Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Community
Wiki Posts
Search
Old Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
WELCOME, THREAD GUIDELINES and SUMMARY PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk! Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that cover the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel (not politics or arguments about politics or religion, etc. – those discussion are best in the OMNI forum)

The incident discussed in this thread has touched a nerve for many, and many posters are passionate about their opinions and concerns. However we should still have a civil and respectful discussion of this topic. This is because FlyerTalk is meant to be a friendly, helpful, and collegial community. (Rule 12.)

1. The normal FlyerTalk Rules apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions in thread). Please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.

2. You are expected to respect the FlyerTalk community's diversity, and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Do not cite, copy, or report on such.

3. While you can disagree with an opinion, the holder of that opinion has the same right to their opinion as you have to yours. We request all to respect that and disagree or discuss their point of views without getting overly personal and without attacking the other poster(s). This is expected as a requirement in FT Rule 12.

4. Overly exaggerative posts as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously may be summarily deleted.

5. In addition, those who repeatedly fail to comply with FlyerTalk Rules, may be subjected to FlyerTalk disciplinary actions and, e.g., have membership privileges suspended, or masked from this forum.

If you have questions about the Rules or concerns about what another has posted in this or other threads in this forum, please do not post about that. Rather, notify the moderators by using the alert symbol within each post or email or send a private message to us moderators.

Let’s have this discussion in a way that, when we look back on it, we can be proud of how we handled ourselves as a community.

The United Moderator team:
J.Edward
l'etoile
Ocn Vw 1K
Pat89339
WineCountryUA

N.B. PLEASE do not alter the contents of this moderator note
Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
CHICAGO, April 27, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- We are pleased to report that United and Dr. Dao have reached an amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident that occurred aboard flight 3411. We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do.
DOT findings related to the UA3411 9 April 2017 IDB incident 12 May 2017

What facts do we know?
  • UA3411, operated by Republic Airways, ORD-SDF on Sunday, April 9, 2017. UA3411 was the second to last flight to SDF for United. AA3509 and UA4771 were the two remaining departures for the day. Also, AA and DL had connecting options providing for same-day arrival in SDF.
  • After the flight was fully boarded, United determined four seats were needed to accommodate crew to SDF for a flight on Monday.
  • United solicited volunteers for VDB. (BUT stopped at $800 in UA$s, not cash). Chose not to go to the levels such as 1350 that airlines have been known to go even in case of weather impacted disruption)
  • After receiving no volunteers for $800 vouchers, a passenger volunteered for $1,600 and was "laughed at" and refused, United determined four passengers to be removed from the flight.
  • One passenger refused and Chicago Aviation Security Officers were called to forcibly remove the passenger.
  • The passenger hit the armrest in the aisle and received a concussion, a broken nose, a bloodied lip, and the loss of two teeth.
  • After being removed from the plane, the passenger re-boarded saying "I need to go home" repeatedly, before being removed again.
  • United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said the flight was sold out — but not oversold. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines – the unit that operated Flight 3411 – decided they had to remove four passengers from the flight to accommodate crewmembers who were needed in Louisville the next day for a “downline connection.”

United Express Flight 3411 Review and Action Report - released 27 April 2017

Videos

Internal Communication by Oscar Munoz
Oscar Munoz sent an internal communication to UA employees (sources: View From The Wing, Chicago Tribune):
Dear Team,

Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.

As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.

I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.

Oscar

Summary of Flight 3411
  • On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.
  • We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
  • He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
  • Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
  • Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
Email sent to all employees at 2:08PM on Tuesday, April 11.
Dear Team,

The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.

I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.

It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.

I promise you we will do better.

Sincerely,

Oscar
Statement to customers - 27 April 2017
Each flight you take with us represents an important promise we make to you, our customer. It's not simply that we make sure you reach your destination safely and on time, but also that you will be treated with the highest level of service and the deepest sense of dignity and respect.

Earlier this month, we broke that trust when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of our planes. We can never say we are sorry enough for what occurred, but we also know meaningful actions will speak louder than words.

For the past several weeks, we have been urgently working to answer two questions: How did this happen, and how can we do our best to ensure this never happens again?

It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.

