5 ms·

It was AA who was acting in bad faith. If they wanted to stop the so-called fraudulent usage of the pass, they could have just asked. He cancelled so many flig

It was AA who was acting in bad faith. If they wanted to stop the so-called fraudulent usage of the pass, they could have just asked. He cancelled so many flights because he thought that was allowed. If they told the guy he would lose his lifetime pass if he kept cancelling or no-showing, he would have stopped. AA didn't give him a single warning. He always booked through an human agent, so they had plenty of opportunities. Instead they let him through airport security, and took his lifetime pass at the gate leaving him without his luggage. This was clearly the act of a company that had a huge liability based on a one-sided contract that was easy for them to break out of. The only question is whether it was worth the PR hit, but it doesn't seem like the blowback has been that bad so far.

jquery 7y ago
I feel like they were both acting in bad faith. He blamed his alcoholism and depression, AA blamed the speculative purchases, there’s more to the story on both sides. I completely sympathize with him emotionally. But at the same time, he had a golden ticket with rules, he broke the rules for a long time and it took AA and an army of investigators to prove it and a court that agreed. You can say they should’ve warned him, but that’s business, the court found him in breach of contract, a contract that was costing AA $millions, it’s no wonder they sued him for breach instead of warning him when his booked seats were empty most of the time. You don’t get to play the victim when you’re in breach of contract and costing the counter party millions. Again, I sympathize with him emotionally. It sucks. Life isn’t always roses. It would have been nice of AA to warn him, yes. But they weren’t obligated to, and he was a smart finance guy who understood contracts. Even he seems more upset that they were “mean” about it than surprised it happened at all.
- sverhagen 7y ago
  I agree with you. And while I am quite sympathetic to this gentleman's story myself, and while I also don't even think the revocation of the AAirpass for him was morally warranted (or at least there we go into the fuzzy details of the suit), I just wanted to add that the brief "FRAUDULENT USAGE" excerpt does not at all create an expectation to my "IANAL" eyes that there were any advance warnings to be expected. So, while I can see a legal argument over the validity of the cancellation, I don't see it over some demand of having to be warned ahead of time. But again, IANAL, just a guy.
- laGrenouille 7y ago
  I would generally agree with your logic, but the problem here is that he broke AA's interpretation of a vaguely worded rule rather than clearly committing a violation of the terms. Given this AA should have contacted him about their view of "fradulent" usage.
  - DebtDeflation 7y ago
    > AA's interpretation of a vaguely worded rule It's debatable whether or not frequent speculative bookings constitute fraud. It's not debatable whether booking a seat for your luggage with the companion pass under a fake name is fraud.
    - listenallyall 7y ago
      “The example given to me [by AA] was that Yo-Yo Ma ... flew with his [cello] in the next seat. Under those terms I bought the extra seat.” AA endorsed the practice.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
theelous3 7y ago
While I agree, even worse is that they were the final implementors of the supposed fraud. Their own booking concierge put every single one of those flights through. They shot themselves in the foot thousands of times and then said it was fraud, even though he gained nothing. It was abuse, but they didn't have an abuse cause. Can't side with AA.
- piokoch 7y ago
  I don't think concierge could refuse booking - This guy had lifetime ticket. What should concierge say? I will not book a flight for you since you cancelled the one yesterday and the day before yesterday?
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    How about they have a policy of X cancellations and then a cool down period, then they could say "I'm sorry sir, because of your cancellation yesterday I can't book your flight until next week" and then allow only booking in an emergency (like they're trapped away from home).
  - ryanmercer 7y ago
    >What should concierge say? I'm sorry sir, the system is not allowing me to do this, You will need to contact corporate offices.
  - ubermonkey 7y ago
    No, they totally could. They didn't because they didn't care until they decided they wanted to axe the pass, and then they went looking for a pretext. Dude is rich as hell and probably very hard to sympathize with on most other counts, but he got screwed by AA here.
  - jfoster 7y ago
    "What's going on, why have you cancelled so many flights? This isn't how the pass is intended to be used. Please only use it when you are likely to take the flight."
  - 7y ago
josefx 7y ago
> they could have just asked According to court documents they asked him when he was using fake names[1] in 2004. Instead he switched to names of friends that never showed up. They didn't terminate him until 2008. > He canceled so many flights because he thought that was allowed. He also made reservations for people that either didn't exist or had no idea that he made them. And in contrast to the article he didn't just do it to get space, he apparently let strangers he met at the airport use the seats. > AA didn't give him a single warning. Warned in 2004 terminated in 2008 [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2009cv02770/231263/95/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinoi...
- matthewdgreen 7y ago
  Reading that decision: it looks like Rothstein specifically asked the sales agent what constituted "fraudulent use" at the time he purchased the pass. The court doesn't explain the agent's response, but goes on to argue that Rothstein could have forced the company to include it into the contract language -- and since he did not do that, that response doesn't bind the company. Again, I don't know what the actual response was, but this hints that the explanation Rothstein was given at sales time was not the same as what American enforced upon him. I guess this may be a reasonable legal outcome, but it doesn't seem terribly just.

