I suppose it shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. A customer upset with the changes to the MileagePlus lifetime elite program has filed a lawsuit seeking financial damages as a result of those changes. The filing, in the Eastern Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, is seeking class action status on behalf "thousands of others" who are also affected by the changes in the program.
I understand the frustration with change. I can even understand to some extent the desire to seek restitution for supposed damages incurred. At the same time, however, reading the claims makes me wonder just what version of reality the plaintiff is living in. Here are a few choice excerpts:
14. The second to top tier in the Mileage Plus Program was the Million Miler
status (sometimes referred to as the “Million Miler Program”). To obtain this status, a
United customer needed to actually fly one million or more miles on United flights only.
In other words, unlike programs today, one could not reach the Million Miler status
through any non-flying means, such as an airline credit card, or by flying on any other
“partner” or “code share” airline.
15. The Million Miler Program was not simply a gimmick or give-away product
under which United could change the rules any time it wanted. It was a bargained-for
program whereby consideration was given – and taken – by both United and the Million
17. The lifetime benefits Million Miler members paid consideration for included:
a. A one-time award of three system-wide upgrades;
b. Two free regional upgrades every year;
c. A 100% bonus on the miles the customer flies every year; and
d. Lifetime Premier Executive status in United’s Mileage Plus program,
providing extra benefits and priorities such as booking availability,
pre-boarding advantages, upgrade possibilities, and seating priority.
Here’s the thing: The definition of what the program was (¶ 14) is wrong. So are the defined benefits as listed in ¶ 17. And, despite the willingness to believe otherwise, the suggestion in ¶ 16 that it was not possible for the company to change the program, that explicit detail was actually granted to the company in the T&Cs of the program and it has been since the inception of the program.
The claims are interesting, to be sure. But they seem to be lacking in a certain amount of fact that is usually required to win a judgment. It seems a lot more like the suit filed claiming that it was illegal to only accept credit cards on board, a claim that was summarily dismissed, than a proper claim to me. Then again, I’m not a judge in the US District Court in Illinois, so clearly my opinion doesn’t really matter.
Never miss another post: Sign up for email alerts and get only the content you want direct to your inbox.