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
Jan 23, 2014, 5:25 pm
#1981
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,909
The MP program isn't a contract of adhesion. A contract of adhesion is something like your cellular service contract - it can't be negotiated by the customer, and you *HAVE* to agree to it to get the service you pay for.
The Mileage Plus program is totally different. You can CHOOSE to enroll in Mileage Plus. If you do so, then you earn miles and other benefits. The cost of participating in this program is... NOTHING.
So there isn't really even a contract at all, because the flyer has not provided ANYTHING OF VALUE in exchange for the Mileage Plus benefits. (And no, airfare doesn't count, because everyone who pays the airfare gets to fly. Only people who agree to participate in the Mileage Plus program get Mileage Plus benefits.)
If you don't like the Mileage Plus rules, then don't sign up for the program and don't take the miles.
The Mileage Plus program is totally different. You can CHOOSE to enroll in Mileage Plus. If you do so, then you earn miles and other benefits. The cost of participating in this program is... NOTHING.
So there isn't really even a contract at all, because the flyer has not provided ANYTHING OF VALUE in exchange for the Mileage Plus benefits. (And no, airfare doesn't count, because everyone who pays the airfare gets to fly. Only people who agree to participate in the Mileage Plus program get Mileage Plus benefits.)
If you don't like the Mileage Plus rules, then don't sign up for the program and don't take the miles.
Jan 23, 2014, 5:29 pm
#1982
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: 1K, MM, Marriott Plat
Posts: 427
Originally Posted by sanfran8080 View Post
What does this mean exactly? I'm extremely close to Million miles. How will it affect me?
I beg to differ. For those close and/or trying to attain MM status, I'd now ask why waste your time since UAdbaCO can change the MM program at any time. What they 'offer' today could be gone tomorrow and following $misek's history and needing to cut $2 billion I would expect him to continue to devalue the MM program...changes you'll like.
What does this mean exactly? I'm extremely close to Million miles. How will it affect me?
I beg to differ. For those close and/or trying to attain MM status, I'd now ask why waste your time since UAdbaCO can change the MM program at any time. What they 'offer' today could be gone tomorrow and following $misek's history and needing to cut $2 billion I would expect him to continue to devalue the MM program...changes you'll like.
Jan 23, 2014, 5:31 pm
#1983
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: YVR SFO
Programs: UA G
Posts: 4,866
I beg to differ. For those close and/or trying to attain MM status, I'd now ask why waste your time since UAdbaCO can change the MM program at any time. What they 'offer' today could be gone tomorrow and following $misek's history and needing to cut $2 billion I would expect him to continue to devalue the MM program...changes you'll like.
Jan 23, 2014, 5:40 pm
#1984
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BOS and ...
Programs: UA 2MM, AA 600k, DL 500k, Hyatt GP 1M, HH Gold, Rad. Gold, CP Gold, Miracle Fruit-su Club
Posts: 9,950
For the record, United is not God - in the cosmos, in business, in law. Though perhaps in the minds of Mr. Smizek, the judge and some in this forum. And this, at this point, is all that matters.
Fortunately there are other actions and churches in which they will be tried.
Next.
Jan 23, 2014, 5:45 pm
#1985
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere...
Programs: AA PLT/3MM, UA GM/1MM, DL DM/1MM, FB Plat, AS MVP Gold, WN AList+
Posts: 1,588
Mr. Smisek must be chuffed indeed: God=United=Smizek.
For the record, United is not God - in the cosmos, in business, in law. Though perhaps in the minds of Mr. Smizek, the judge and some in this forum. And this, at this point, is all that matters.
Fortunately there are other actions and churches in which they will be tried.
Next.
For the record, United is not God - in the cosmos, in business, in law. Though perhaps in the minds of Mr. Smizek, the judge and some in this forum. And this, at this point, is all that matters.
Fortunately there are other actions and churches in which they will be tried.
Next.
Jan 23, 2014, 6:01 pm
#1986
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 1,653
Best part of this ruling? Never having to see that god-awful screenshot ever again.
Jan 23, 2014, 6:14 pm
#1987
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: Loyal to Myself
Posts: 8,303
Notwithstanding the substance of the ruling, it's deeply disappointing to me to read posts triumphant at the thought of the plaintiff's loss, and gleeful at the thought of additional expenses he may incur as the result.
At the very least, it's uncivil and infantile.
