I am arguing that, regardless of the legal battle outcome, AA can turn this around and successfully portray these few customers as opportunists and abusers of the system who are hurting the company.
Most people have some sense of fairness and would probably agree that selling the empty seat or say booking it under a made up name just doesn't seem right. So AA could successfully turn this around make quite a few people sympathize with it.
Can you explain me why anybody shouldn't use a unlimited offer as defined?
Companies use this as a bait to catch fish, assuming unlimited plans won't be treated as such and that will translate to some profit. Isn't this fraudulent assumption to begin with at the first place.
Let me tell you most people will side with what you describe as 'opportunists' and 'abusers'. Because unlimited plans of all types - Phone calls, internet data plans, unlimited buffets, gambling, lottery all work on assumption of making up on volume assuming decline in consumption on an average.
If the company can't handle the unpredictable aspect of such a business they shouldn't offer such plans at the first place.
If AA can turn around pressurizing other paying customers into committing perjury in order to defraud long standing customers who took advantage of a good deal - then I would like to meet their PR agency.
Remember at 80s interest rates when AA made this deal those passengers were taking a real gamble compared to putting that $500K in the market and just paying list for the tickets - compared to making AA an interest-free loan.
Most people have some sense of fairness and would probably agree that selling the empty seat or say booking it under a made up name just doesn't seem right. So AA could successfully turn this around make quite a few people sympathize with it.