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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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 20, 2017, 12:24 am
  #6331  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EAU
Programs: UA 1K, CO Plat, NW Plat, Marriott Premiere Plat, SPG Plat, Priority Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 4,712
Originally Posted by Fiordland
Then have someone basically go to him and say what amounts to: our software has decided that based on your frequent flyer status, check in time, fare your one of the four least import passengers on the flights so you should be inconvenienced for another 24 Hours to permit our staff to have your seat get out now or we will arrest you so get out.
My bet is he had originally volunteered for the next flight, when the GA came back with his rebooking info, he decided he didn't want to wait so long, declined to follow through, and with him already offloaded in the system and seats allocated to other flyers, they just IDB'd him rather than IDB someone else and have to swap all the tickets around again.
raehl311 is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2017, 2:45 am
  #6332  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,686
Originally Posted by Fiordland
Some reports are that the passenger was making a connection and had been traveling for 20+ hours. Add age and fatigue to the mix and I can see how he is not going to be in a good mood.

Then have someone basically go to him and say what amounts to: our software has decided that based on your frequent flyer status, check in time, fare your one of the four least import passengers on the flights so you should be inconvenienced for another 24 Hours to permit our staff to have your seat get out now or we will arrest you so get out.
Didn't he originate in LAX? The "I've been traveling for 24 hours" IMHO was just an excuse to try to pressure them to violate the established policy and to deflect removal to any other person. Either that, or that if he had taken the bump, he WOULD have been traveling for 24 hours as the protection was not until the next day, and his wording was poor (although that same thing as well would apply to any other person as the next confirm-able flight was the next day.) It was similar to the "I am a physician" statement, an attempt to say someone else, anyone else is less deserving than me to be removed, pick them. No one has a 24 hour journey time from their vacation in CA via this routing LAX-ORD-SDF without building a stopover in or significant irrops. People (on this thread) had speculated that he connected in from Asia, to get to that 24 hours, but from the facts that have been presented, he did not, he originated in LAX and any other flights added to increase his journey time are a rewriting of history rationalization to increase the perceived insult to the doctor.

Last edited by fastair; Apr 20, 2017 at 3:44 am
fastair is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2017, 3:35 am
  #6333  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,581
The names of the gate agent and the persons involved with the physical removal of the passenger are going to become publicly available sooner or later. It is almost certain.
halls120 is online now  
Old Apr 20, 2017, 3:41 am
  #6334  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by tom911
Well, in the particular incident we're discussing today, it's not clear that the agent deserves any discipline at all and may have been following published UA policy. Hard to fire someone who is following company policy and has the public support of the CEO. I would hope the same would hold for UA employees in Asia.
It was reported (and discussed in this thread) that the GA falsely wrote that Dr Dao was belligerent. Unless this had been debunked, that would suggest the agent did not follow published policy.
richarddd is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2017, 3:43 am
  #6335  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,433
Originally Posted by nitzer
I read someone offered $1600 cash for their seat. She laughed in their face.
I also heard one of the passengers said the cops were laughing at him as they dragged him down the aisle. That will come out in the trial.
Was it the GA or her manager who laughed?
richarddd is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2017, 4:18 am
  #6336  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: K+K
Programs: *G
Posts: 4,866
Originally Posted by tom911
I'm just not ready to throw the gate agent under the bus based on your conclusion that the agent lied.

Can you expand on how you know the agent falsified her remarks? Have you seen the police report and did it address whether an officer was struck or not? Have you seen any statements from the officers involved addressing what transpired and whether they say they were struck? Until all that information is released, you really can't conclude that the agent has typed up false info and needs to be disciplined.

so all the public has seen so far, is the police statement protection themselves against his injury -- that he had "fell" in the skirmish.

if he attempted to strike or struck the officer, unquestionably that piece of information would have been leaked out.
deniah is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2017, 4:23 am
  #6337  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: AA Advantage
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by richarddd
Was it the GA or her manager who laughed?
What I read it was the GA.
nitzer is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2017, 4:54 am
  #6338  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by Enhancements
I'll skirt the whole evil discussion part but this is exactly why airlines are terrible in the US- there's no accountability in the end. Most UA loyalists in this (and the other fallout) thread are secretly wishing for this to just blow over without any real, systematic change- and if the passengers think that way I wouldn't be surprised that employees and corporate are banking on that too.

And yes you'd be fired in Asia for not doing your job well- what a novel concept these days...
While there is a lot of justifiable criticism of UA's culture, the problem here was not "lack of accountability" by the GA. We know - because Oscar has told us - that the GA was following procedure. Her tone/words can be attacked, but she followed procedure (a) go to the limit of authority ($800), then (b) IDB people, then (c) call the cops if they refuse. We also know that she followed procedure since a supervisor was called and was involved when Dao was beaten. We also know she (and her supervisor) were following procedure since that procedure has now been changed. ^

Had the GA not followed procedure, there is no doubt that United would have been all over that angle. The difference between the US and Asia, is that when the agent was following procedure, the company does not blame them, no doubt in large parts of the world, the GA would have been the scapegoat dispite having followed procedure.



