Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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
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.
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
- Passenger one row behind and on the aisle footage BEFORE man was dragged off https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=655_1492004707
- Videos of man being removed https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4b7_1491983214 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nAZEk6nsNE
- Video of man re-entering plane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNEQDWpYbZA (link dead)
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
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.
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
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
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
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
- Chicago Aviation Department said on the Monday afternoon after the incident that the officer who had dragged the passenger off the plane had been placed on leave pending an investigation. Spokesperson Karen Pride said in an email that "The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the Department."
- 4/12/17: Two more Chicago Aviation officers involved are suspended
- Muńoz does ABC interview, announcing United will no longer use law enforcement to remove passengers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90jSUe_vdhM
- United announces policy change that crews traveling on their aircraft must be booked at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
- United releases multiple changes in overbooking / denied boarding policies "We are making changes to ensure that we always put customers first" (http://newsroom.united.com/2017-04-2...mer-Experience) released 27 April 2017
- Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
- Response to Senate Commerce Committee questions - 1 May 2017
- United Airlines PR Boss to Step Down
- James Long, one of several officers involved in removing David Dao from the April 9, 2017, flight to make room for airline employees, filed suit on Tuesday against United, Chicago’s Department of Aviation and its commissioner, Ginger Evans. The lawsuit, filed in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois, alleges he was not properly trained on how to use force.
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines
Poll link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KP68GYG
Results link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
Reference MaterialResults link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
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.aspxIf 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.
Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}
Apr 13, 2017, 5:17 pm
#5116
Join Date: May 2000
Location: IAH
Programs: UA 1K 2.7MM, Marriott Titanium/LT Plat, IHG Spire
Posts: 3,317
Apr 13, 2017, 5:17 pm
#5117
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
And breaking news .. the United pilots union is throwing Republic and the aviation police under the bus. Statement reads in part ..
"As the story of United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic Airline, continues to virally circulate in the news and on social media, your United Master Executive Council (MEC) has intentionally withheld judgment because of the rapid pace at which information, both accurate and inaccurate, has been released and manipulated.
The safety and well-being of our passengers is the highest priority for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter. United pilots are infuriated by this event. This occurred on one of our contracted Express carriers, separately owned and operated by Republic Airline, and was ultimately caused by the grossly inappropriate response by the Chicago Department of Aviation. "
"As the story of United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic Airline, continues to virally circulate in the news and on social media, your United Master Executive Council (MEC) has intentionally withheld judgment because of the rapid pace at which information, both accurate and inaccurate, has been released and manipulated.
The safety and well-being of our passengers is the highest priority for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter. United pilots are infuriated by this event. This occurred on one of our contracted Express carriers, separately owned and operated by Republic Airline, and was ultimately caused by the grossly inappropriate response by the Chicago Department of Aviation. "
Apr 13, 2017, 5:19 pm
#5118
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SEA
Programs: DL DM, HH diamond
Posts: 330
Apr 13, 2017, 5:19 pm
#5119
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,404
He was a paying passenger, sitting on a seat on our aircraft. No one should be treated that way. Period."
Also, as has been explained ad nauseum in this thread, the criminal statute for interfering with flight crew does not apply. Dao did not "assault, threaten, or intimidate a flight crew member or attendant." See 49 U.S.C § 46504. Contrary to the belief of the misinformed in this thread, it is not a crime to disobey a gate agent.
Apr 13, 2017, 5:19 pm
#5120
Used to be 'etrevino'
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: MTY
Programs: AA, BA, AM Plat, HH Silver, SPG Gold, Amex Plat
Posts: 134
It really depends. Would it qualify as belligerent if the pax had calmly and in a level voice said this:
"I am sorry but I am not leaving. I paid for this seat and I was admitted to the plane with a seat assignment. A 24 hour delay is unacceptable to me for (insert reasoning). I understand you will have to have me physically removed from the plane and if that's what you have to do, that's what you have to do. I know you're in an impossible position and I want to assure you that I don't hold you personally responsible for what you have to do. However if you do, I will have to hold United responsible for failing to uphold their contract with me. I have contacted/am contacting my lawyer."
Granted, this would arguably require the patience or endurance of a saint alongside a level of knowledge not held by the average passenger...but it achieves all that you described without acting what I would consider to be belligerent.
(I would also note that there are circumstances where one is advised to refuse an order/request so the cops cannot claim that you waived your rights. Corrigan v District of Columbia comes to mind.)
"I am sorry but I am not leaving. I paid for this seat and I was admitted to the plane with a seat assignment. A 24 hour delay is unacceptable to me for (insert reasoning). I understand you will have to have me physically removed from the plane and if that's what you have to do, that's what you have to do. I know you're in an impossible position and I want to assure you that I don't hold you personally responsible for what you have to do. However if you do, I will have to hold United responsible for failing to uphold their contract with me. I have contacted/am contacting my lawyer."