Fixing that problem starts now with changing how we fly, serve and respect our customers. This is a turning point for all of us here at United – and as CEO, it's my responsibility to make sure that we learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to put our customers at the center of everything we do.

That’s why we announced that we will no longer ask law enforcement to remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.

We also know that despite our best efforts, when things don’t go the way they should, we need to be there for you to make things right. There are several new ways we’re going to do just that.

We will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000 and will be eliminating the red tape on permanently lost bags with a new "no-questions-asked" $1,500 reimbursement policy. We will also be rolling out a new app for our employees that will enable them to provide on-the-spot goodwill gestures in the form of miles, travel credit and other amenities when your experience with us misses the mark. You can learn more about these commitments and many other changes at hub.united.com.

While these actions are important, I have found myself reflecting more broadly on the role we play and the responsibilities we have to you and the communities we serve.

I believe we must go further in redefining what United's corporate citizenship looks like in our society. If our chief good as a company is only getting you to and from your destination, that would show a lack of moral imagination on our part. You can and ought to expect more from us, and we intend to live up to those higher expectations in the way we embody social responsibility and civic leadership everywhere we operate. I hope you will see that pledge express itself in our actions going forward, of which these initial, though important, changes are merely a first step.

Our goal should be nothing less than to make you truly proud to say, "I fly United."

Ultimately, the measure of our success is your satisfaction and the past several weeks have moved us to go further than ever before in elevating your experience with us. I know our 87,000 employees have taken this message to heart, and they are as energized as ever to fulfill our promise to serve you better with each flight and earn the trust you’ve given us.

We are working harder than ever for the privilege to serve you and I know we will be stronger, better and the customer-focused airline you expect and deserve.

With Great Gratitude,

Oscar Munoz
CEO
United Airlines
Aftermath
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines Reference Material

UA's Customer Commitment says:
Occasionally we may not be able to provide you with a seat on a specific flight, even if you hold a ticket, have checked in, are present to board on time, and comply with other requirements. This is called an oversale, and occurs when restrictions apply to operating a particular flight safely (such as aircraft weight limits); when we have to substitute a smaller aircraft in place of a larger aircraft that was originally scheduled; or if more customers have checked in and are prepared to board than we have available seats.

If your flight is in an oversale situation, you will not be denied a seat until we first ask for volunteers willing to give up their confirmed seats. If there are not enough volunteers, we will deny boarding to passengers in accordance with our written policy on boarding priority. If you are involuntarily denied boarding and have complied with our check-in and other applicable rules, we will give you a written statement that describes your rights and explains how we determine boarding priority for an oversold flight. You will generally be entitled to compensation and transportation on an alternate flight.

We make complete rules for the payment of compensation, as well as our policy about boarding priorities, available at airports we serve. We will follow these rules to ensure you are treated fairly. Please be aware that you may be denied boarding without compensation if you do not check in on time or do not meet certain other requirements, or if we offer you alternative transportation that is planned to arrive at your destination or first stopover no later than one hour after the planned arrival time of your original flight.
CoC is here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx
Print Wikipost

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:39 am
  #2671  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,012
Originally Posted by jjmoore
It's a shame that the media has blown this into what it is... sure it deserves attention (focused on toughening up regs on airlines), but it has turned into an anti-authority witch hunt, which is portraying this pax as a saint and LEO's and UA as satan. This is what the media has done best for the last couple years anyway.
"Anti-authority witch hunt"? A man was dragged off an airplane (on video!) because the flight was oversold! It is completely ABSURD. The public is going to rightfully view his actions as largely beside the point.
trouble747 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:39 am
  #2672  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Programs: DL PM, MR Titanium/LTP, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 10,130
Stock down ~4.25% now - getting to around $750m - $1B in market cap being wiped off
Duke787 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:41 am
  #2673  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Boston MA
Programs: UA 1K/1.5 million miler, SU Gold, JL Sapphire
Posts: 529
Originally Posted by moreofless
In the court of public opinion an elderly doctor who had to see patients was dragged off a plane while bloody. That is what will impact the bottom line of United. Your comment will have no effect since the court of public opinion has already overwhelmingly convicted United. United will end up making a big settlement to the passenger to try to make this go away but the genie is already out of the bottle and is not going back in. This shortsighted decision by one or a few United employees and the support of the CEO will cost the bottom line of United millions.

