IAH-OIL-TRASH

We actually don't know the extent of the OP's rule breaking and UA's not going to provide what they've discovered.

I don't think UA wants to set up a bureaucracy to decide varying types of punishment, a "prison system", and a "parole" system to monitor people have proven themselves to be rule breakers. United has decided selling of their points (they are UA's points, not the customers') results in the death penalty. UA doesn't hide the fact that selling miles/points can result in loss of accounts (status, miles, points, etc). The only thing I would suggest is United put it more in the face of redeemers - maybe anytime miles or point are applied to anyone's ticket other than the account holder a big screen:

jhayes_1780

Side note: you don't ask this, but it does typically get asked later down the road: Do not just open up a new MP account, if you read upthread those who have done that have had that account closed too.

drewguy

The goal isn't deterring fraudsters. The goal is providing clear, obvious notice and reminders to those who haven't waded through the rules to realize that you can't do this.

I realize that a good portion of the people coming here to complain about their account getting closed probably did know it was against the rules. But I also bet there are a fair number who don't. I"m not excusing not reading rules or "not knowing the law isn't a defense", but why not fully cover those situations with a simple reminder? It's not like there aren't 3-4 confirmations before you buy a ticket, with $$ or miles, anyway.

And to address the person who does buy a lot of miles tickets or upgrades for others - legitimately - UA could include a tick box that "don't show me this dialog again for 1 year".

HNLbasedFlyer

One thing I also just noticed - when you sign up for MileagePlus - the program rules, which start with a bolded Important is located right before you click Accept and Enroll

There really is no excuse.

RNE

"Bureaucracy"? Let's be real. One manager can weigh the evidence and dish out punishment, perhaps the very manager who oversees the UA decoys posing as upgrade buyers.

ExplorerWannabe

Once UA starts going down a road with gradations of punishments, they have to have an adjudication process and they open themselves up to having to prove the level of infraction and negotiating the punishment. I suspect there aren't any single flyers who it would be worth setting up that kind of process and headache for. The offenders were not only profiting off the upgrades that were offered (thereby creating tax implications for all of us with loyalty/reward accounts as well as the airlines) but were enabling people who DIDN'T earn the rewards to block out spaces that might otherwise have gone to reward another dedicated customer.

Blanking rather deleting the offender's account holds a certain attraction but I really don't have a problem with what United's doing now (then again, I've never sold miles or upgrades or anything). Deleting rather than blanking sends a stronger message about not really wanting certain customers in a loyalty program due to demonstrated behavior.

physioprof

The entire premise of OP's complaint is their claim that they didn't know they were doing anything wrong, and therefore UA's punishment was unfair. The precise circumstances of OP's sales of upgrades could speak to the credibility of that claim.

iluv2fly

Not that it makes any difference, but did he OP state his MP status? I looked back but didn't see anything - perhaps I may have missed it.

deniah

One of the most popular case of this nature was the man who bought an American airpass for 250k (~500k in today's dollars), ensuring any seat any time for the rest of his life, who eventually had it taken away from him.
The public was appalled at how greedy and brazen the airlines was, esp for a person who had spent so much on the instruments.

Turns out, he was wildly abusive of the privileges, in obvious, clear, and repeated violations of the use agreement.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...-golden-ticket

RNE

Simply not the case. UA has carte blanche with the MP program.

HNLbasedFlyer

Even eBay prohibits the sale of upgrades - that should also be a wake up call.

Travel policy | eBay

• Resale of travel-related incentives such as awards, coupons, upgrades, etc that are subject to cancellation by the travel provider if resold

lincolnjkc

And the risk of dealing with the PR blowback/discrimination claims if someone in "group A" receives a greater/lesser punishment than someone in "group B" -- which lets face it any level of gradated punishment is bound to attract "United hates green people! They kicked me out when I broke the rules, but my blue friend only got a slap on the wrist!"

This is very simple as it is: You agree to the rules (which warn you that breaking them may result in being bounced) You break the rules, you get caught, you get bounced. Very cut and dry, very fair implementation, very little room for claims of preferential or discriminatory treatment.

RNE

Exactly what I said. UA has carte blanche: severity or leniency. bluewhitejuly got the former.

DMPHL

There is just absolutely no way UA does not have a sophisticated mechanism to track these things. They certainly have all of the data they need, algorithms that will recognize patters or anything that deviates from the norm, a way to flag and export information that needs further investigation, and people to look into it.

If their process is anything like AA's, it's not even the MP program that does this, but a separate, impenetrable, intractable corporate security department who, by the time they make a decision or even bother to contact you, almost always know exactly what the facts are and whether it is even worth it to allow you to explain yourself honestly and remain in the program.

st3

IIRC the MileagePlus account and it's contents are property of UA. If you sell something that you don't own isn't that considered theft?