jsloan

While I agree that the class would need at least one affected passenger in order to file a suit, the primary remedy that the plaintiff would be seeking would be a reversal of the rule -- the exception that AA and DL have made.

The last thing that the plaintiffs would want would be a USFL*-style Pyrrhic victory. The actual damages from this change are likely to be minuscule, because unless UA really, really loses an argument pretty badly, they'd have to be balanced against 40+ years of admittance. If UA can show that the lifetime passenger has received more benefits (in terms of lounge admittance over time) than they paid in membership fees, this calculation is going to work out to be a $100 per passenger settlement or something.

Yeah, but are there enough people who actually do it to be worth the trouble? Even if UA is convinced they'll win a lawsuit -- and I think they will -- it's still expensive to put on a defense. I just don't understand the point of alienating a bunch of customers. I don't see how they possible come out ahead by doing this, particularly without the lifetime member exception that DL and AA both made.

* The USFL was a short-lived football league in the early 1980s. They sued the NFL for a violation of anti-trust law, and they won. Unfortunately, the jury found that the actual damages were $1 (they may have misunderstood a judge's instructions). Somehow, the fact that damages are trebled in anti-trust suits didn't help much...

dilanesp

Yeah I remember that terminal. The RCC must have been a members only hot dog cart or something.

To get an injunction you would have to show that damages are insufficient to compensate for your harm. That's called the rule of specific performance in contract law.

I don't see how a plaintiff would win that argument. Your damages are based on an estimate of the number of times you will use the club while ticketed on UA's competitors, discounted to present value. That's really not difficult to calculate.

You are right that a loss in an appellate court might cause UA to back down so as not to be seen as disobeying a court decision. But legally, the plaintiffs aren't likely to get ordered back into the clubs even if they prevail.

jsloan

Presumably that's why the plaintiff is going to be trying to bill at hundreds of dollars per hour: to come up with a way to win that argument. I suspect they'd have to say that there is no viable alternative. The lead plaintiff should be someone who regularly flies from a destination with a club to a destination that UA doesn't serve. The best possible lead plaintiff would be someone who flies to a destination that is only served by an airline without a club at all -- e.g., BOS-SLK (Saranac Lake), which is served only by Cape Air. You can make an argument that an injunction is the only fair remedy for that passenger; they don't even have the option to buy a day pass for another club (unless, I suppose, there's a pay lounge at BOS -- again, this is why the lawyers earn their fees

The worst possible argument to make is the one that I've seen advanced on this thread: "I can't fly from Seattle to Austin on United." Because you absolutely can; you just can't fly nonstop.

I suppose an alternative approach would be to request a large award -- $177, adjusted for inflation, per estimated entry ($59 * club member plus two guests) for life, plus a large punitive amount -- and hope to gain the exception via settlement. But the plaintiff would have to be in danger of winning before UA is likely to come to the negotiating table.

FlyerTalker70

As an aside, are Lifetime membership contracts even enforceable given CoUniHound has declared several bankruptcies over the years and generally speaking as part of bankruptcy protection they get to shed off all the liabilities from their books? That Million Milers and Lifetime members who got that status prior to the CoUniHound bankruptcies if anything is showing some amount of goodwill on the part of the airline.

-James

jsloan

The liabilities could have been discharged during bankruptcy, but apparently weren't, or they would have stopped allowing lifetime club members in at the time. They can't go back now and say "nah, we were bankrupt a few years ago, so we no longer owe you anything."

HNLbasedFlyer

It should be note - lifetime members, are still members.

Everyone's access was cut across the board to have to fly *A - lifetime or not.

Quite frankly, since this probably can't be litigated in the courts by the Airline deregulation act, they could probably eliminate every lifetime program if they wanted to do that.

dilanesp

After State Farm v. Campbell and BMW v. Gore, punitives are usually limited to a small multiple of compensatory damages (often less than 1 to 1, never more than 10 to 1 except in exceptional cases where lives were at risk), and you can never get them for breach of contract (though you can get them for fraud).

soartoday

I'll be flying another airline from an airport with United club tomorrow (Tuesday). I bought my membership late (2011) and do not seen to have any receipt or terms, not even an email confirmation. They did charge me $4600 though

I'm willing to be denied. Ideas for what information I should gather? Should I try to scan the membership card and boarding pass?