This is about a large corporation not respecting its customers. Laws, regulations, and policies are completely out the window in this situation.
Ultimately, they are three responsibles.

First, gate agents should never have allowed the whole plane to fill up and THEN get people out. Sure, they can, but they shouldn't because you just shocked the hell of customers.

Second, sure, he opposed his removal. But it is human nature, really. Apparently, he opposed mild resistance. So, I am not blaming him much. If he had been really a jerk, his fellow passengers would not have vehemently opposed his removal the way they did (and forcible removals happened before).

Third, the police. Force should always be the last option. Since the PAX was opposing mild resistance, why resort to that type of violence? Probably because in these post 9-11 days law enforcement gave themselves a free reign in airports. They are less servants of the people and more overlords. And that needs to be reigned in.

My opinion: training for the gate agents, possible dismissal for the cops, and an apology without ANY "but" from Munoz. United should remind itself they are servicing their customers, and what they did there - kick out people from an airplane to accommodate 4 employees - is egregious enough, no matter what the law says, to require the utmost level of diplomacy, politeness, apologizing and compensation.

United failed here, no matter what the law says.
skidooman is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:42 am
  #2674  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Programs: A3 *G, AA exePlat, AS MVP 75k Gold, JL sapphire, UA silver
Posts: 4,035
i have done plenty of vdb, and there were times other were idb at the same time.

we were able to come up with a good solution to make it win win. ua paid for ground transportation from btv to yul for me and other. rebook the inbound for a later day etc.
pbd456 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:42 am
  #2675  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by GadgetFreak
Right. No one at UA apparently knew that everyone on the plane has a camera. Ten or twelve years ago this wasn't the case but it sure is now. About the only thing I think UA could have done worse is try to eject the people taking movies and confiscate their cameras. In fact, I'm a little surprised they didn't try it.
delete
Klimo is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:42 am
  #2676  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: CO
Programs: UA OG-1K, Marriott Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,360
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
WRONG. IBD compensation is only four times the fare that was paid by the passenger for the segment. If UA picked the four people with the cheapest tickets, this would only be a several hundred dollars.
The relevant fare should be the last minute fare. That is the true value of getting on the plane last minute, not what someone payed months ahead of time. If the airlines want to play infinite price discrimination, they have to live with all the consequences. Plus a $200 change fee. And real money, not vouchers.
PushingTin is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:42 am
  #2677  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cleveland, OH
Programs: UA-GS 1MM), Hertz Pres Circle, Starriott Titanium)
Posts: 1,966
Originally Posted by Duke787
Stock down ~4.25% now - getting to around $750m - $1B in market cap being wiped off
To Oscar:
LordHamster is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:42 am
  #2678  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,405
Originally Posted by jwh212
The two are not connected. Passengers can be removed from flights regardless of any "contract".

the legislation which covers crewmember instruction is CFR 121.580 and CFR 135.120.
This has been discussed up thread and you're wrong. Moreover CoC are not law. But nice to see that you defend a crap airline resorting to LO because itself is incapable of managing their business.
WorldLux is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:43 am
  #2679  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: UA Gold, AA DL
Posts: 25
Originally Posted by moreofless
In the court of public opinion an elderly doctor who had to see patients was dragged off a plane while bloody. That is what will impact the bottom line of United. Your comment will have no effect since the court of public opinion has already overwhelmingly convicted United. United will end up making a big settlement to the passenger to try to make this go away but the genie is already out of the bottle and is not going back in. This shortsighted decision by one or a few United employees and the support of the CEO will cost the bottom line of United millions.

This is about a large corporation not respecting its customers. Laws, regulations, and policies are completely out the window in this situation.
It's two separate issues. And I am not arguing that they will probably pay a settlement rightly or wrongly, all I have been pointing out are some legal issues which didn't seem to be clear to most of the posters.

To be clear, I am not trying to make any of this go away or make any statement about UA's customer service. I could care less what happens to UA in this situation.
jwh212 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:43 am
  #2680  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,012
Originally Posted by jjmoore
Genius ... oh wait... geniuses don't make comparisons between apples and oranges.
You might try inserting the word "lawful" into your paeans to the unyielding authority of law enforcement. One is required to obey lawful commands. Not any and all commands.