Granted, this would arguably require the patience or endurance of a saint alongside a level of knowledge not held by the average passenger...but it achieves all that you described without acting what I would consider to be belligerent.
(I would also note that there are circumstances where one is advised to refuse an order/request so the cops cannot claim that you waived your rights. Corrigan v District of Columbia comes to mind.)
Apr 13, 2017, 5:20 pm
#5121
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,402
A delay or cancellation would affect far more people, some potentially worse than these four. It was GOOD customer service to bump the passengers. We can argue over compensation for the bumped four, but it cannot be denied that the bump itself was a positive customer service move.
And if neither was an option and if - by your logic - customer care was of utmost importance, then they could've thrown money at four people to convince them of giving up their seats. And given that one passenger was willing to give it up for UA$1,600, I doubt that it would've cost a fortune to convince 3 other passengers.
Say 2,000$/seat would've done the job. 8,000$ to keep 4 passengers + all the passengers that won't be affected by subsequent delays happy is very good value. I would even go as far as saying that UA wouldn't have lost a single dollar if their overbooking practice works out for them in 90/100 cases and that they have to give out funny money in 9 cases and larger cash compensation in 1 case out of 100.
And even if I'm repeating myself: The fact that nobody wanted to disembark involuntarily in the case of UA3411 goes to show how happy these customers were.
Apr 13, 2017, 5:23 pm
#5122
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 350
But also forcing a Rosa Parks over an airline seat isn't worth it either. The battle was already lost when LE was called. If a situation is going to be forced to be physical, there's no guarantee that it's going to come out ok. Even if all the LEOs were just trying to get him out of his seat and move him, it's not hard to see how the cramped space could cause problems and how an arm flying because one's falling could be interpreted as a punch or something and blow up from there. How many times have we been knocked around and had stuff fall on us just trying to get out of a plane? And then try to physically remove someone on top of that? On an RJ? That's just a disaster waiting to happen.
I don't think there'd be many cops who get their thrills out of beating up a little old man - especially in front of witnesses.
We could "UA shoulda ... Dao shoulda ..." all day. The fact of the matter is the situation unfolded the way it did. UA never should have IDB'ed people, but they did. 3 others got off the flight, and Dao didn't. Right or wrong, they each made their choices after that. There were plenty of exit points where something else could have been done instead, but no one chose those. Each upped the ante instead. They all bear responsibility for their choices that day - and no one was innocent.
I don't think there'd be many cops who get their thrills out of beating up a little old man - especially in front of witnesses.
We could "UA shoulda ... Dao shoulda ..." all day. The fact of the matter is the situation unfolded the way it did. UA never should have IDB'ed people, but they did. 3 others got off the flight, and Dao didn't. Right or wrong, they each made their choices after that. There were plenty of exit points where something else could have been done instead, but no one chose those. Each upped the ante instead. They all bear responsibility for their choices that day - and no one was innocent.
Apr 13, 2017, 5:23 pm
#5123
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nawthun Virginia
Programs: Air: UA (Gold), AA, WN, DL; Hotel: Hilton (Diamond), plus all the rest
Posts: 135
This is not true. Rule 21 has 10 subsections, section "H. Safety" is only one of them.
I think United was out of line. However, some have said that there is a federal regulation about "Must Fly" or "Positive Space" crew tickets. If it's true (and I don't know if it's true or not, I haven't found a relevant DOT or other federal regulation), but IF it's true, then United can claim that they were removing him under Rule 21.B.
I think United was out of line. However, some have said that there is a federal regulation about "Must Fly" or "Positive Space" crew tickets. If it's true (and I don't know if it's true or not, I haven't found a relevant DOT or other federal regulation), but IF it's true, then United can claim that they were removing him under Rule 21.B.
Apr 13, 2017, 5:23 pm
#5124
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
Here is the statement from United Airlines' pilots in its entirety:
"As the story of United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic Airline, continues to virally circulate in the news and on social media, your United Master Executive Council (MEC) has intentionally withheld judgment because of the rapid pace at which information, both accurate and inaccurate, has been released and manipulated.
The safety and well-being of our passengers is the highest priority for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter. United pilots are infuriated by this event. This occurred on one of our contracted Express carriers, separately owned and operated by Republic Airline, and was ultimately caused by the grossly inappropriate response by the Chicago Department of Aviation.
It is important to review these baseline facts:
1. This violent incident should never have happened and was a result of gross excessive force by Chicago Department of Aviation personnel.
2. No United employees were involved in the physical altercation.
3. Social media ire should properly be directed at the Chicago Aviation Department.
4. This occurred on an Express flight operated by Republic Airline, as such, the flight crew and cabin crew of Flight 3411 are employees of Republic Airline, not United Airlines.