jquery 7y ago

I feel like they were both acting in bad faith. He blamed his alcoholism and depression, AA blamed the speculative purchases, there’s more to the story on both sides. I completely sympathize with him emotionally. But at the same time, he had a golden ticket with rules, he broke the rules for a long time and it took AA and an army of investigators to prove it and a court that agreed. You can say they should’ve warned him, but that’s business, the court found him in breach of contract, a contract that was costing AA $millions, it’s no wonder they sued him for breach instead of warning him when his booked seats were empty most of the time. You don’t get to play the victim when you’re in breach of contract and costing the counter party millions. Again, I sympathize with him emotionally. It sucks. Life isn’t always roses. It would have been nice of AA to warn him, yes. But they weren’t obligated to, and he was a smart finance guy who understood contracts. Even he seems more upset that they were “mean” about it than surprised it happened at all.

sverhagen 7y ago
I agree with you. And while I am quite sympathetic to this gentleman's story myself, and while I also don't even think the revocation of the AAirpass for him was morally warranted (or at least there we go into the fuzzy details of the suit), I just wanted to add that the brief "FRAUDULENT USAGE" excerpt does not at all create an expectation to my "IANAL" eyes that there were any advance warnings to be expected. So, while I can see a legal argument over the validity of the cancellation, I don't see it over some demand of having to be warned ahead of time. But again, IANAL, just a guy.
laGrenouille 7y ago
I would generally agree with your logic, but the problem here is that he broke AA's interpretation of a vaguely worded rule rather than clearly committing a violation of the terms. Given this AA should have contacted him about their view of "fradulent" usage.
- DebtDeflation 7y ago
  > AA's interpretation of a vaguely worded rule It's debatable whether or not frequent speculative bookings constitute fraud. It's not debatable whether booking a seat for your luggage with the companion pass under a fake name is fraud.
  - listenallyall 7y ago
    “The example given to me [by AA] was that Yo-Yo Ma ... flew with his [cello] in the next seat. Under those terms I bought the extra seat.” AA endorsed the practice.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

theelous3 7y ago

While I agree, even worse is that they were the final implementors of the supposed fraud. Their own booking concierge put every single one of those flights through. They shot themselves in the foot thousands of times and then said it was fraud, even though he gained nothing. It was abuse, but they didn't have an abuse cause. Can't side with AA.

piokoch 7y ago
I don't think concierge could refuse booking - This guy had lifetime ticket. What should concierge say? I will not book a flight for you since you cancelled the one yesterday and the day before yesterday?
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  How about they have a policy of X cancellations and then a cool down period, then they could say "I'm sorry sir, because of your cancellation yesterday I can't book your flight until next week" and then allow only booking in an emergency (like they're trapped away from home).
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  >What should concierge say? I'm sorry sir, the system is not allowing me to do this, You will need to contact corporate offices.
- ubermonkey 7y ago
  No, they totally could. They didn't because they didn't care until they decided they wanted to axe the pass, and then they went looking for a pretext. Dude is rich as hell and probably very hard to sympathize with on most other counts, but he got screwed by AA here.
- jfoster 7y ago
  "What's going on, why have you cancelled so many flights? This isn't how the pass is intended to be used. Please only use it when you are likely to take the flight."
- 7y ago

josefx 7y ago

> they could have just asked According to court documents they asked him when he was using fake names[1] in 2004. Instead he switched to names of friends that never showed up. They didn't terminate him until 2008. > He canceled so many flights because he thought that was allowed. He also made reservations for people that either didn't exist or had no idea that he made them. And in contrast to the article he didn't just do it to get space, he apparently let strangers he met at the airport use the seats. > AA didn't give him a single warning. Warned in 2004 terminated in 2008 [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinois/ilndce/1:2009cv02770/231263/95/ https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/illinoi...

matthewdgreen 7y ago
Reading that decision: it looks like Rothstein specifically asked the sales agent what constituted "fraudulent use" at the time he purchased the pass. The court doesn't explain the agent's response, but goes on to argue that Rothstein could have forced the company to include it into the contract language -- and since he did not do that, that response doesn't bind the company. Again, I don't know what the actual response was, but this hints that the explanation Rothstein was given at sales time was not the same as what American enforced upon him. I guess this may be a reasonable legal outcome, but it doesn't seem terribly just.