Million Miler Sues United [Judgment for UA Jan 2014] Judgment Affirmed Dec 2014
 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,6676090.story

<snip>
A Chicago frequent flier is suing United Airlines for taking away some of his lifetime perks as a so-called Million Miler, someone who has flown 1 million miles with the airline.

George Lagen of Chicago claims United breached a contract with him when the airline combined its frequent-flier program with that of Continental Airlines after the airlines merged, according to a suit filed this week in U.S. District Court.

Moderator Edit 1/31/2013:

My hero!!!! Now, which FT'er is going to fess up and admit it is him/her??

I wish him great success. Take COdbaUA down a notch.

I did not mean it that way but I see where I might be misunderstood. (what i meant is airlines are such a great target for law suits that some really wont brew hot coffee!! while I kind of admire him for at least putting his money where his mouth is, I still think its a waste of the courts time. We are just to litigious in this country. If I thought he had a chance in hell, I'd back him but I don't see the point of filing suits that can't be won. IMHO of course.

The plaintiff did do something stupid to himself -- he did not read his contract. It is linked below, and as we all know United can modify the program at its discretion. He got what he paid for, which is $$hundreds of thousands of travel, according to the linked article. He may be really angry, as I would be, but I don't see the grounds for a successful suit. I'm sure I'll get flamed, but that's my opinion.

http://www.united.com/web/en-US/cont...s/default.aspx

It is a class action case (and from reading it I'm part of the implied class pre merger 1MM UA flyers) ---you can read the actual case here:

http://206.18.146.25/rfcViewFile/12cv4056-1.pdf

I'm all for the plaintiff's here

This will be interesting.
Question is
Is ht FF program a contract?

Th airlines would say no, they reserve the right to change the program unilaterally.

Airlines have successfully argued they don't even have to get you from A - B in a specified time or even on a specified day when you buy a ticket from them. The MP program conditions state they can pretty much change anything at whim. They suck for doing it but they can

OK, you have a valid position there. Maybe he is charging a windmill, but I do think this can be won. He has to prove:

1) UA led him to reasonably believe that they committed to provide a service in return for his spending. Specifically, CR-1s for life, for example.

2) This representation caused him damage. For this, he will have to prove that choosing to fly UA as opposed to flying someone else damaged him. I know I can do this easily in that I can show many examples of where I paid a fare much higher than a competitor offered for the same router and same timeframe.

3) Icing on the cake: UA (intentionally or not does not matter) misled him (evidence their web site saying this perk would remain unchanged) further causing damage.

I think the damages that are most appropriate are between the time of the WEB site note saying things would not change, to when they finally said they would change.

:)


Yes, but all you have to prove is that UA misled him, that a reasonable person would agree they misled him, and that he was damaged as a result. To me, the first issue is pretty easy. The second, damages, is harder.

He'll lose. Or more likely, HE will get some fee for being the lead plaintiff, the lawyers will get paid, and the rest of us will get a settlement of 1,000 miles or something.

When you buy your ticket, nowhere in the purchase / contract of carriage does it say that you will get miles. Not mentioned at all.

When you sign up for a frequent flyer account, you do so for free. You're not giving anything to be part of the program, ergo, no contract.

If you're upset about changes United has made in what they will give away to you, your appropriate recourse is to take your business elsewhere.

Yes, I think we can all prove that. Truth be told, I'm angry about my lost upgrades, etc. but what INFURIATES me is thinking about the times I flew to Asia in full F and took UA instead of SQ cuz I was so close to getting my MM status. Then again im pretty stupid myself for ever taking UA F over SQ F

OK, I read his complaint. Sorry, but this comes across as very amateurish. He should have just stuck with the facts which I think are in his favor. But the suit if full of emotion and necessary detail. My level of hope just went down. :(


+10. I think the reason this issue upsets me so much is that I feel very stupid for flying UA in paid C for the last 2 years because I wanted to cap off my 1MM. Otherwise, I would have flown LH or SQ. Yes, I feel stupid.

I think this lawsuit is more about using potential adverse publicity against UA as leverage to get them to restore the lost benefits rather than winning outright. If the suit goes forward (and it's a big "if") the plaintiff can use Discovery to closely examine UA about both MP and the MM program. UA obviously would not want that.

Using the arguments in this thread, then i don't see why this would be limited to current MM'ers. If you paid UA Full F v competition for 3 years and ended at 990k miles, to me, you have as much damage as a current MM'er.

(FWIW, I'm still a yr from getting it, but I definitely directed BIS traffic to UA in expectation of 2 CR1's for life once hitting MM)

I'm not familiar with this particular federal district, but if you happen into the sort of judge who takes the view that a trial which requests jury, should go to jury unless the parties settle, then we're in for some fun.

It happened to me/my company as a defendant, and 4 years and a trial to win a victory on all counts for a BS suit was neither cheap, nor fun. Hard to tell whether there is merit here regardless of how I feel about things these days with UA, I agree with most that the contractual basis is pretty thin. But there's a bunch of other stuff, more than enough for some on the bench to let this go at least a bit more forward into discovery before handing down summary judgement.