Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

MP Accounts Closed by UA Alleging Fraud/Misuse

MP Accounts Closed by UA Alleging Fraud/Misuse

Old May 27, 2017, 4:05 pm
  #871  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4,112
Originally Posted by milypan
I think they have a much better solution, which is to make the certificates nearly impossible to utilize. Once the market price falls below 10 bucks, I'm pretty sure nobody is going to bother reselling them.
That's for 1Ks. For GS folks, they are more valuable than ever with PN inventory and use on award tickets.
HeadInTheClouds is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 4:14 pm
  #872  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Originally Posted by fastair
IMHO, if any airline did anything less than their version of the NCAA "death penalty", they invite the IRS into this. That would cost both the airline and rule followers far more than what some people think this costs. Giving something a sellable cash value and not immediately cracking down on the sale of them to a regulator looks like implicit endorsement, or at least passive allowance of it. What do you think the fed could make (at the consumer/airline expense) by assigning a value and taxing them.
I don't see any tax issues for UA if UA permitted e-certs to be freely bought and sold. The proceeds might affect the cert seller's gross income, but I'm confident that UA does not concern itself with its passengers' tax liabilities.

Originally Posted by fastair
sure, there is value in not allowing sales to the airline, but I bet this pales in comparison to value if the fed thought that this was an implied permission to sales, and what that could mean to the system as it currently stands.
I disagree. Since I don't see any tax issues for UA, that leaves the only issue that UA cares about, and that's UA's gross income. Allowing passengers to sell e-certs would reduce UA's income, and no airline will permit passengers to do so. Same reason non-refundable tickets can't be sold on Stubhub.

We can debate the appropriate punishment for breaking this rule, but I don't see a problem with the "death penalty" approach that UA has taken.

Originally Posted by fastair
Im no lawyer nor tax man, but I see anything less than the harshest rebukement, as cracking open the box a bit, the box that belongs to Pandora
I am a lawyer and while not a "tax man," I do know a bunch about federal taxes, and I don't see how sales of e-certs could affect UA's federal taxes. Other than a smart aleck answer of "if UA's income were reduced, it would lower UA's federal taxes once UA begins paying federal income taxes (after it uses all of its loss carryforwards)."

Originally Posted by WineCountryUA
UA would have zero interest in this
-- first it is creating a monetary market value for these certs which creates a number of problems such as mentioned by fastair
-- the creating and maintaining of such a marketplace for a commission is unlikely to be of interest to UA
-- the creation of such a marketplace would likely increase the interest in travelers seeking ETC

--- and the ultimate reason --- UA depends on a high level of breakage on these ETC, that substantial number of the ETC are never used. This approach change that equation and cost UA far more than any commission / transfer fee.
I agree completely with that "ultimate reason." All airlines depend on high levels of breakage when they issue vouchers, and allowing their sale would disrupt that calculation. Now that the airlines might potentially offer up to $10k in denied boarding vouchers per passenger, policing their sale will always be profitable for UA (and other airlines).
FWAAA is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 4:25 pm
  #873  
TA
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,481
Meta-issue or suggestion for United:

Punishment / locking a member's account is hopefully the step of last resort, but couldn't they use cases like this to some better benefit? Couldn't they somehow achieve a deterrence effect by making this more widely known that it is not allowed and seriously handled?

How would the average person know that this is against the rules or so serious? I feel that UA could help others avoid being in this situation a little more actively. Better to publish and somehow let people know, than to keep having to bring down the hammer on the unaware ones who do.

Law / rules are both for punishment (after) and deterrence (before). I see none of the 2nd part (aside for those who read this forum) on the 2nd aspect. How are people supposed to know -- and seriously who reads the fine print? Better for UA to keep the long loyal customer while periodically a necessary reminder that selling is not allowed, than to have to lose him after 20 years due to possibly a tempting/rash action.
TA is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 4:29 pm
  #874  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Honolulu Harbor
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 14,921
Originally Posted by whimike
...OP had 600k miles and 25 instruments. Why not confiscate 300k mies and 12 instruments? It is a very harsh punishment, but enough punishment to get OP to not do this again, but keep him as a profitable customer...
And your suggestion for a first time HVF violator who uses his/her miles so as to not accumulate much? UA confiscates 300k and 25 certs from one flyer and 20k and one cert from another for same infraction?

You seem to think this type of policy costs UA a significant number of high-dollar flyers. It does not. Most HVFs are either 1) too smart to do something so stupid or 2) don't have the time to do something as desperate/trite as sell certs on eBay.

UA is not going to gain or lose a bunch of flyers due to this policy.
IAH-OIL-TRASH is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 4:29 pm
  #875  
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: SFO
Posts: 82
Why on earth would a GS/1K/serious business traveler try to sell a measly $ 125 e-cert (or upgrade instrument? Whether on eBay or otherwise. It is an obvious violation of ToS, this being a no-no is noted on any ecert, and it does not matter that all legal details only might be found on page 17 in the fine print.

Moreover, everything is fully traceable - the ecert, the name of the individual it was issued to, an eBay account, any eBay transaction, etc. I don't know what a $ 125 ecert goes for on eBay. What I know is that I would not have the time to deal with eBay for a couple dozen bucks, maybe. I need this time to book my next flight.

I have broken plenty of ecerts (full or residual) over the last 20 years (UA and others). Such is life. Many of my RPUs/GPUs go unused or get used on SFO-LAX... And when I sponsor a family member or employee I call UA and specifically state the relationship so I will not run into any issues.

