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
Mar 7, 2014, 11:34 am
#2191
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AADULtArer
Posts: 5,791
When I first started out on the MM investment
It's gambling. You can enjoy your winnings, even celebrate them here, but you own the losses.
Like gambling, the odds favor the house, aka airline, as they can change the rules when there are too many winnings.
Investing for 20 years is frighteningly naive. All three legacy airlines have endured multiple bankruptcies over this period
Mar 7, 2014, 11:39 am
#2192
Join Date: Nov 2007
Programs: United 1K; 1.66MM
Posts: 383
Absolutely agree. When I first started out on the MM investment, 20 years ago, there were very specific and stated requirements and benefits (whether contractual or not is irrelevant to me since I took UAL at their word). Then the program changed when UAdbaCO/$misek came in. I was demoted as a *G MM to level "3" and what I was told for 20 years was changed overnight and not changed equitably.
Honestly, the cost to UALdbaCO to solve this would probably be comparatively small and go a long way towards goodwill and basic business customer trust but have seen $misek has no interest in customers and loyalty. To me, it's not about contracts or what "xyz" is, it is about a company's (and its management's) word.
OK, I vented, so all can go back to the legal arguments and keep the attorneys happy...
Honestly, the cost to UALdbaCO to solve this would probably be comparatively small and go a long way towards goodwill and basic business customer trust but have seen $misek has no interest in customers and loyalty. To me, it's not about contracts or what "xyz" is, it is about a company's (and its management's) word.
OK, I vented, so all can go back to the legal arguments and keep the attorneys happy...
Mar 7, 2014, 11:42 am
#2193
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
You need to stop right here. There is no "investment" in any FF program.
It's gambling. You can enjoy your winnings, even celebrate them here, but you own the losses.
Like gambling, the odds favor the house, aka airline, as they can change the rules when there are too many winnings.
Investing for 20 years is frighteningly naive. All three legacy airlines have endured multiple bankruptcies over this period
It's gambling. You can enjoy your winnings, even celebrate them here, but you own the losses.
Like gambling, the odds favor the house, aka airline, as they can change the rules when there are too many winnings.
Investing for 20 years is frighteningly naive. All three legacy airlines have endured multiple bankruptcies over this period
Mar 7, 2014, 11:53 am
#2194
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: 1K, MM, Marriott Plat
Posts: 427
Well, if you believe I flew UAL almost exclusively, at a cost in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, based on a company's stated and written word was a gamble, so be it. I invested my dollars for benefits stated and the way I was treated until $misek showed up was never a 'gamble'.
Mar 7, 2014, 12:26 pm
#2195
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,359
" - - - - rank with the stench of the embittered - - - "
stench? embittered? -
-
As a reminder for those who post in this thread that a promise is not a promise, let us again look at one clear example of what UA stated on its website relative to a promised benefit that has been ignored to this date.
-
Last edited by iluv2fly; Mar 7, 2014 at 5:55 pm Reason: merge
Mar 8, 2014, 1:15 am
#2196
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: 35,496
t like it, but it's really pretty simple.
Mar 8, 2014, 3:18 am
#2197
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Global
Posts: 6,018
You need to stop right here. There is no "investment" in any FF program.
It's gambling. You can enjoy your winnings, even celebrate them here, but you own the losses.
Like gambling, the odds favor the house, aka airline, as they can change the rules when there are too many winnings.
Investing for 20 years is frighteningly naive. All three legacy airlines have endured multiple bankruptcies over this period
It's gambling. You can enjoy your winnings, even celebrate them here, but you own the losses.
Like gambling, the odds favor the house, aka airline, as they can change the rules when there are too many winnings.
Investing for 20 years is frighteningly naive. All three legacy airlines have endured multiple bankruptcies over this period
I flew UA specifically to get from point A to point B (many times at a higher fare)...
AND frequent flyer miles that can be turned into free flights at a predetermined rate...
AND these "lifetime benefits".
If I only wanted to fly from point A to point B, I would not choose any single airline - it would be all about price/cabin/convenience. I flew - and kept flying UA - for these benefits. My investment was my time - flying connecting routes to stay on UA and my money - paying more to fly UA.
Why did I do this? Because I was promised specific benefits. In its most basic terms, a contract requires "a meeting of the minds". We had that. They broke the contract. (Had UA filed bankruptcy and removed benefits, the accurate argument can be made that in bankruptcy a judge has the power to change/modify contracts. This was not the case here.)
At the end of the day, I think UA will get away with this. It would have been interesting if you had a judge that was a true FF with an airline. (Of course he/she would probably need to remove themselves from the case.)
Mar 8, 2014, 4:24 am
#2198
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AADULtArer
Posts: 5,791
Respectfully, I disagree.
I flew UA specifically to get from point A to point B (many times at a higher fare)...
AND frequent flyer miles that can be turned into free flights at a predetermined rate...
AND these "lifetime benefits".
If I only wanted to fly from point A to point B, I would not choose any single airline - it would be all about price/cabin/convenience. I flew - and kept flying UA - for these benefits. My investment was my time - flying connecting routes to stay on UA and my money - paying more to fly UA.
Why did I do this? Because I was promised specific benefits. In its most basic terms, a contract requires "a meeting of the minds". We had that. They broke the contract. (Had UA filed bankruptcy and removed benefits, the accurate argument can be made that in bankruptcy a judge has the power to change/modify contracts. This was not the case here.)