Perhaps the officers in this situation gave a lawful command in the course of acting outside their standard operating procedure. That's probably the most likely scenario. But it is beside the point.

YES, an airline can have someone removed for any and every reason it likes. YES, police officers can forcibly drag any person they so desire here or there or wherever. That does not make any of it just or right.
trouble747 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:44 am
  #2681  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: LBB
Programs: UA 1K 1MM ★G | Marriott LTT | Hilton ♦ | Hertz PC | Global Entry TSA Pre ✓
Posts: 2,820
Originally Posted by justinwong
Again I ask, in a democratic society - WHO exactly is the authority?

Is it the police who are there to serve the public or the public who should be serving the police force?

This is no anti-authority witchhunt. The individual concerned who displayed anti-authority tendencies was the enforcement officer who refused to uphold the civil rights of the passenger.
So if what you are saying is correct, should a police officer not be allowed to give me a speeding ticket because I believe the speed limit is too low (whether it is right or wrong in this case)? That would never hold up in any court of law.

In this case, the passenger was asked by a LEO to disembark, and he declined / disobeyed the order because he disagreed with UA policy (whether it is right or wrong in this case). How is this any different? UA asked security to remove the pax (which was the only goal for LEO - to remove the pax from the aircraft). The pax resisted, and resulted in the altercation.
jjmoore is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:44 am
  #2682  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: Chase, Amex, Citi, basically all of them
Posts: 72
Originally Posted by jjmoore
Genius ... oh wait... geniuses don't make comparisons between apples and oranges.
Guy was standing up to an unfair system, albeit for more selfish reasons (unless it turns out he did need to get back home to see a patient). Whatever the fine print says, once you ticket a customer and let them on a plane, it's not right to drag them off even if the fine prints let you do it unless you explored other venues.

And United didn't, since passenger account says another passenger was willing to volunteer for $1,600 and was laughed off by the airline.
newaliases is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:45 am
  #2683  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: SFO/CDG
Programs: UA 1k
Posts: 211
Certainly I am not suggesting I or anyone else could identify the 4 people least inconvenienced but the offer was at $800, this is high relative to lots of other offers for vdb that are accepted. I agree they should have gone higher but I would expect that the gate staff did not have this authority. This is a cultural problem that has a long history with the combined UA.

They likely couldn't drive the employees. A combination of duty hours, rest time (FAA) and their contract probably didn't make that an acceptable option. The real calculation is what is the cost to the airline if the employees don't make that flight? That is what should set the compensation cap but there is no way that an airport employee is empowered to make that calculation.

Originally Posted by simpletastes
I understand your sentiment but in reality, there is no objective way (other than monetary compensation) to judge who will be least inconvenienced. Don't forget there are 4 employees who could be driven to their destination by car. The onus is on United to increase the offer, not on 4 passengers to accept a bad offer out of kindness.
SFO28L is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:45 am
  #2684  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,038
Originally Posted by LordHamster
The fact that an overbooking situation was allowed to escalate to the point of needing to involuntarily remove passengers shows a stunning lack of customer centricity.




And this, ladies and gentleman, is the kind of attitude is what leads to some of the more memorable images of our times. Regardless of what the letter of the law is, it is encumbent on good people to stand up and object to bad laws and/or bad enforcement. IMO this situation with United is a clear example of airline employees who would rather use force against a customer than to raise the voluntary compensation amount a bit.








I've seen dozens of videos on Youtube of passengers cheering when unruly passengers are taken off planes. This case is unique. At least 3-4 people could be heard objecting to the actions of the airline/police. IMO this was handled 100% wrong by the Airline and Chicago Aviation Police
Images matter. Like you say, these prove it, and these movies are even more compelling than stills.
GadgetFreak is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 8:46 am
  #2685  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Programs: UA 1K, 1MM
Posts: 504
Originally Posted by Duke787
Stock down ~4.25% now - getting to around $750m - $1B in market cap being wiped off
which comes back to a common complaint on this board that all the bottom line accounting United has done in the past few years may save in short term but sometimes it is worth investing in customers and valuing them, just a little.
ACVBear is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.