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}

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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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}

Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:11 pm
  #5176  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,906
Originally Posted by desi
Please re-read the post and reconsider the basis of the argument.

Too many IFs.
Post seem to complain that one is unable to see any evidence that can remotely support the assumed propositions.
You said the right words. Too many ifs. As in too many ifs both ways.
Baze is online now  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:11 pm
  #5177  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BWI
Programs: AA Gold, HH Diamond, National Emerald Executive, TSA Disparager Gold
Posts: 15,180
Originally Posted by leungy18
Regardless of how the guy acted -- you can't deny that he's damaged UA far more than he ever could had he acquiesced to the GA's unreasonable demands.
And I'm not.

UA has a PR disaster on its hands and it's still shooting itself in the foot.
Superguy is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:13 pm
  #5178  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,402
Originally Posted by minnyfly
You clearly do not understand how airlines operate and how they have to comply with government rules and contractual rules regarding crew duties.
That does not discharge UA from laws, regulations and contractual terms that govern their relations with customers. And I believe that it was amply explained, when and how UA failed to perform the contracts they drafted.

Originally Posted by minnyfly
There was no other alternative for the Republic operations department to maintain the operations of the flight(s) needed by the deadheading crew. Either they got on this flight, or there would be disruptions the next day.
Yes there was and that too has been amply explained over the last 5,000 posts. And it hasn't been proven that the other flights (including connections) were all fully booked.

Originally Posted by minnyfly
$2,000 a seat? I've never ever heard of a VDB this high, and that would create an incentive for the airline to cancel a flight instead. We don't want that outcome either.
Extraordinary circumstances warrant extraordinary solutions. Other airlines gladly pay 1,300$ for IDB situations that are out of their control (e.g. distributions due to weather). If having no delay on subsequent flights is so important to UA, why not pay 700$ over the limit. Barely affects the bottom line and it's cheaper than any marketing operation.

If those 8,000$ would've kept 1,004 people down the line happy and not delayed, that works out at <8$ per person. Great investment if you ask me. The decision that was taken delayed the flight in question and subsequent flights. Moreover, a passenger was injured and the brand value goes down the drain. Add to that a potential multi-million settlement and the cost of reimbursing every single passenger of UA3411. But you tell me, that UA took the right decision...
WorldLux is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:14 pm
  #5179  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,423
Originally Posted by minnyfly
You clearly do not understand how airlines operate and how they have to comply with government rules and contractual rules regarding crew duties. There was no other alternative for the Republic operations department to maintain the operations of the flight(s) needed by the deadheading crew. Either they got on this flight, or there would be disruptions the next day.

$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.
Even assuming that Republic had no other way of complying with crew duty rules than putting the crew on this flight (which is far from clear), that does not excuse its actions. For example, they could have planned better or they could have offered more more to passengers.

By your own argument, Republic could not cancel this flight, so offering what would otherwise be a very high amount would seem a reasonable course in this specific instance, even if it might not be in the usual case.

Their own poor planning does not justify them breaching the CoC.

How did they not figure out until the flight was boarded that they needed to move crew and that they had no other alternatives?

EDIT: I agree with worldlux's post a few back.
richarddd is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:16 pm
  #5180  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,203
Unhappy

Originally Posted by deskover54
Wrong. I think he did it intentionally because he had his lawyer on the phone and was trying to maximize his payout. Slipping and hitting his head was his lawyers icing on the cake.
Actually, he had bigger conspiracy in mind.
He did it so that it gives few people opportunity to make a fool of themseleves on FT forum.
desi is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:19 pm
  #5181  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,486
Originally Posted by pinniped
If United wanted to impose a stalemate and cancel the flight just to prove that nobody f**ks with the cartel and gets away with it, fine. (Or they could have, y'know, went back to the guy who already volunteered for $1600... )

But the rentacops should have turned to United and said "This isn't a security situation requiring force. You need to solve it yourselves."
Correct. This wasn't a public safety matter, it was a contract dispute.

Originally Posted by minnyfly
Which is "hindsight is 20/20"!
No, it's called United gambled, erring on the side of being cheap, and lost. Now they are going to pay millions through the nose because of the customer-unfriendly posture forced on the airline by their dear departed leader.

Originally Posted by GadgetFreak
Agreed. Part of the problem is airlines thinking they can use cops to enforce poor customer service decisons. So hopefully, as you say, it will make the industry more customer service oriented.
This. x1000.

Originally Posted by AK-business-traveler
Oh my. If you are arguing that this was "GOOD customer service," you're the one in denial of reality. IDB is never good customer service and finding an alternative solution - like perhaps spending a few more bucks to make this a VDB situation rather than having the guy dragged off the plane - is what GOOD customer service would have looked like.

But, you do demonstrate quite clearly the toxic culture and hostile attitude towards customers that we see on the part of so many UA employees these days. And that, I'd argue, is the true root of the problem here.
^ Nailed it.

