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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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 10, 2017, 10:16 pm
  #1741  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by PrivatePilot
Actually I can see a lawyer argue that the IBD rules don't apply here for two reasons:

1. The flight wasn't oversold. UA tried to accommodate 4 non reva which isn't included as part of the IDB rules.

2. The moment UA allowed the Pax to board, the IDB rules don't apply anymore and Ua didn't have a legit reason to remove him from the flight afterwards.

So I can see UA having to pay and arm and a leg for this one. Should have just offered $1000, $2000, $3000 or whatever amount to resolve this once they saw this was headed in this direction.
The flight was oversold. They had already been looking for 1 volunteer earlier in the boarding process before the 4 deadheads were assigned.
c2cflyer is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:17 pm
  #1742  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: New Orleans, AA EXP, DL PM, SPG PLT, HH Diamond
Posts: 3,750
If this turns out to be true, UA is in even bigger trouble..


Originally Posted by George Purcell
I believe this as well. I think this was a case of deadheading for employee convenience as is so common at UA.
aceflyer2 is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:18 pm
  #1743  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 575
Originally Posted by jbb
You deplane the entire aircraft and then you talk the passenger off- using words.
That doesn't really solve the problem if the passenger refuses to deplane when you ask him using words
flyerbaby19 is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:18 pm
  #1744  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: MNL
Programs: CX MPO DM, Le Club Accor Platinum, World of Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 2,284
Can United stop using overbooked? Clearly it was not oversold as all passengers had their seats. Somewhere along the way UA/UAX ops made a boo boo, and they should just admit it.
FlyPointyEnd is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:19 pm
  #1745  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: New Orleans, AA EXP, DL PM, SPG PLT, HH Diamond
Posts: 3,750
Let alone the passengers onboard who suffered emotional trauma from witnessing such horror. There will likely be multiple lawsuits.


Originally Posted by PrivatePilot
Actually I can see a lawyer argue that the IBD rules don't apply here for two reasons:

1. The flight wasn't oversold. UA tried to accommodate 4 non revs which isn't included as part of the IDB rules.

2. The moment UA allowed the Pax to board, the IDB rules don't apply anymore and Ua didn't have a legit reason to remove him from the flight afterwards.

So I can see UA having to pay and arm and a leg for this one. Should have just offered $1000, $2000, $3000 or whatever amount to resolve this once they saw this was headed in this direction.
aceflyer2 is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:20 pm
  #1746  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
Originally Posted by milepig
I predict this will never go to court. UA will quietly settle with a non-disclosure clause.
UA already went to court, just not the one presided by judge or jury.
It lost.
24left is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:20 pm
  #1747  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: AA ex-EXP, 2MM (ex DL, ex TWA)
Posts: 1,432
Originally Posted by George Purcell
I believe this as well. I think this was a case of deadheading for employee convenience as is so common at UA.
Bingo! We have a winner!
Wexflyer is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:21 pm
  #1748  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brunei
Programs: Enrich Sapphire. Kris Flyer Silver.Le Club Accorhotels,Starwood.
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by FlyPointyEnd
Can United stop using overbooked? Clearly it was not oversold as all passengers had their seats. Somewhere along the way UA/UAX ops made a boo boo, and they should just admit it.
Think they were overbooked +1 and managed to get someone to stand down.

But if they already knew the flight was full and suddenly had 4 staff turn up needing to take this particular flight, I put this down to very very poor operational planning, given the passengers had already boarded.
wolf72 is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:21 pm
  #1749  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Austin, TX
Programs: IHG Spire Elite, Marriott Titanium, AA Plat, WN A-List Preferred
Posts: 267
Originally Posted by ND Sol
For example, everyone is loaded and additional calculations are made to find that the take-off weight now exceeds the runway length parameters so a few passengers need to be removed.
That scenario would reflect a need to remove a passenger or cargo. In this case there was no actual need to remove anyone...United preferred to remove them purely for convenience.
maracle is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:23 pm
  #1750  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: New Orleans, AA EXP, DL PM, SPG PLT, HH Diamond
Posts: 3,750
I predict this will be studied in many college business classes as an example of how NOT to conduct business for many years..
aceflyer2 is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:23 pm
  #1751  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Singapore
Posts: 324
Question: is this overbooking thing an airline country-based policy (or just domestic vs international policy)?

Not that I'm ever thinking of flying to the US these days (what with TSA and their ways), but tickets out of SIN are way cheaper on UA than on SQ. This entire incident is just so messed up, and I think I'd rather suffer the emptiness in my pocket than brute force.
Ryvyan is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:24 pm
  #1752  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brunei
Programs: Enrich Sapphire. Kris Flyer Silver.Le Club Accorhotels,Starwood.
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by flyerbaby19
That doesn't really solve the problem if the passenger refuses to deplane when you ask him using words
Why should the passenger deplane when he has already boarded and has not done anything wrong to warrant being told he can't fly?