FlyerTalker70

As others have pointed out, it is unclear how this has anything to do with an airline since the heart of the matter is entering your access to a lounge. You were not forced to fly UA (or any other airline for that matter) specifically but this change reverses all of that. To give you a bit of an analogy:

Suppose Priority Pass offers a Lifetime membership to the lounge with the only condition being that you need to have a same day boarding pass. Now suppose one day they change the rules so that you must be flying Cathay Pacific in J to use the lounges that are part of their lounge.

Would they be immune from all of this since they stated somewhere in their terms that they can change the terms and conditions as they like? Would the airline deregulation act apply to them?

Food for thought!

-James

jsloan

That sounds suspiciously like tort reform. Obviously I wasn't aware; thanks for the pointers. I agree; unless UA sold an awful lot more lifetime subscriptions than any of us suspect, UA's financial liability seems pretty limited.

These straw man arguments accomplish little. Priority Pass is not an airline. Pretending that United isn't an airline either, because it runs an airport lounge, is unlikely to pass the sniff test. The US courts have consistently ruled that they don't have jurisdiction over airlines due to the ADA, and I don't expect them suddenly to change their minds just because you're talking about part of the airport experience rather than the actual flight.

Note that anyone who bought their lifetime membership outside of the US, using it to access clubs outside of the US, would presumably have standing to sue in their local jurisdiction, which would bypass any ADA concerns (and replace them with whatever the local regulatory concerns might be in their location).

HNLbasedFlyer

The lounge is a service provided by United. Services provided by United are under the Airline Deregulation Act - which essentially exempt airlines from state consumer protection laws (essentially courts). Arguing an airline lounge (as opposed to Priority Pass, which isn't an airline by the way) isn't a service just won't fly. You can't own a United lounge (making it a product). You can't move a United lounge (making it a product). There is no customer care of a lounge (to make it product). You can't return the lounge membership (something you can do with a product)

SS255

The lounge itself may be a "service," but admission criteria to that lounge is not a "service." United can make the argument that "service" is broad enough to cover admission criteria. But the customers who bought the lifetime product can make the opposite argument that there is no language which enables United to retroactively deny admission based upon changes in admission criteria. And there is a very reasonable "unwritten understanding" that by purchasing a lifetime membership to a club with no access restrictions to members, you were purchasing lifetime access with no restrictions. To fall back on the word "service" as a carte blanche defense to change admission criteria is absurd on UA's part.

Also...I never signed an agreement. In the spring of 2010 (I think it was 2010 -- it was definitely in the spring), United announced that they were increasing their lifetime membership prices. There was a window of about 2 months where you could get in under the old rules. I called the United Club to purchase my membership, but was told that since I had a Presidential Plus card, I could only buy the lifetime membership at the time of my annual fee renewal. They blamed it on Chase.

That sounded crazy, so I contacted CO Insider. He agreed that the answer I was given was blatantly false, and had someone with authority from Chase call me directly. It was the Chase rep that handled the transaction. It was all done over the phone, and my lifetime membership card showed up soon thereafter.

My point is that if I was never asked to sign any Agreement or any paperwork whatsoever, I'm sure that I'm not alone.

dilanesp

Just because you didn't see the terms and conditions doesn't mean you didn't agree to them.

Just like if you call UA and book a flight, you have agreed to the contract of carriage even if you have never seen it.

STS-134

But PP's lawyers would argue that lifetime membership means that you are entitled to the same benefits that paying customers have, for the rest of your life. UA's lawyers in this case would argue the same thing: lifetime membership means you get the same benefits that people paying for the service annually or daily get. And they are holding up that end of the deal, since the lifetime members are getting equal benefits to those paying annually. If a new lounge opens, and people paying annually get access to it in the middle of the year, then so do you. If a lounge closes, then everyone loses access. Etc. You'd have to rebut that argument to have any chance of succeeding in court, as well as have standing to sue.

Mikey

I am flying Seattle to Portland soon. United does not fly that route so I will not be on United. the club is kind of out of the way but just to get a denial I can walk over and do that.

As someone earlier asked what kind of information should I collect?