Originally Posted by Kacee
Here's the quote:
A United spokesperson told CNN affiliate WBBM, "All customers on flight 3411 from Sunday, April 9 are receiving compensation for the cost of their tickets." In an email obtained by CNN, the airline told its passengers it was offering them $500 flight vouchers but only if they agreed not to sue the company.
This just keeps getting worse and worse.
I guess UA management has never heard of the concept that when you are in a hole, you should stop digging.
halls120 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:21 pm
  #5182  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 350
Originally Posted by Superguy
And thank you for making my point. I'm not saying the war's over by any means. Keep fighting and hold them accountable for that behavior. And if they don't make it right - well, vote with your wallet. I've left lots of airlines in the past for service issues and stupidity. I know I'm not the only one.

But in that moment with 3 LEOs and a nasty GA? Yeah, you're not going to win that battle no matter how right you are.
But he did win. He became famous and is going to be laughing at all of us all the way to the bank.
deskover54 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:23 pm
  #5183  
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
Another surreal similarity to our ransom case — except in this case you bribe your airborne captors to stay. Another way of putting it: the more money you’ve paid, the more likely you are to reach your final destination.
If I was getting IDB'ed that would seriously mess up a vacation, I think I'll just waive a fistful of a benjamins and ask for someone to take my place.
rufflesinc is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:25 pm
  #5184  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,401
As raised (many) pages ago - is anyone able to shed light on the legal basis of the comments by the UA captain's wife in respect of the 'must fly' provisions? Namely:

...this was a must fly, a positive space situation. In layman terms, it means that a crew must be flown to an airport to man a flight in order to avoid cancellation of said flight due to crew unavailability. This is a federal DOT regulation, not an airline one. The airlines are required to do so to avoid disruption of air traffic. In other words, if there are no willing volunteers and they need seats to get a crew somewhere to avoid disruption of aviation flow, they can, will, must by federal regulation bump people for the better good of the 1000’s. Why? Because one cancelled flight has a serious domino affect in the delicate, complicated world of connections and aviation law.
Is there in fact some law as stated? (full text here: https://thepilotwifelife.wordpress.c...hor/all4my3ks/)
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:27 pm
  #5185  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,203
Originally Posted by Ber2dca
What exactly would they sue United for anyway? A 2 hour delay in arriving in Louisville? Or being traumatized by having their bubble that the world is a kind and gentle place burst? Ninnies.
Take a pause and think. In our heavily litigated society, incident offeres plenty of basis to sue. Sucess is a different story.
desi is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:30 pm
  #5186  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Independent! But mostly BKK, BCN, SFO, PDX, SEA...
Programs: Lawl COVID
Posts: 1,060
Originally Posted by Passmethesickbag
"Happy Easter"?
Flyer friendly!
FiveMileFinal is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:31 pm
  #5187  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,486
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF
As raised (many) pages ago - is anyone able to shed light on the legal basis of the comments by the UA captain's wife in respect of the 'must fly' provisions?
Let's assume there is such a regulation. So what?

Is this UA pilot's wife offering a federal regulation as a defense to the lousy management by UA officials in carrying out the IDB and the inhumane way an elderly man was treated?

Talk about tone deaf - it isn't just Oscar who is afflicted.....
halls120 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:32 pm
  #5188  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SoCal (ONT), PVD/BOS, JAX, RSW
Programs: AA/US PlatPro & 1.05MM, DL Plat (challenge), UA dirt
Posts: 3,189
Originally Posted by rufflesinc
If I was getting IDB'ed that would seriously mess up a vacation, I think I'll just waive a fistful of a benjamins and ask for someone to take my place.
I actually had that happen to me last year. I was flying EWR-SNA and a guy was willing to pay me $1100 in cash so I could trade my F seat with his son (who was a teenager), who was in 26B. I refused on principle.

But, I have a friend of mine who has seen similar at DEN for the DEN-ASE and DEN-MTJ where once it is announced that the flight is weight restricted, passengers are trying to buy off other passengers. Unfortunately for her, those situations do not appear on DEN-CYS.
fgirard is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:33 pm
  #5189  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: YVR
Programs: Ice Cream Club, AC SE MM, Bonvoy Life Plat
Posts: 2,803
Originally Posted by WorldLux
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.
This was injurious to all pax on this flight, not specifically to Dr. Dao. United decided of two flights, this one would be appropriate and minimize risk of any IRROPs cascading to further issues. United decided to breach the contract of 4 pax on this flight. This is hardly amazing and should not be confounded with the events that transpired subsequently.
DrunkCargo is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 6:33 pm
  #5190  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by sw3
Of course it includes that as "other" means anything else not mentioned and the condition does not need to happen to the same flight, everything that can happen anywhere can be an "other". Same reason why on many contracts and terms of service there are words like: perpetual; at any time; worldwide; throughout the universe; by any means; including but not limited to; any technology known or yet to be discovered; all current and future heirs and successors living or yet to be born; etc.
That's complete nonsense. There was no event preventing the operation of the flight from Chicago.
George Purcell is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.