12 ms·

On the one hand, AA could have handled this much better. The author repeats almost every paragraph that even though the bookings were "fraudulent", AA never ha

by zwaps 7y ago

On the one hand, AA could have handled this much better. The author repeats almost every paragraph that even though the bookings were "fraudulent", AA never had an issue with them until they wanted to cancel the pass. On the other hand, the whole article reeks of privilege, both by the rich-kid author and the guy. I understand that it is unfair to reneg. But the pass, and the whole system these people live in, is based on unsustainable and negative externalities on people who certainly can not fly to Sweden or Paris just to pick up flowers! Indeed, the "identity" of using an airplane like a bus is not a good one. Airplane travel is one contributor to climate change, something that will (of course) hit poor countries really hard. Again, I understand the feeling when something like that is taken away. But beyond a miniscule, yet direct, contribution to climate change, someone who just flies across the ocean because he (or she) can to do something that could have been done at home as well, and call it an "identity" - ignoring that it has a real and terrible effect (even if the contribution is small) on the weakest among us - I dunno. In that light, I just can't help to feel disgusted by this guy. Now, I am sure I am not the one who should throw the first stone etc... but she did write that article for me to read. So there it is.

myvoiceismypass 7y ago
The “I won’t be able to pick up flowers in Paris on my 70th birthday!” complaint was my favorite gem here. I was 100% unsympathetic to this family by the end of this read.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Amygaz 7y ago
  It read like anything written by a narcissist. The first quarter is interesting but rather obvious. The last three-quarter is so full of it. These people have a very “specific” relationship with society...
- vinceguidry 7y ago
  The guy paid $400k to American Airlines in 1987 money. American Airlines was begging people to buy these things. If I buy something from you, I expect to be able to use it. If I pay you a lot of money, I expect a lot of service.
  - dfxm12 7y ago
    If I pay you a lot of money, I expect a lot of service. No matter how much money you pay, you're not entitled to a lot of service (whatever that means to you, personally). You're entitled to the service you purchased. There are many of these passes still active because the people who bought those passes didn't breach their contract
    - vinceguidry 7y ago
      I'm not passing a huge amount of judgment on AA here. The world changed a lot in the 30 years since he bought the ticket, or more appropriately, signed the contract. The unit economics of flights in particular tightened so much that the terms of the original contract really needed adjustment. What I will pass judgment on AA for is in not trying to work constructively towards a resolution. They claimed that he broke rules but the manner in which they dissolved the contract leaves a lot to be desired. At the end of the day, this was a contract between a business and an ordinary mortal. Ordinary mortals don't have legal teams and dispute resolution processes. They get depressed and have limited attention spans. AA should have either held up their end of the bargain or bought out his contract if it was no longer making financial sense. So it became a matter of litigation, further adding on to the cost.
    - matthewdgreen 7y ago
      > No matter how much money you pay, you're not entitled to a lot of service (whatever that means to you, personally). You're entitled to the service you purchased. The service he purchased was "unlimited flights." In this case, by definition and by contract, he was literally entitled to "a lot of service."
ordinaryperson 7y ago
Yes, I can't believe it but I'm actually sympathizing with the airline. He booked fake reservations under fake names in case someone might want to travel with him. The fact no one at the airline asked him to stop committing fraud until 2004 does not lessen the fact he was, in fact, defrauding the airline out of thousands of dollars. If he had just used the tickets as intended he'd probably still have his pass.
- beaker52 7y ago
  To be fair to the guy, he wasn't defrauding the airline. He bought lifetime tickets. Any normally purchased ticket that isn't flown wouldn't be considered defrauding because you associate it with ongoing profit. The fact this guy paid an at-the-time-inflated $250k for a lifetime ticket should entitle him to book his tickets, as a portion of his lifetime ticket. The fact that, in hindsight, the airline is making a loss at this price, whether he flies or not, is not his fault.
  - alwayseasy 7y ago
    Airlines don't sell a seat they sell the transportation between 2 airports (see their T&C's) to an individual. However ff you want an extra seat for extra-room there is a procedure (usually use "XS" as your middle name or ExtraSeat as a first name). He didn't do that, he created fake identities...
    - matthewdgreen 7y ago
      The question is whether he was advised to do so by the representatives of the airline.
  - ordinaryperson 7y ago
    He made up fake identities and booked tickets under their names in case someone might want to travel with him. Those empty seats, which most of the time he probably didn't even think would be used, cost the airline real money. Yes, he had the right to reserve an extra seat but doing so under false pretenses is, in fact, fraud. Despite what the estimable Prof. Green says in other comments it doesn't matter what airline employees encouraged him to do: it's up to you to know the terms of your agreement. I am disgusted by the fact that I am actually defending airlines but again, if this guy wanted to preserve his cushy benefit he should have abided by the terms of his agreement.
Nursie 7y ago
I gave up reading about half way through, my sympathy just gave out completely, for the reasons you mentioned.
wastholm 7y ago
To me, this story is a great illustration of how we humans will always try to become fat cats by clinging to and expanding upon any privilege we may have or comfortable situation we may find ourselves in. Be it something small, like free snacks in the breakroom at work, or something big, like free unlimited air travel, or something vast, like cheap abundant fossil energy, if there is any way whatsoever to externalize the costs of our privileges and benefits, then, naturally, that's what we do. And should this privilege that we have now come to consider our right ever be taken away, we are of course duly offended. So I find this guy's reaction pretty understandable. I would love to think that I wouldn't so unreasonably take advantage of a playing field so absurdly tilted in my favor, and that I wouldn't be outraged when such a tilt was corrected. But such situations twist your perception of the world and it's hard to even know you're doing it.
- listenallyall 7y ago
  >> privilege we may have membership for which he paid $400k >> such a tilt was ~~corrected~~ completely eliminated, without recourse
  - close04 7y ago
    > completely eliminated, without recourse For breaching the contractual agreement, something the court has also observed and ruled on. This man indeed paid for something but then used it in a way that was an abuse from the contractual perspective and (saying this as a regular person) also from a common sense perspective. He showed a lot of bad faith and this undermined his case.
    - ethbro 7y ago
      The lack of notification from AA of purported abuse should have been enough to get the case thrown out. The abuse being serious enough to force AA to revoke the pass... yet not serious enough that they discovered or communicated it before they decided to revoke the pass? I can't square that logic.
  - JeremyNT 7y ago
driverdan 7y ago
> On the other hand, the whole article reeks of privilege So? What's wrong with privilege? You're talking about someone who signed a contract and paid for this privilege. That contract entitled him to use this privilege. It's understandable that he'd be upset when he lost it. If you relied on a bus pass (unlimited privilege to use the bus) and the city took it away would you be upset? If you rely on your car and the state took your driver's license away (unlimited privilege to drive) would you be upset? What about your ISP cancelling your internet connection for using too much data? You may scoff at these comparisons because they cost orders of magnitude less but it's exactly the same concept.
dwild 7y ago
> On the other hand, the whole article reeks of privilege, both by the rich-kid author and the guy. I So what? Is that the guy had more privilege than you what's wrong? What about everyone that has less privilege than you? > But the pass, and the whole system these people live in, is based on unsustainable and negative externalities on people who certainly can not fly to Sweden or Paris just to pick up flowers! That's AA mistake and they are the ones paying for it. > But beyond a miniscule, yet direct, contribution to climate change, someone who just flies across the ocean Completely agree, but at the end it's AA that's doing theses damages and aren't compensating for them.

