TomMM

For giggles I googled "Earl Quenzel" and it seems he and his wife have a marketing firm. Maybe you should contact him and get his opinion on the situation!

threeoh

Might be completely irrelevant because it predates the ADA but I found this to be some interesting reading:

https://books.google.com/books?id=m_...201974&f=false

Namely pages 558, the descriptions of the clubs starting on 564, the jurisdiction discussion on 571 (including whether people using the club on a day they are not travelling could be regulated by the CAB), ultimate findings on 585, and the order starting on 586.

dilanesp

That was a kind of famous ruling.

These clubs started as invitation only, and were used by the airlines to invite everyone from celebrities to buddies of executives. There were also significant allegations of discrimination. They got a fair amount of bad publicity.

Eventually the regulators ruled the airlines had to use objective criteria for membership.

threeoh

Yes I had heard about it but never read it; what was interesting to me in this context was that with the three options for club admission: (a) everyone or all passengers (b) all passengers in a specific class of service or (c) club members, it is not immediately clear to me that "must be a club member AND be be a ticketed passenger" was considered to be a valid option.

The document assumes throughout that members can access toe club while not traveling; it specifically considers whether CAB has jurisdiction in that case and it gives examples of using the lounges to wait for arriving passengers, or to make reservations for future travel.

Again, this may all be overridden by the ADA or other laws/regulations. I don't know.

dilanesp

It's a good find. You have an argument.

Where you may run into trouble is often in the law, "and" and "or" are considered substitutable. UA's current requirements are a combination of (i) and (iii). So if "or" includes "and", the ruling would permit it.

And only lawyers would redefine "and" and "or", I know.

jsloan

No, as a software engineer, I read it exactly the same way. "x or y" includes "x and y" as a trivial case. There is a separate operation for "x or y, but not both."

Furthermore, I'm confident that UA's attorneys would claim (successfully) that "ticketed club member" complies with the intent of the ruling: to create unambiguous criteria open to every potential customer.

threeoh

You're applying your logic wrong. Filling out the x and y in your example, the trivial case you mention would be if the person attempting entry were both a passenger and a club member, then obviously they could gain entry if the criteria were be a passenger or be a club member. No problem there. Also no problem for the airline to say we'll let in all first class passengers and all club members.

The question is whether the airline can combine the stated entry criteria into a new criterion using "and" logic, such as "people who are both passengers and club members" when the ruling says "passenger status or membership status".

Imagine a hospital that says "hey, to avoid overcrowding we're only going to admit you if you are (a) in our special insurance plan, or (b) having a life-threatening emergency". Not sure that can be read to allow the hospital to deny patients with life-threatening emergencies based on not being on the special insurance plan.

Basically saying "A or B is allowed" is usually read in English as meaning you can select A, or B, or the union of A and B. It is rarely read to mean you can choose the intersection of A and B.

That's a better argument. This may be why GS members don't get complimentary UC memberships, since the criteria are unpublished?

jsloan

And I maintain that the answer is 'yes.' If it is legal for them to apply criterion A, and it is legal for them to apply criterion B, it is legal for them to apply both criteria.

I mean, if we're going to be pedantic about it, the ruling doesn't apply to UA anyway. Although it's obvious that part of the intent was to set precedent, and I don't remember other airlines needing to be served with similar suits once the AA suit was resolved.

A plaintiff could certainly make this argument, and probably would. I suspect that the counterargument would be that UA's current plan -- ticketed club members -- complies with the intent of the rule. Furthermore, the requirement for a ticket has already been made and hasn't been challenged (no more gate passes), and tickets can be obtained for free, excluding taxes (frequent flyer miles). If it is not a violation to require an airline ticket in the first place, it is not a violation to require an airline ticket on UA/*A.

flyer austin

I think the only way to respond to the actions by United against lifetime club members is to make United the airline of last resort, flying any other airline when reasonably possible. Burn through any United miles you have and enjoy the more highly rated products on any number of competitors. In my opinion, for me to give any more money to United at any point in the future only supports their right to defraud me at will. Since United announced the changes I've spent about $13K on air travel and only about $1K went to United (none since August).

The thought that United would ever do something because "it's the right thing to do" is laughable. Bear in mind the original comments from Oscar Munoz when a United passenger was assaulted and removed from a plane at his airline's request - he blamed the passenger (search his initial response online if you don't remember). Unfortunately, lifetime club pass holders are unlikely to generate the kind of public sympathy that would require United to pretend to care that they have cheated us and change their policy.

I would love to see DOT do something, but they seem to behave as the lapdog of the airlines except when ordered by law to do otherwise. I would also love to see a suit materialize, but who knows if that will happen.

The only real hope is that some bean counter somewhere notices that a once reliable and high spending customer base has chosen to take their business elsewhere.

IAH-OIL-TRASH

The usual threat bantered around by many but followed through by few.

Say you're UA flyer out of a UA hub. You still have access to UCs there and elsewhere while flying UA or *A. How many are going to move to a less convenient airline and possibly pony up for annual club memberships just to spite UA? UA knows the number who leave UA because of a change in this policy is few. If you're a flyer not flying UA consistently, but using the Club with a LT membership - UA prefers you leave: "Take your business where, uhhh, you're already taking it".

$13,000 on other airlines and only $1000 to UA is because UA changed their policy? Hilarious argument. You get access to UC 100% of the time if directed $13,000 to UA. Or 90% of the time if 90% was directed to UA. You're basically forfeiting to UA the future value of UC LT membership. Priceless. UA didn't even cancel your membership.

HNLbasedFlyer

To be fair, you aren't exactly a high spending customer if you've spent $13K in the past year.

Mikey

Denied entry at PDX
United Club
11/8 Approximately 3:15 PM

Flying Alaska on a route that United does not fly.

PaulMCO

It certainly does. It requires only the card and ID to gain admittance. And if you did not have a boarding pass -- you could go to the ticket counter and get a get pass to let you through security. That until 2016.

jsloan

You should probably be careful referring to routes that United "does not fly." Another way to lose a case while "winning" would be to gain an exception, but only when United doesn't fly a given route.

After all, in the case of PDX-SEA, you're correct; you actually can't buy a ticket on UA from PDX to SEA. However, if you were flying PDX-LAX instead, UA definitely flies that route. They just don't do it non-stop. "I didn't want to have a connection" is not going to be a winning argument.

If you're going to win this case, it's going to be based on an argument that UA didn't have the right to bar admittance for any reason, not on an argument that you can't always fly UA.

Halo117

Well looky here...my lifetime card was reissued in 2012. Admittance requirements are listed separate from benefits, services and locations. They even went further to call out partner lounges and eligibility.