3 ms·

You are quoting/repeating the very specific parameters, and words, specifically chosen by American's army of data analysts to best support its legal case and pu

You are quoting/repeating the very specific parameters, and words, specifically chosen by American's army of data analysts to best support its legal case and put Mr. Rothstein in the worst possible light. I seriously doubt American offered the raw reservation data to Mr. Rothstein so he could counter. How long was the average reservation active before it was cancelled? How many days before the flight were the reservations cancelled? What percentage were cancellations vs no-shows? What percent of the flights had open seats at all, or in first-class (prior to comped upgrades)? Why go back to exactly May 2005 -- was his cancellation rate declining by 2008? >> There is a cost to this A lower cost than if he actually flew all 3009 flight segments -- which he was fully entitled to do.

carlivar 7y ago
American doesn't have to offer that data. His lawyer could demand it in discovery. I'm sure that was done, any competent lawyer would have done so.
jquery 7y ago
>which he was fully entitled to do. And AA was entitled to sue for breach without warning. The blade cuts both ways.
- listenallyall 7y ago
  How is that relevant to the quote? Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Are you claiming he was not entitled to fly all 3009 segments, had he chosen to?
  - jquery 7y ago
    No, I’m saying if you want to go by the letter of the rules, AA had no obligation to warn him, even if that would have been the nice thing to do. So pointing out what he was “legally entitled” to only makes AA’s case stronger because from a legal perspective he was more clearly in the wrong by booking empty seats with a fake name.
    - listenallyall 7y ago
      Please don't misquote me, I never used the phrase "legally entitled." Further, my post had nothing to do with his legal rights. The parent post that claimed AA was burdened with costs due to Mr. Rothstein's habitual cancellations, to which I noted the cost to AA of cancelling those reservations was far lower than the cost of him using all of those reservations.
      - jquery 7y ago
        Sorry, instead of "legally entitled" substitute "fully entitled" and I believe my point is the same, and I don't think you are steelmanning your parent post. Nobody in this thread disagrees that it's cheaper to have a cancelled reservation than a fulfilled one, so we must apply the principle of charity[1] here. Yes, the cost to AA would be far higher if he rode all of those trips that he cancelled. And if he flew all those 3000+ legs he booked, I would be 100% on his side, because that would show good faith on his side. However, I believe he was only able to book so many flights because he had no intention of flying most of them, which is evidenced by the fact he did not end up flying them. Because there is near-zero cost book and cancel, that is why the airline specifically put "no speculative bookings" in the golden ticket contract. Booking and flying requires the cost of the golden ticket holder's time which serves as a limiting factor. It's a similar line of thinking to a past conversation on HN about how health care in the UK is paid with time, where everyone pays the same price, but that price is time, and in the UK they wait significantly more than they have to wait in the US, which discourages seeing the doctor for minor ailments because it might take most of your day or it might get scheduled weeks out. I understand and sympathize with him emotionally, 100%. I'm speaking more from a business perspective where I completely support AA's legal right to terminate his pass, and was just trying to point out through the thread why AA was justified. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity
hatfieej 7y ago
He was entitled to fly all 3009 segments, but if those were at least 2 hours per segment -- that's over 1700 hours a year. Way more than a pilot flies at 1000/year. So at a certain point it just becomes too impractical to fly that much. It's easy to book that many flights, however.

carlivar 7y ago

American doesn't have to offer that data. His lawyer could demand it in discovery. I'm sure that was done, any competent lawyer would have done so.

jquery 7y ago

>which he was fully entitled to do. And AA was entitled to sue for breach without warning. The blade cuts both ways.

listenallyall 7y ago
How is that relevant to the quote? Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Are you claiming he was not entitled to fly all 3009 segments, had he chosen to?
- jquery 7y ago
  No, I’m saying if you want to go by the letter of the rules, AA had no obligation to warn him, even if that would have been the nice thing to do. So pointing out what he was “legally entitled” to only makes AA’s case stronger because from a legal perspective he was more clearly in the wrong by booking empty seats with a fake name.
  - listenallyall 7y ago
    Please don't misquote me, I never used the phrase "legally entitled." Further, my post had nothing to do with his legal rights. The parent post that claimed AA was burdened with costs due to Mr. Rothstein's habitual cancellations, to which I noted the cost to AA of cancelling those reservations was far lower than the cost of him using all of those reservations.
    - jquery 7y ago
      Sorry, instead of "legally entitled" substitute "fully entitled" and I believe my point is the same, and I don't think you are steelmanning your parent post. Nobody in this thread disagrees that it's cheaper to have a cancelled reservation than a fulfilled one, so we must apply the principle of charity[1] here. Yes, the cost to AA would be far higher if he rode all of those trips that he cancelled. And if he flew all those 3000+ legs he booked, I would be 100% on his side, because that would show good faith on his side. However, I believe he was only able to book so many flights because he had no intention of flying most of them, which is evidenced by the fact he did not end up flying them. Because there is near-zero cost book and cancel, that is why the airline specifically put "no speculative bookings" in the golden ticket contract. Booking and flying requires the cost of the golden ticket holder's time which serves as a limiting factor. It's a similar line of thinking to a past conversation on HN about how health care in the UK is paid with time, where everyone pays the same price, but that price is time, and in the UK they wait significantly more than they have to wait in the US, which discourages seeing the doctor for minor ailments because it might take most of your day or it might get scheduled weeks out. I understand and sympathize with him emotionally, 100%. I'm speaking more from a business perspective where I completely support AA's legal right to terminate his pass, and was just trying to point out through the thread why AA was justified. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

hatfieej 7y ago

He was entitled to fly all 3009 segments, but if those were at least 2 hours per segment -- that's over 1700 hours a year. Way more than a pilot flies at 1000/year. So at a certain point it just becomes too impractical to fly that much. It's easy to book that many flights, however.