by zwaps 7y ago

myvoiceismypass 7y ago

The “I won’t be able to pick up flowers in Paris on my 70th birthday!” complaint was my favorite gem here. I was 100% unsympathetic to this family by the end of this read.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Amygaz 7y ago
It read like anything written by a narcissist. The first quarter is interesting but rather obvious. The last three-quarter is so full of it. These people have a very “specific” relationship with society...
vinceguidry 7y ago
The guy paid $400k to American Airlines in 1987 money. American Airlines was begging people to buy these things. If I buy something from you, I expect to be able to use it. If I pay you a lot of money, I expect a lot of service.
- dfxm12 7y ago
  If I pay you a lot of money, I expect a lot of service. No matter how much money you pay, you're not entitled to a lot of service (whatever that means to you, personally). You're entitled to the service you purchased. There are many of these passes still active because the people who bought those passes didn't breach their contract
  - vinceguidry 7y ago
    I'm not passing a huge amount of judgment on AA here. The world changed a lot in the 30 years since he bought the ticket, or more appropriately, signed the contract. The unit economics of flights in particular tightened so much that the terms of the original contract really needed adjustment. What I will pass judgment on AA for is in not trying to work constructively towards a resolution. They claimed that he broke rules but the manner in which they dissolved the contract leaves a lot to be desired. At the end of the day, this was a contract between a business and an ordinary mortal. Ordinary mortals don't have legal teams and dispute resolution processes. They get depressed and have limited attention spans. AA should have either held up their end of the bargain or bought out his contract if it was no longer making financial sense. So it became a matter of litigation, further adding on to the cost.
  - matthewdgreen 7y ago
    > No matter how much money you pay, you're not entitled to a lot of service (whatever that means to you, personally). You're entitled to the service you purchased. The service he purchased was "unlimited flights." In this case, by definition and by contract, he was literally entitled to "a lot of service."

