HeadInTheClouds

Perhaps that's why it's common knowledge.

evergrn

Pretty harsh statement.
Just cuz you have Star Gold or have flown zillion miles doesn't mean you're gonna know all the fine prints. It's true that a bit of common sense should've dissuaded the OP from doing this in the first sense. But there are times when we do stuff without thinking.
I agree that the OP may not have recourse in this case and that it's easier for UA to stick to the gun in order to not muddy the precedence and their zero-tolerance enforcement. But I still think it's harsh. In my industry, we would give second chances in semi-analogous situations.

bocastephen

I'm surprised at all the nonsensical emotional hysteria in this thread. United should make the appropriate business-savvy decision. The business savvy decision is one that punishes sufficiently to deter future abuse, yet keeps the customer connected to the brand and willing to spend.

This is not someone on food stamps who tried to steal a cart of grape juice from Walmart.

Some of the thread responses are just baffling

eng3

Pure speculation but maybe UA calculated that this guy is more of a liability in terms of benefits, miles, ETCs, upgrades, (maybe getting close to MM), versus future revenue from him so they target him. UA is know for being short sighted so they dont even consider his future revenue. If UA values a GPU at 5K, 25 is 125K. Miles might be 12K. Plus ETCs and whatever the value of the status benefits. Similar to a company trying to push out high paid older employees before they get their pension.

Also, UA banned him from the MP program not their flights. I guess UA may assume he will continue to be loyal to UA and keep flying with them just as much as before without earning miles, status, etc

PushingTin

Sorry to be obtuse, but if upgrades, they only last a year, or through the end of the next calendar year. You earn a few more rpu and gpu with more miles. 6 more upgrades per 50k miles. So to that is like 200k extra miles to a 1k to have 24 extra rpu and gpu.

transportprof

One can get extensions on unused RPU & GPUs.

eng3

Just GPUs

MSPeconomist

I too am curious about how UA got the OP's information. Did the eBay listing perhaps contain a picture of the cert with a cert number? Or does the OP use the same email address as on the UA FF account? Could the OP be from a small enough town that there's only a small list of likely suspects, particularly if the listing mentioned 1K or GS status?

If the OP never sold a cert and if eBay won't release the information, then I think we can assume that UA saw something in the listing that enabled the security team to identify the OP, assuming that the OP's story is correct and it's not a UA "plant" as someone suggested upthread.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

I think UA does recognize it, but does not consider it.

I really do think United assumes for every traveler they lose due to zero tolerance on certificate sales, they will gain one from DL or American for the same reason. Additionally, some may be stuck with United because of route efficiency from their home base or corporate travel preferences.

Making a big deal solely based on one passenger's revenue pre-boot doesn't take into account a variety of other factors that may mitigate the net loss to United.

As long as DL and AA deal harshly with rule breakers, it's a zero sum game for the airlines relative to revenue as the ejected just move between the big 3 and UA/AA/DL get to deprive the violators of revenue-reducing mileage, e-certs, upgrade certs, etc. The violators bear the bulk of the punishment (loss of their accounts), not the airlines.

MSPeconomist

Maybe UA hopes that the violators will move to DL or AA and then sell DL or AA stuff.

MY-OTHER-BROTHER-"TED"

Anyone caught selling a worthless RPU should be arrested for theft!

Baze

How about you disrespecting the rules and terms of being a MP member? It is a 2 way street. Learn your lesson and move on.

riphamilton

OP's city + ebay username could have been matched up with an email address that UA has. apparently UA deems that as sufficient proof.

you can search listings that were ended early and unsold. let's just say that there's one that sticks out to me.

qxk970517

Get my account closed last year, with the reply from UA's security dept. Won't reopen account and listen to my explanation.

Mr. XXXXXX:

We have reviewed the complete documentation from this investigation and, unfortunately, we must remain firm in our original decision. We are unable to grant your request to reopen the accounts and trust you will understand our position.

We consider this matter closed.

Regards

XXXX XXXXX

mduell

Just because they don't agree with you doesn't mean they're not listening.