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