Originally Posted by tom911
Well, in the particular incident we're discussing today, it's not clear that the agent deserves any discipline at all and may have been following published UA policy.
I would go further, there is NO evidence anywhere that the GA (and manager who was also involved) did not follow procedure. Either the GA or managers' tone was bad per reports, but under the culture that Jeff created in 2012, they were forced to follow procedure or get written up. The issue was not NOT following procedure, it was United giving too little discretion to agents to fix problems. As Ascar said in an interview, this would have not happened had UA's agents been allowed to use common sense.

Originally Posted by wolf72
For better or for worse, the unions are at times, the big big problem.
Except, this is NOT a Union problem. When an employee follows procedure, and then involves a manager, and the policy blows up in the Company's face with a PR disaster, the line employee nor their Union are not at fault.

I am NOT a fan of the current version of UA, nor its culture as any long term reader of this board can attest. But I think it is important to stay focused on the facts of this case, not try to fit it into a square hole in which it does not fit of "unions" or "GAs who violate procedures."


Originally Posted by raehl311
My bet is he had originally volunteered for the next flight, when the GA came back with his rebooking info, he decided he didn't want to wait so long, declined to follow through, and with him already offloaded in the system and seats allocated to other flyers, they just IDB'd him rather than IDB someone else and have to swap all the tickets around again.
There is no evidence whatsoever of this. I don't think it helps the discussion to just make up speculation, particularly when, if it were true United would have certainly released these details. United has put out the best story it could, and it does not help anyone to make up things that if they had occurred, United certainly would have told us about.

Originally Posted by fastair
Didn't he originate in LAX?
I think UA said he boarded in LAX and was connecting in ORD. I have heard nothing about what travel he had done or the details of his routing that day (for example, was an earlier flight delayed). My guess is that United does not feel it can release the entire story w/o his consent, which is wise on their part.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 20, 2017 at 10:18 am Reason: deleted response to deleted post; discuss the issues, not the posters
spin88 is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2017, 5:14 am
  #6339  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by HoyaSFOIAD
Did you mean to quote the poster I was quoting? You and I are in total agreement. I think the GA was just following procedure and that releasing their name is lunacy.
I wanted to show my endorsement of what you said, and add some of the reasoning behind my viewpoint.
Carl Johnson is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2017, 5:14 am
  #6340  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 575
Originally Posted by spin88
I would go further, there is NO evidence anywhere that the GA (and manager who was also involved) did not follow procedure. Either the GA or managers' tone was bad per reports, but under the culture that Jeff created in 2012, they were forced to follow procedure or get written up. The issue was not NOT following procedure, it was United giving too little discretion to agents to fix problems. As Ascar said in an interview, this would have not happened had UA's agents been allowed to use common sense.
I don't agree with this statement at all. Most people say if the GA had used common sense, they would:
Not let the crew on since they were so late (so then inconvenience an entire plane load or more of people who can't fly the next day)
Picked someone else because he was a Doctor (are we really going to evaluate each individual situation and whoever is deemed least important by some arbitrary metric loses?)
Picked someone else because he wouldn't leave (so now we set the precedent that if you don't want to follow the rules, just resist and you win)
Cancelled the flight (ya, that makes a lot of sense)
Not called the cops/LEO (set the precedent that if you put up a fight, you will win)

This still comes down to the good doctor resisted a LEO, told them if they wanted him off they would have to drag him out, and that's exactly what happened.
flyerbaby19 is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2017, 5:34 am
  #6341  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by flyerbaby19
I don't agree with this statement at all. Most people say if the GA had used common sense, they would:
Not let the crew on since they were so late (so then inconvenience an entire plane load or more of people who can't fly the next day)
Picked someone else because he was a Doctor (are we really going to evaluate each individual situation and whoever is deemed least important by some arbitrary metric loses?)
Picked someone else because he wouldn't leave (so now we set the precedent that if you don't want to follow the rules, just resist and you win)
Cancelled the flight (ya, that makes a lot of sense)
Not called the cops/LEO (set the precedent that if you put up a fight, you will win)

This still comes down to the good doctor resisted a LEO, told them if they wanted him off they would have to drag him out, and that's exactly what happened.
Welcome to FT. The problem with your view is that "common sense" line was Oscar Muniz's - in his third go at explaining what happened.

