3 ms·

He didn't place his trust in ticket agents (though his were far from random). He had a handwritten letter from CEO Robert Crandall: "I am delighted that you’ve

He didn't place his trust in ticket agents (though his were far from random). He had a handwritten letter from CEO Robert Crandall: "I am delighted that you’ve enjoyed your AAirpass investment — you can count on us to keep the Company solid, and to honor the deal, far into the future."

paulcole 7y ago
The CEO wrote him a letter saying, “Sure, go ahead and book an empty seat for your suitcase under the name Bag Rothstein”? Because if not, it sure sounds like he put his trust in ticket agents.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  I mean, I wouldn’t trust a ticket agent to manage my finances, but you kind of have to assume they know how to do the one thing they were hired to.
  - paulcole 7y ago
    Just different risk tolerances I guess. If I had spent $500k on something that could be worth $10+ million, I wouldn't take a risk based on the word of a front-desk person. My belief is that this guy truly knew he was in the wrong and did it anyway because he thought he could get away with it. Classic rich guy move that came back to bite him.
    - zrobotics 7y ago
      Aside from the booking staff, who could he reasonably have expected to advise him? The only people who could actually say if AA considered this behavior abusive would be members of the airline's legal staff of senior management. Any other attorney or other form of advisor can't possibly definitely state what AA would consider abuse. These aren't random front-desk booking agents, they're high up enough in the chain of command to deal with customers like the unlimited pass holders. Who else could he have trusted to tell him if the behavior would constitute fraud in America's opinion?
      - ryacko 7y ago
        The legal requirements for a party to make an adverse decision is low, it just has to be non-arbitrary to prevent it from being judged on the merits. At which point whichever party has the greater resources would be most likely to win. When dealing with a corporation, you are at their mercy, and the most immediate defense is whatever PR problems you can cause them.
      - paulcole 7y ago
        Well the people so far up in the chain of command clearly advised him incorrectly so that argument doesn’t hold water. Again, if I’m risking $5+ million I FIND SOMEONE TO ADVISE ME. Dude’s a Bear Stearns trader with money to burn, you’re telling me he has no way to get ahold of the airline’s legal staff or senior management? And also again, the reason this guy took their word for it is that he knew he was angle-shooting and thought it wouldn’t come back to bite him.
Aeolun 7y ago
Of course, that was during a time when a promise like that still meant something. And by the time they decided to renege he was long gone.

paulcole 7y ago

The CEO wrote him a letter saying, “Sure, go ahead and book an empty seat for your suitcase under the name Bag Rothstein”? Because if not, it sure sounds like he put his trust in ticket agents.

Aeolun 7y ago
I mean, I wouldn’t trust a ticket agent to manage my finances, but you kind of have to assume they know how to do the one thing they were hired to.
- paulcole 7y ago
  Just different risk tolerances I guess. If I had spent $500k on something that could be worth $10+ million, I wouldn't take a risk based on the word of a front-desk person. My belief is that this guy truly knew he was in the wrong and did it anyway because he thought he could get away with it. Classic rich guy move that came back to bite him.
  - zrobotics 7y ago
    Aside from the booking staff, who could he reasonably have expected to advise him? The only people who could actually say if AA considered this behavior abusive would be members of the airline's legal staff of senior management. Any other attorney or other form of advisor can't possibly definitely state what AA would consider abuse. These aren't random front-desk booking agents, they're high up enough in the chain of command to deal with customers like the unlimited pass holders. Who else could he have trusted to tell him if the behavior would constitute fraud in America's opinion?
    - ryacko 7y ago
      The legal requirements for a party to make an adverse decision is low, it just has to be non-arbitrary to prevent it from being judged on the merits. At which point whichever party has the greater resources would be most likely to win. When dealing with a corporation, you are at their mercy, and the most immediate defense is whatever PR problems you can cause them.
    - paulcole 7y ago
      Well the people so far up in the chain of command clearly advised him incorrectly so that argument doesn’t hold water. Again, if I’m risking $5+ million I FIND SOMEONE TO ADVISE ME. Dude’s a Bear Stearns trader with money to burn, you’re telling me he has no way to get ahold of the airline’s legal staff or senior management? And also again, the reason this guy took their word for it is that he knew he was angle-shooting and thought it wouldn’t come back to bite him.

Aeolun 7y ago

Of course, that was during a time when a promise like that still meant something. And by the time they decided to renege he was long gone.