At the end of the day, I think UA will get away with this. It would have been interesting if you had a judge that was a true FF with an airline. (Of course he/she would probably need to remove themselves from the case.)
I flew UA specifically to get from point A to point B (many times at a higher fare)...
AND frequent flyer miles that can be turned into free flights at a predetermined rate...
AND these "lifetime benefits".
If I only wanted to fly from point A to point B, I would not choose any single airline - it would be all about price/cabin/convenience. I flew - and kept flying UA - for these benefits. My investment was my time - flying connecting routes to stay on UA and my money - paying more to fly UA.
Why did I do this? Because I was promised specific benefits. In its most basic terms, a contract requires "a meeting of the minds". We had that. They broke the contract. (Had UA filed bankruptcy and removed benefits, the accurate argument can be made that in bankruptcy a judge has the power to change/modify contracts. This was not the case here.)
At the end of the day, I think UA will get away with this. It would have been interesting if you had a judge that was a true FF with an airline. (Of course he/she would probably need to remove themselves from the case.)
Mar 8, 2014, 6:53 am
#2199
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Global
Posts: 6,018
I agree the gambling analogy is flawed. It's worse than gambling. You correctly point out that in gambling the payoff is known. In FF programs the payoff is always unknown, speculative, and subject to change. That's what makes long term investments in these programs so horrible.
I think we still disagree, but we can agree on one thing... LaserSailor is a cool handle!
Mar 10, 2014, 10:11 am
#2201
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
I do not agree that a frequent flier program is analogous to gambling. Moreover, I believe that promised commitments should be honored.
As a reminder for those who post in this thread that a promise is not a promise, let us again look at one clear example of what UA stated on its website relative to a promised benefit that has been ignored to this date.
-
As a reminder for those who post in this thread that a promise is not a promise, let us again look at one clear example of what UA stated on its website relative to a promised benefit that has been ignored to this date.
-
If you're looking for a "fair" or "just" outcome, the courts are not the place for that.
Mar 10, 2014, 10:49 am
#2202
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Sacramento area, CA USA
Programs: UA Gold Million Miler, HH Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 2,858
What I remember from my husband's move to Million Miler is that you were promised Premier Exec (now Gold) for life, post bankruptcy in his case. I do not remember that the upgrades and any other perks were promised for life. They still give lifetime Gold. Now, of course, Gold has been downsized to 50% bonus on miles but it is still Gold. I assume I (who became MM under the new deal) I can expect to stay Gold whatever they do with it but not necessarily expect a deal with Marriott nor my spouse receiving my Gold status forever. And, if the program goes away entirely, as they claim is their right, then it is que sera sera.
Mar 10, 2014, 10:59 am
#2203
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold, UA Nobody, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,372
What I remember from my husband's move to Million Miler is that you were promised Premier Exec (now Gold) for life, post bankruptcy in his case. I do not remember that the upgrades and any other perks were promised for life. They still give lifetime Gold. Now, of course, Gold has been downsized to 50% bonus on miles but it is still Gold. I assume I (who became MM under the new deal) I can expect to stay Gold whatever they do with it but not necessarily expect a deal with Marriott nor my spouse receiving my Gold status forever. And, if the program goes away entirely, as they claim is their right, then it is que sera sera.
The specific promise of the RPUs seemed to be on stronger ground. If they discontinued the program completely I think the arguments would be identical to that of those surrounding the RPU promise. Here (as a non-lawyer and being more familiar with the European environment) I'm surprised by the plaintiffs strategy. I don't understand why he didn't try and argue that UA's contractual term enabling it to change terms at will was unenforceable (due to its inherent unreasonableness) or overridden by a specific lifetime promise; rather than putting the burden on himself to show a separate contract that he knew was never put in writing.
Mar 10, 2014, 11:02 am
#2204
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,359
In a gambling scenario the house displays the rules, promises a certain payout and then pays out as promised. In this case the house decided not to pay out because the rules state that the house can change the rules at any time. We all know that's what the rules say. The plaintiff claimed that a different set of rules applied. But the court found that no other set of rules was presented by the plaintiff so UA was following the rules.
-
The “rules” you mentioned apply to UA’s “Terms and Condition” of its frequent flier program.
While it is true that UA’s “rules” allow UA to change benefits of the program, no where in those rules does it say that UA can make a clear and precise lifetime promise to members and then ignore that offer, as it did with the two annual regional upgrade instruments discussed many times in this thread. It appears that the judge overlooked this basic issue while arriving at his decision.
Let us again recall what was posted on united.com prior to the merger and until nearly one year following the merger between UA and CO:
"As a Million Miler, will I continue to receive 2 Regional Upgrades for life?
Yes. We are committed to providing Million Mile Flyers, our most loyal members, with lifetime benefits in recognition of their travels on United. Among those benefits are two Regional Upgrades, awarded annually to the member."
-
Mar 10, 2014, 11:23 am
#2205
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold, UA Nobody, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,372
While it is true that UA’s “rules” allow UA to change benefits of the program, no where in those rules does it say that UA can make a clear and precise lifetime promise to members and then ignore that offer, as it did with the two annual regional upgrade instruments discussed many times in this thread. It appears that the judge overlooked this basic issue while arriving at his decision.