"common sense" is realizing that (1) everyone had boarded, (2) an offer or $800 and a flight Monday afternoon (nearly 24 hours later) was not going to cut it, and that given it was not an IBD situation, but United taking a seat at the last minute for its own convenience, was not going to cut it.

Common sense was saying "ok, how about $1200" or checking the AA flight for space, or offering $800 and a flight to a city near Louisville and to pay for a car.

It is beyond dispute that what United did violated (a) its own contract with Dao, and (b) was not legally an IDB, so United is not protected by the federal regulations. United was in the wrong here. In certain totalitarian countries, one has no rights, and certainly some people in the US think we ought to have no rights, and must do what major corporations (backed by the police) demand of us, whether it is right or wrong. Unfortunately, for United, applying a totalitarian mindset to its business, and relying upon Law Enforcement to enforce its summary orders to its customers is going to be, and is, very costly in the social media age.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 20, 2017 at 10:22 am Reason: Discuss the issues, not the poster
spin88 is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2017, 5:50 am
  #6342  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,581
Originally Posted by spin88
In certain totalitarian countries, one has no rights, and certainly some people in the US think we ought to have no rights, and must do what major corporations (backed by the police) demand of us, whether it is right or wrong. Unfortunately, for United, applying a totalitarian mindset to its business, and relying upon Law Enforcement to enforce its summary orders to its customers is going to be, and is, very costly in the social media age.
Whether you think UA was in the right or the wrong, this is the bottom line. UA's legal fault at this point is almost irrelevant, except to the lawyers on both sides who are going to fight this out. UA has lost the moral high ground, and is going to pay dearly for imposing unreasonable rules they require their employees to work under.
halls120 is online now  
Old Apr 20, 2017, 6:18 am
  #6343  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
Originally Posted by spin88
In totalitarian countries, one has no rights, and certainly some people in the US think we ought to have no rights, and must do what major corporations (backed by the police) demand of us.
Eyes opened and eyebrows raised, these past ten days, by how many Americans deeply favor blind-and-dumb submission / compliance to whatever authority -- state or private. I see this more on Facebook, and to some extent Reddit, than on FT.

There are a lot of keyboard authoritarians out there who blame Dr. Dao backwards and forwards because he did not instantly submit, whether the law / CofC / etc. were on his side or not.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2017, 6:25 am
  #6344  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by richarddd
It was reported (and discussed in this thread) that the GA falsely wrote that Dr Dao was belligerent. Unless this had been debunked, that would suggest the agent did not follow published policy.
There is no confirmation of this. Sources are conflicting.

Some pax said he was fine. We have another, seated across the aisle and doing the video who said he became 'angry' and said something about being Asian to the United agent.

One of many unknowns is whether UA internal policy required a threat to safety for a removal. It could simply be noncompliant with UA employee instructions - crew or not - and possibly at odds with the contract of carriage interpretation some have.

Belligerent has many synonyms in Webster's, including argumentative, feisty, and contentious - all of which were on display in the later discussion video - well after the shock of the initial "we're taking you off" news arrived.

Another unknown. Remember, we have zero footage of when the agent made the offers and initially told him he'd be IDBed, which could have been when he was most surprised and upset.

So again, we may be extrapolating personal experiences onto something that could very well be a policy system rather than individual behavior issue.

Last edited by cerealmarketer; Apr 20, 2017 at 6:32 am
cerealmarketer is offline  
Old Apr 20, 2017, 6:33 am
  #6345  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,404
Originally Posted by flyerbaby19
I don't agree with this statement at all. Most people say if the GA had used common sense, they would:
Not let the crew on since they were so late (so then inconvenience an entire plane load or more of people who can't fly the next day)
Picked someone else because he was a Doctor (are we really going to evaluate each individual situation and whoever is deemed least important by some arbitrary metric loses?)
Picked someone else because he wouldn't leave (so now we set the precedent that if you don't want to follow the rules, just resist and you win)
Cancelled the flight (ya, that makes a lot of sense)
Not called the cops/LEO (set the precedent that if you put up a fight, you will win)

This still comes down to the good doctor resisted a LEO, told them if they wanted him off they would have to drag him out, and that's exactly what happened.
Common sense would have been to increase the offer until four volunteers were found.

Common sense would have been for UA staff to know that this was not an IDB.

Common sense would have been for the pilot to show some leadership and try to resolve the situation before the "cops" were called.

Common sense would have been for the manager (especially assuming that it really was a UA manager and not just a supervisor) to try to resolve the situation instead of presumably ordering or allowing the GA to call the "cops."

And, finally, common sense is for all of us to recognize that the people who attacked Dr. Dao were not LEO or "Law Enforcement" (in the words of post #6344 by spin88) but rather just airport security guards who had been ordered months ago not to have the word POLICE on their "uniforms." There is a difference.
MSPeconomist 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.