ordinaryperson 7y ago

Yes, I can't believe it but I'm actually sympathizing with the airline. He booked fake reservations under fake names in case someone might want to travel with him. The fact no one at the airline asked him to stop committing fraud until 2004 does not lessen the fact he was, in fact, defrauding the airline out of thousands of dollars. If he had just used the tickets as intended he'd probably still have his pass.

beaker52 7y ago
To be fair to the guy, he wasn't defrauding the airline. He bought lifetime tickets. Any normally purchased ticket that isn't flown wouldn't be considered defrauding because you associate it with ongoing profit. The fact this guy paid an at-the-time-inflated $250k for a lifetime ticket should entitle him to book his tickets, as a portion of his lifetime ticket. The fact that, in hindsight, the airline is making a loss at this price, whether he flies or not, is not his fault.
- alwayseasy 7y ago
  Airlines don't sell a seat they sell the transportation between 2 airports (see their T&C's) to an individual. However ff you want an extra seat for extra-room there is a procedure (usually use "XS" as your middle name or ExtraSeat as a first name). He didn't do that, he created fake identities...
  - matthewdgreen 7y ago
    The question is whether he was advised to do so by the representatives of the airline.
- ordinaryperson 7y ago
  He made up fake identities and booked tickets under their names in case someone might want to travel with him. Those empty seats, which most of the time he probably didn't even think would be used, cost the airline real money. Yes, he had the right to reserve an extra seat but doing so under false pretenses is, in fact, fraud. Despite what the estimable Prof. Green says in other comments it doesn't matter what airline employees encouraged him to do: it's up to you to know the terms of your agreement. I am disgusted by the fact that I am actually defending airlines but again, if this guy wanted to preserve his cushy benefit he should have abided by the terms of his agreement.

Nursie 7y ago

I gave up reading about half way through, my sympathy just gave out completely, for the reasons you mentioned.

wastholm 7y ago

To me, this story is a great illustration of how we humans will always try to become fat cats by clinging to and expanding upon any privilege we may have or comfortable situation we may find ourselves in. Be it something small, like free snacks in the breakroom at work, or something big, like free unlimited air travel, or something vast, like cheap abundant fossil energy, if there is any way whatsoever to externalize the costs of our privileges and benefits, then, naturally, that's what we do. And should this privilege that we have now come to consider our right ever be taken away, we are of course duly offended. So I find this guy's reaction pretty understandable. I would love to think that I wouldn't so unreasonably take advantage of a playing field so absurdly tilted in my favor, and that I wouldn't be outraged when such a tilt was corrected. But such situations twist your perception of the world and it's hard to even know you're doing it.

listenallyall 7y ago
>> privilege we may have membership for which he paid $400k >> such a tilt was ~~corrected~~ completely eliminated, without recourse
- close04 7y ago
  > completely eliminated, without recourse For breaching the contractual agreement, something the court has also observed and ruled on. This man indeed paid for something but then used it in a way that was an abuse from the contractual perspective and (saying this as a regular person) also from a common sense perspective. He showed a lot of bad faith and this undermined his case.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    The lack of notification from AA of purported abuse should have been enough to get the case thrown out. The abuse being serious enough to force AA to revoke the pass... yet not serious enough that they discovered or communicated it before they decided to revoke the pass? I can't square that logic.
- JeremyNT 7y ago

driverdan 7y ago

> On the other hand, the whole article reeks of privilege So? What's wrong with privilege? You're talking about someone who signed a contract and paid for this privilege. That contract entitled him to use this privilege. It's understandable that he'd be upset when he lost it. If you relied on a bus pass (unlimited privilege to use the bus) and the city took it away would you be upset? If you rely on your car and the state took your driver's license away (unlimited privilege to drive) would you be upset? What about your ISP cancelling your internet connection for using too much data? You may scoff at these comparisons because they cost orders of magnitude less but it's exactly the same concept.

dwild 7y ago

> On the other hand, the whole article reeks of privilege, both by the rich-kid author and the guy. I So what? Is that the guy had more privilege than you what's wrong? What about everyone that has less privilege than you? > But the pass, and the whole system these people live in, is based on unsustainable and negative externalities on people who certainly can not fly to Sweden or Paris just to pick up flowers! That's AA mistake and they are the ones paying for it. > But beyond a miniscule, yet direct, contribution to climate change, someone who just flies across the ocean Completely agree, but at the end it's AA that's doing theses damages and aren't compensating for them.