Penny-wise (not even that), pound foolish.
whereiswaldo is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 4:30 pm
  #876  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AS 75k, AA Plat, Bonvoyed Gold, Honors Dia, Hyatt Explorer, IHG Plat, ...
Posts: 16,625
Originally Posted by Baze
Once selling becomes ok with UA it pretty much assigns a monetary value to them and when that happens the tax man comes a calling. So, in a way, UA is helping us out, and themselves. By letting us give them away there is no monetary value directly assigned to them as in a GPU is valued at X and an RPU is valued at Y.
United themselves are selling miles and no tax man has shown up. How is giving customer miles and upgrade awards any different?

(I am not defending the sale by/to 3rd parties)
notquiteaff is online now  
Old May 27, 2017, 4:35 pm
  #877  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,650
Now that the attempted sale has been clarified to an ETC instead of a GPU/RPU, I'm even more confused why a 1K/GS is having trouble using them. Unless you're doing almost exclusively partner flying there should be plenty of opportunity to spend the ETCs you get from UA.
mduell is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 4:37 pm
  #878  
TA
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,481
I repeat my suggestion above -- if UA takes it so seriously, they ought to publish / make a bit more clear to their customers that selling is not allowed. It would save them and their customers lost business and hard feelings afterwards. If you're going to punish, you should also invest in deterrence.
TA is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 4:38 pm
  #879  
TA
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,481
I repeat my suggestion from another related thread -- if UA takes it so seriously, they ought to publish / make a bit more clear to their customers that selling is not allowed. It would save them and their customers lost business and hard feelings afterwards. If you're going to punish, you should also invest in deterrence.
TA is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 5:00 pm
  #880  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Originally Posted by trm2
eBay will not give or sell anyone's PII to another company, full stop. That said, it is also really, really easy to figure out who is selling. I'd bet they surf eBay with a list of MP accounts that are actively selling. That is the power of a DMP.
That is simply untrue. Read the TOS and you will find the following. It took me less than 30 seconds. "Sell" is not at issue here. This is a legitimate inquiry by UA Security for information to assist in investigating and mitigating fraud & crime:

We may use and retain your personal information as follows:
. . .
Prevent, detect, mitigate, and investigate fraudulent or illegal activities
Prevent, detect, mitigate, and investigate fraud, security breaches, potentially prohibited or illegal activities
Often1 is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 5:01 pm
  #881  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PHL
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, Marriott Gold, IHG Platinum, Raddison Platinum, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 5,256
Originally Posted by mduell
Now that the attempted sale has been clarified to an ETC instead of a GPU/RPU, I'm even more confused why a 1K/GS is having trouble using them. Unless you're doing almost exclusively partner flying there should be plenty of opportunity to spend the ETCs you get from UA.
One example, a field engineer is 100% on travel and the travel is paid for by his employer 100% of the time. His own spending is nearly $0 thus no use for the ETC.

Originally Posted by Often1
That is simply untrue. Read the TOS and you will find the following. It took me less than 30 seconds. "Sell" is not at issue here. This is a legitimate inquiry by UA Security for information to assist in investigating and mitigating fraud & crime:

We may use and retain your personal information as follows:
. . .
Prevent, detect, mitigate, and investigate fraudulent or illegal activities
Prevent, detect, mitigate, and investigate fraud, security breaches, potentially prohibited or illegal activities
Breaking a UA rule is not illegal. Thats why the OP didn't goto jail or get the death penalty
eng3 is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 5:04 pm
  #882  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
Originally Posted by whimike
UA would be abject idiots to think OP would continue flying UA after what they did.
AA & DL are equally harsh. In the US, this sort of fraud is a big deal and is taken seriously.

UA won't suffer here at all. I have no idea whether OP has other options, but if he doesn't, he is stuck with UA. If he does, maybe he will jump ship. But, there is some other person who just got the boot from AA who is headed inbound.

Bear in mind that UA is not trying to keep the customer. He has been all but fired.
Often1 is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 5:16 pm
  #883  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: AS, UA, WN, IHG Diamond Elite, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Gold, CET 7*
Posts: 3,284
Originally Posted by Often1
AA & DL are equally harsh. In the US, this sort of fraud is a big deal and is taken seriously.

UA won't suffer here at all. I have no idea whether OP has other options, but if he doesn't, he is stuck with UA. If he does, maybe he will jump ship. But, there is some other person who just got the boot from AA who is headed inbound.

Bear in mind that UA is not trying to keep the customer. He has been all but fired.
Not all but, he has:

"After multiple emails over 2 weeks (to Mr. Munoz), the security team finally called back and stated there was no possible reversal and that I couldn't open another Mileage Plus account in my lifetime."
NoLaGent is online now  
Old May 27, 2017, 5:33 pm
  #884  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,110
Originally Posted by TA
I repeat my suggestion from another related thread -- if UA takes it so seriously, they ought to publish / make a bit more clear to their customers that selling is not allowed.
The onus is 100% on the customer.

At some point, people need to take responsibility for themselves and not expect the world to be spoon-fed to them. United publishes the rules, and if people don't want to take them seriously, they never will.

You can make something fool-proof, you just can't make it damnfool-proof.
mahasamatman is offline  
Old May 27, 2017, 5:41 pm
  #885  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: BART Platinum, AA Plat Pro
Posts: 1,157
Originally Posted by TomMM
Exactly, I have to scratch my head with some of these responses.
I personally would not sell certificates on eBay, but I certainly wouldn't view it as a moral issue or lose any sleep over others doing so. At the very minimum, I think that most of us make dozens of more morally consequential decisions than that every single day.
milypan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.