5. United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz has apologized for United Airlines, the actions of the Chicago Department of Aviation, and the actions of our Express partner, Republic Airline.
On April 9, 2017, United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic, was preparing to depart Chicago O’Hare (ORD) to Louisville (SDF). Republic Airline made the decision to assign four of their crewmembers to deadhead on Flight 3411 within minutes of the scheduled departure. Although four passengers would have to be removed from this flight to accommodate the Republic crew, the goal was to get the other 70 passengers on their way to SDF and ensure a flight crew needed the next day would also be in place. By all reports, the Republic flight crew was courteous and calm throughout the event, and three passengers left the flight voluntarily for compensation. After repeatedly asking the fourth passenger to give up his seat to no avail, the gate agent requested the assistance of law enforcement.
For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger.
Members of local airport law enforcement are normally important security partners who assist aircrews in ensuring the safety of everyone on the airplane. This event was an anomaly and is not how United or the police are expected to treat passengers when there is no security threat.
United pilots have always been the true leaders of this company, and our fellow employees count on us to continue to do what we do best—deliver a world class product and safely transport our passengers around the world. We cannot let this huge distraction affect our ability to do our jobs. We have successfully flown through more turbulent times, and we will weather this storm as well.
Ultimately, United must be measured by more than this one incident on a single United Express flight; this airline is comprised of more than 82,000 employees, including over 12,500 pilots, working every day to safely fly around the globe. For 91 years, United has earned the trust of millions of passengers, and we will continue earning their trust, despite the incident on this United Express flight. The United Airlines MEC is confident that the steps we are taking as a company will ensure this type of inexcusable event never happens again."
"As the story of United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic Airline, continues to virally circulate in the news and on social media, your United Master Executive Council (MEC) has intentionally withheld judgment because of the rapid pace at which information, both accurate and inaccurate, has been released and manipulated.
The safety and well-being of our passengers is the highest priority for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter. United pilots are infuriated by this event. This occurred on one of our contracted Express carriers, separately owned and operated by Republic Airline, and was ultimately caused by the grossly inappropriate response by the Chicago Department of Aviation.
It is important to review these baseline facts:
1. This violent incident should never have happened and was a result of gross excessive force by Chicago Department of Aviation personnel.
2. No United employees were involved in the physical altercation.
3. Social media ire should properly be directed at the Chicago Aviation Department.
4. This occurred on an Express flight operated by Republic Airline, as such, the flight crew and cabin crew of Flight 3411 are employees of Republic Airline, not United Airlines.
5. United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz has apologized for United Airlines, the actions of the Chicago Department of Aviation, and the actions of our Express partner, Republic Airline.
On April 9, 2017, United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic, was preparing to depart Chicago O’Hare (ORD) to Louisville (SDF). Republic Airline made the decision to assign four of their crewmembers to deadhead on Flight 3411 within minutes of the scheduled departure. Although four passengers would have to be removed from this flight to accommodate the Republic crew, the goal was to get the other 70 passengers on their way to SDF and ensure a flight crew needed the next day would also be in place. By all reports, the Republic flight crew was courteous and calm throughout the event, and three passengers left the flight voluntarily for compensation. After repeatedly asking the fourth passenger to give up his seat to no avail, the gate agent requested the assistance of law enforcement.
For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger.
Members of local airport law enforcement are normally important security partners who assist aircrews in ensuring the safety of everyone on the airplane. This event was an anomaly and is not how United or the police are expected to treat passengers when there is no security threat.
United pilots have always been the true leaders of this company, and our fellow employees count on us to continue to do what we do best—deliver a world class product and safely transport our passengers around the world. We cannot let this huge distraction affect our ability to do our jobs. We have successfully flown through more turbulent times, and we will weather this storm as well.
Ultimately, United must be measured by more than this one incident on a single United Express flight; this airline is comprised of more than 82,000 employees, including over 12,500 pilots, working every day to safely fly around the globe. For 91 years, United has earned the trust of millions of passengers, and we will continue earning their trust, despite the incident on this United Express flight. The United Airlines MEC is confident that the steps we are taking as a company will ensure this type of inexcusable event never happens again."
Apr 13, 2017, 5:23 pm
#5125
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,401
Battle lost? Sure. But war won. Not only for the passenger, but for the rest of us as well.
I was involved in a weather related delay in SDF several years ago. The weather was out of UA's control, but their handling of the delay was not. The handling by the gate agent was atrocious... she called the police and three officers bullied passengers into submission. Passengers were advised they couldn't even ask for flight information or they would be removed.
Let's hope no more of that rubbish in the future either.
I was involved in a weather related delay in SDF several years ago. The weather was out of UA's control, but their handling of the delay was not. The handling by the gate agent was atrocious... she called the police and three officers bullied passengers into submission. Passengers were advised they couldn't even ask for flight information or they would be removed.
Let's hope no more of that rubbish in the future either.