The plaintiff acted in a good faith belief that his case had merit, and unlike so many armchair attorneys, put his money and time where his mouth was. He fought the fight, instead of whinging.
There is no doubt that benefits of the program were materially reduced unilaterally. How this can be a cause for any customer's celebration is difficult to understand in any rational context.
At the very least, it's uncivil and infantile.
The plaintiff acted in a good faith belief that his case had merit, and unlike so many armchair attorneys, put his money and time where his mouth was. He fought the fight, instead of whinging.
There is no doubt that benefits of the program were materially reduced unilaterally. How this can be a cause for any customer's celebration is difficult to understand in any rational context.
Jan 23, 2014, 6:15 pm
#1988
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
Jan 23, 2014, 6:43 pm
#1989
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
MS Paint, not even once.
Notwithstanding the substance of the ruling, it's deeply disappointing to me to read posts triumphant at the thought of the plaintiff's loss, and gleeful at the thought of additional expenses he may incur as the result.
At the very least, it's uncivil and infantile.
The plaintiff acted in a good faith belief that his case had merit, and unlike so many armchair attorneys, put his money and time where his mouth was. He fought the fight, instead of whinging.
There is no doubt that benefits of the program were materially reduced unilaterally. How this can be a cause for any customer's celebration is difficult to understand in any rational context.
At the very least, it's uncivil and infantile.
The plaintiff acted in a good faith belief that his case had merit, and unlike so many armchair attorneys, put his money and time where his mouth was. He fought the fight, instead of whinging.
There is no doubt that benefits of the program were materially reduced unilaterally. How this can be a cause for any customer's celebration is difficult to understand in any rational context.
Last edited by colpuck; Jan 23, 2014 at 6:48 pm
Jan 23, 2014, 6:44 pm
#1990
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
If someone wants to throw their money at a problem they see then good for them. But I don't have to be sad when they don't get their way.
I have no doubt that Lagen believed he was correct. That doesn't mean I believed he was correct or that I saw his actions as in my own best interests.
Jan 23, 2014, 6:47 pm
#1991
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: 1K, MM, Marriott Plat
Posts: 427
Why would anyone ever invest one more flight in the hopes of attaining MM status for 'promised' benefits @ UAdbaCO? To your question, I don't know but so far at least AA has treated me as a valued customer.
Jan 23, 2014, 6:55 pm
#1992
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Los Angeles
Programs: Loyal to Myself
Posts: 8,303
Wait...so because someone does something they believe in but which I believe is wrong I should be upset when the outcome I was expecting actually happens?
If someone wants to throw their money at a problem they see then good for them. But I don't have to be sad when they don't get their way.
I have no doubt that Lagen believed he was correct. That doesn't mean I believed he was correct or that I saw his actions as in my own best interests.
If someone wants to throw their money at a problem they see then good for them. But I don't have to be sad when they don't get their way.
I have no doubt that Lagen believed he was correct. That doesn't mean I believed he was correct or that I saw his actions as in my own best interests.
Which you changed to suggesting I said you "should be upset when the outcome I was expecting actually happens."
I have no doubt you believe you were accurately quoting me. That doesn't mean you were, and in this case, you didn't.
Jan 23, 2014, 7:13 pm
#1993
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
My words were: "it's deeply disappointing to me to read posts triumphant at the thought of the plaintiff's loss, and gleeful at the thought of additional expenses he may incur as the result."
Which you changed to suggesting I said you "should be upset when the outcome I was expecting actually happens."
I have no doubt you believe you were accurately quoting me. That doesn't mean you were, and in this case, you didn't.
Which you changed to suggesting I said you "should be upset when the outcome I was expecting actually happens."
I have no doubt you believe you were accurately quoting me. That doesn't mean you were, and in this case, you didn't.
Jan 23, 2014, 9:35 pm
#1994
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Too many
Programs: Lots
Posts: 5,761
This. x10000. Sadly par for the course who roam this forum rather than fly anywhere near enough to have been affected.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jan 24, 2014 at 8:38 am Reason: unnecessary
Jan 23, 2014, 9:49 pm
#1995
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: WAS
Programs: AA PLT, Honors Diamond, Global Entry
Posts: 477
A very preliminary thought on the District Judge's ruling: misspelling breach as "beach" and contract as "contact" in the first couple pages of an opinion does not exactly bolster the Court's credibility.