$$ cost of these to UA is near ZERO of course as they control inventory at all times. @:-)
.
A Judge ruling in claimants favour will simply order that and other remedies be made. AND retrospectively I am sure.
Effective $$$$ cost of these to UA is near ZERO of course as they control inventory at all times. @:-)
.
Oct 29, 2013, 9:22 am
#1941
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: 35,436
ng on it. They promised something and then reneged on that promise.
Oct 29, 2013, 9:43 am
#1942
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,909
I am totally in agreement but United is saying they "replaced" the CR-1 benefit with the spousal/SO benefit, yet another pmCO benefit that snuck it's way into UA, tit-for-tat. And say it is a change we will like. And yes, some do like it. I am torn with it. I like my wife having my Gold status, but she only flies once a year with me and I could sure use those CR-1's. This is another one the courts are going to have to work out.
Oct 29, 2013, 10:08 am
#1943
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sunny SYDNEY!
Programs: UA Million Miler. (1.9M) Virgin Platinum. HH Diamond + SPG Gold
Posts: 32,330
If UA promise me for years in writing '2 x CRI FOR LIFE' - when you reach true MM, and UA then mail me 2 cartons of Marlboros, and a box of Titlest Golf Balls saying "You'll really like these more Buddy" despite me not smoking or golfing, is just not acceptable.
I did not ask for a spousal benefit. Or Marlboros!
I did not ask for a spousal benefit. Or Marlboros!
Oct 29, 2013, 10:36 am
#1944
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: 35,436
FWIW, as someone who became MM under the CO program I can tell you that from my perspective I would have been extremely disappointed to have been given two CR-1 instruments every year instead.of the sp
use status match. I see that as having far more value overall (I realize this is different for some). The annual CR-1 benefit was specifically (and repeatedly) enumerated on the UA side, though.
use status match. I see that as having far more value overall (I realize this is different for some). The annual CR-1 benefit was specifically (and repeatedly) enumerated on the UA side, though.
Oct 29, 2013, 10:48 am
#1945
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,909
FWIW, as someone who became MM under the CO program I can tell you that from my perspective I would have been extremely disappointed to have been given two CR-1 instruments every year instead.of the spuse status match. I see that as having far more value overall (I realize this is different for some). The annual CR-1 benefit was specifically (and repeatedly) enumerated on the UA side, though.
use status match. I see that as having far more value overall (I realize this is different for some). The annual CR-1 benefit was specifically (and repeatedly) enumerated on the UA side, though.
Oct 29, 2013, 10:58 am
#1946
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago
Programs: AA EXP, UA former 1K (1.9MM and gone), Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Diamond, SPG Plat
Posts: 1,111
FWIW, as someone who became MM under the CO program I can tell you that from my perspective I would have been extremely disappointed to have been given two CR-1 instruments every year instead.of the spuse status match. I see that as having far more value overall (I realize this is different for some). The annual CR-1 benefit was specifically (and repeatedly) enumerated on the UA side, though.
use status match. I see that as having far more value overall (I realize this is different for some). The annual CR-1 benefit was specifically (and repeatedly) enumerated on the UA side, though.
Also, by eliminating the previous MM program incentives to continue to fly UA regularly (annual CR1s and SWUs in addition to your regular level earnings), they greatly reduced my own cost of switching.
Oct 29, 2013, 11:16 am
#1947
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
-
Oct 30, 2013, 5:45 pm
#1948
Suspended
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: LAX
Programs: UA1K, HH Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 212
Nov 4, 2013, 9:22 am
#1949
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: NJ
Posts: 3,335
Having now read the opposing motions for summary judgment, one of the things I am most surprised about is that there is a lack of evidence in the record regarding any documentation regarding the package of benefits sent out to MM members in the pre-2006 time frame.
There are an awful lot of pack rats here on FT, and I would have thought that the Plaintiff's legal team would have reached out to the FT community somehow to try to find exemplars of the marketing materials sent out to Million Milers in the late 1990's and early 2000's.
There are an awful lot of pack rats here on FT, and I would have thought that the Plaintiff's legal team would have reached out to the FT community somehow to try to find exemplars of the marketing materials sent out to Million Milers in the late 1990's and early 2000's.
Nov 4, 2013, 9:25 am
#1950
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AADULtArer
Posts: 5,694
If UA promise me for years in writing '2 x CRI FOR LIFE' - when you reach true MM, and UA then mail me 2 cartons of Marlboros, and a box of Titlest Golf Balls saying "You'll really like these more Buddy" despite me not smoking or golfing, is just not acceptable.
I did not ask for a spousal benefit. Or Marlboros!
I did not ask for a spousal benefit. Or Marlboros!