Apr 13, 2017, 5:24 pm
#5126
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2006
Location: DTW, but drive to/from YYZ/ORD
Programs: Chase Ultimate Rewards 2MM, Diner Club points
Posts: 31,895
Apr 13, 2017, 5:25 pm
#5127
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: LHR, HKG
Programs: gate lice
Posts: 315
Extortion?
Many FTers here have suggested a reasonable solution here: make IDB hurt for UA so that this never happens again.
IDB should hurt the airline. A pax who buys a ticket has a logical expectation to fly on the plane in the fare class they paid for. If an airline is unable to fulfill that expectation because they sold the same seat to two people, then they should be forced via "auction" to offer reasonable VDB.
Common sense and customer service is not extortion. Hold your airlines to a higher standard, whether that's through boycotts or conversations with your elected officials.
Many FTers here have suggested a reasonable solution here: make IDB hurt for UA so that this never happens again.
IDB should hurt the airline. A pax who buys a ticket has a logical expectation to fly on the plane in the fare class they paid for. If an airline is unable to fulfill that expectation because they sold the same seat to two people, then they should be forced via "auction" to offer reasonable VDB.
Common sense and customer service is not extortion. Hold your airlines to a higher standard, whether that's through boycotts or conversations with your elected officials.
Apr 13, 2017, 5:26 pm
#5128
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,638
And breaking news .. the United pilots union is throwing Republic and the aviation police under the bus. Statement reads in part ..
"As the story of United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic Airline, continues to virally circulate in the news and on social media, your United Master Executive Council (MEC) has intentionally withheld judgment because of the rapid pace at which information, both accurate and inaccurate, has been released and manipulated.
The safety and well-being of our passengers is the highest priority for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter. United pilots are infuriated by this event. This occurred on one of our contracted Express carriers, separately owned and operated by Republic Airline, and was ultimately caused by the grossly inappropriate response by the Chicago Department of Aviation. "
"As the story of United Express Flight 3411, operated by Republic Airline, continues to virally circulate in the news and on social media, your United Master Executive Council (MEC) has intentionally withheld judgment because of the rapid pace at which information, both accurate and inaccurate, has been released and manipulated.
The safety and well-being of our passengers is the highest priority for United pilots, and this should not have escalated into a violent encounter. United pilots are infuriated by this event. This occurred on one of our contracted Express carriers, separately owned and operated by Republic Airline, and was ultimately caused by the grossly inappropriate response by the Chicago Department of Aviation. "
That doesn't relieve Republic of any responsibility either...just makes UA responsible.
Apr 13, 2017, 5:26 pm
#5129
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,404
He just wanted to go home.
It's his consistent statement from beginning to end. And that's the narrative the jury would hear if this ever went to trial.
The suggestions in this thread that this was just a ploy to generate a lawsuit are sickening.
(Not referring to yours.)
It's his consistent statement from beginning to end. And that's the narrative the jury would hear if this ever went to trial.
The suggestions in this thread that this was just a ploy to generate a lawsuit are sickening.
(Not referring to yours.)
Apr 13, 2017, 5:27 pm
#5130
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
No as you ignore the fact that UA could have resorted to alternatives: There were other flights to book the crew on and other modes of transportation, that would've gotten the crew there in time.
And if neither was an option and if - by your logic - customer care was of utmost importance, then they could've thrown money at four people to convince them of giving up their seats. And given that one passenger was willing to give it up for UA$1,600, I doubt that it would've cost a fortune to convince 3 other passengers.
Say 2,000$/seat would've done the job. 8,000$ to keep 4 passengers + all the passengers that won't be affected by subsequent delays happy is very good value. I would even go as far as saying that UA wouldn't have lost a single dollar if their overbooking practice works out for them in 90/100 cases and that they have to give out funny money in 9 cases and larger cash compensation in 1 case out of 100.
And even if I'm repeating myself: The fact that nobody wanted to disembark involuntarily in the case of UA3411 goes to show how happy these customers were.
And if neither was an option and if - by your logic - customer care was of utmost importance, then they could've thrown money at four people to convince them of giving up their seats. And given that one passenger was willing to give it up for UA$1,600, I doubt that it would've cost a fortune to convince 3 other passengers.
Say 2,000$/seat would've done the job. 8,000$ to keep 4 passengers + all the passengers that won't be affected by subsequent delays happy is very good value. I would even go as far as saying that UA wouldn't have lost a single dollar if their overbooking practice works out for them in 90/100 cases and that they have to give out funny money in 9 cases and larger cash compensation in 1 case out of 100.
And even if I'm repeating myself: The fact that nobody wanted to disembark involuntarily in the case of UA3411 goes to show how happy these customers were.
$2,000 a seat? I've never ever heard of a VDB this high, and that would create an incentive for the airline to cancel a flight instead. We don't want that outcome either.