Where do you draw the line on operational neccessity and plain stupidity on the part of flight operations and the ground staff?

You can't do this to people. Especially paying passengers. If you need the 4 seats, stop the passengers at check in and advise the last 4 passengers in economy of the situation and that you will put them on the next available flight and you will compensate them accordingly.

To let them check in, board and be seated only to ask them to leave is insane and unethical.
wolf72 is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:24 pm
  #1753  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards (SE), Virgin America Elevate, Hyatt Gold Passport (Platinum), VIA Preference
Posts: 3,134
I may be beating either a United passenger or a dead horse with this (not sure which), but:

(1) Whether the offer maxed out at $800 or $1000* (and whether it was a voucher or cash), the fact that they didn't go to $1350 (the DOT-mandated level) plus the other stuff is a bad start on this. It's quite possible that they would've found pax at $1350 cash who wouldn't bite on an $800 voucher.

(2) Absent a safety issue (earlier I mentioned the possibility of weight issues on a smaller plane; for reference, I was on a DL flight DSM-MSP where pax had to move around to balance the load properly), it generally seems to be understood that once you're "scanned in" you're on the flight. Seeing this definition litigated would be fascinating (in the sense of watching a train plow into a truck stuck on a grade crossing being so). My gut says that there's a good chance a jury would not find in United's favor; where that would end up on appeal would be interesting...I could see the case law going anywhere from "the airline can do whatever it wants until it closes the door" to "once you're scanned in you are boarded unless the airline can show some sort of mistake". And of course, it's notable that this isn't a case of malfunctioning computers but the airline "confiscating" seats after boarding had begun.

(2b) As I mentioned earlier, there's a case for some form of negligence on United's part for letting it get this far. Moreover, per the CoC a lot of the language seems to only apply to lack-of-assigned-seat cases. I may just be new to this but I've never heard of a situation where a passenger was IDBed beyond the gate.


(3) Something worth mulling, and indeed often forgotten in this shuffle, is the fact that this was a United Express flight (as far as I can tell it was a Republic Airlines flight). If not for UA's repeated PR issues, if I were Munoz I'd be very hastily throwing Republic under the bus. Hell, if I were Munoz I'd actually be looking at whether I could sue Republic for the resulting damage to the United brand...ok, you can all stop laughing now.

No, really.

Please.

Ok, ok, United doesn't seem to have much of a brand left. Maybe I should have said "trademark". Or something like that.


*Munoz' email says there was a top offer of $1000 but most other sources say $800. Neither case mentions cash vs voucher.
GrayAnderson is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:24 pm
  #1754  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by FlyPointyEnd
Can United stop using overbooked? Clearly it was not oversold as all passengers had their seats. Somewhere along the way UA/UAX ops made a boo boo, and they should just admit it.
From the little tidbits of facts we have it is just as likely that the crew that was originally scheduled for SDF was stuck somewhere else on a delayed or cancelled flight (Lets just say DEN for sake of argument) and wasn't going to arrive at SDF. UA/UAX Ops then had to quickly respond to get an alternate crew to SDF. They identified they still had one inbound flight - the flight from ORD to SDF. They immediately got on the phone, turned the crew around from another flight that had just landed at ORD and they made it in time for the flight.

You are suggesting that UA/UAX Ops blew it when it is equally as likely that in fact UA/UAX Ops successfully navigated a potential crisis by identifying not only a replacement crew but a way to get them where they needed to go in short turnaround.

Of course, the unexpected passenger refusing an IDB could never have been predicted. but up until that point, it would have been considered a win for UA/UAX ops as they successfully resolved an issue that could have caused major delays or cancellations of a 75 passenger flight.


I don't know if that was the case any more than you know the exact opposite was the case. But it does seem more and more like this type of scenario was what happened - and everything that UA Gate Agents and Flight Crew did as a result is 100% in line with this.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 10, 2017 at 10:30 pm Reason: Discuss the issues, not the poster
c2cflyer is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:25 pm
  #1755  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton ♦ , Hyatt Carbonado, Wyndham ♦, Marriott PE, "Stinking Bum" elsewhere.
Posts: 5,001
Originally Posted by maracle
That scenario would reflect a need to remove a passenger or cargo. In this case there was no actual need to remove anyone...United preferred to remove them purely for convenience.
You use the word "convenience", UA will say "operational necessity".
Since all airlines do this, minus the dragging the pax off the plane most of the time, I wonder what the rules for de-boarding someone for operational necessity, e.g. a broken seat, are? For instance, I witnessed some passengers forced off once because the air masks accidentally deployed over their seats and couldn't be reset.
zombietooth 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.