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
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.
> 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."
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