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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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, 11:23 pm
  #1861  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Programs: UA Gold MM, HHonors Gold, Hertz Five Star Gold, Marriott Gold, Avis First
Posts: 462
Originally Posted by c2cflyer
The world would be a much happier place if people were actually open and honest with each other and with the things they said, instead of every trying to dig their heels in and be as sensationalist as possible to try to emphasize the fact that they believe the person they are communicating with is wrong - even if they actually believe the same thing as you.
With that logic, you should stand up and agree that Oscar's statement is a problem and UA should own up to their mistake. If you see up thread, it seems that UA did not provide written document per DOT IDB guidelines. So let's start with UA's shortcomings before blaming the customer.
denuaflier is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 11:23 pm
  #1862  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Everywhere and Nowhere
Programs: DL GM
Posts: 515
Originally Posted by c2cflyer
But thats flawed logic.

You are looking at this situation knowing the outcome. The Gate Agents had absolutely zero reason to consider the factors you are considering in your assertion - and quite honestly future GA's won't consider them either. They will just go by the book as they do today because such an incident is unpredictable.

They were offering a VDB per the process they do day-in day out with no issue. They were offering a VDB 2x... 4x... 5x higher than most VDB's they offer on a day-in day-out basis.

There was no "thing" they were trying to avoid. What they were trying to do is follow their procedure and get 4 crew on the plane to avoid further delays/cancellations in the system.

And they did exactly that. They rolled the VDB up until the point that it was either time to close the flight or the financial value difference between the VDB and the IDB had converged.


There was no "thing" for them to 'avoid' There was just their jobs to do 100% as per the norm, which they did.
The more I read about this situation, the more I agree that the gate agents did exactly what they were supposed to do. It is sounding more and more like they did everything they possibly could within regulations and their company's guidance.

The issue is that that guidance is obviously completely flawed and backed by an equally dumb law that could probably use some updating. That, paired up with some overzealous rent-a-cops and a customer who might not have clearly understood what was happening and you get this disaster.

A lot of lessons to be learned here, but one big one is that every passenger who steps on an aircraft should be aware of their rights when it comes to VDB and IDB situations. I would like to see the denied boarding laws updated and including a provision that mandates a summary of the law be placed on a card in the seat back pocket where the safety card is and posted at the gate where the bag signs are as well as on the jet bridge. Of course airlines will have none of that because a smarter consumer costs them more money.
RumPatrol is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 11:24 pm
  #1863  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Programs: UA Gold MM, HHonors Gold, Hertz Five Star Gold, Marriott Gold, Avis First
Posts: 462
Originally Posted by SpinOn2
What do you think would happen if you were on private property of someone, police asked you to leave many times, and you simply refused to leave?
HOLD OFF - Not so fast. This was a private property that was "rented" by the passenger. He is not trespassing. He had a right to that seat.
denuaflier is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 11:24 pm
  #1864  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 24
What was United's legal right to violate their CoC and remove a paid passenger who has already boarded the plane? This isn't an IDB - this is a removal. Get back to me when you can locate that in the CoC - passengers who pay money have contractual rights. The cops should not have gotten involved - this was a civil issue.

Originally Posted by demkr
I support United on this and it's not even a close call. [Off topic text edited by Moderator] why is no one talking about the passenger's refusal to get off the plane and obey the orders of the crew? Is it your position that a passenger can act beligirent, scream like an animal, and not be removed from the plane?

Yes, offering higher compensation should've probably been done. But most passengers would cooperate when security/police is called - the man obviously behaved beligirently and was being defiant.

I wish people would take time to think of the context instead of siding with a social media outrage mob every time
looktowindward is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 11:24 pm
  #1865  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Programs: AA, DL Gold Med , UA, AS, WN, HHonors Silver, Marriott, IHG Rewards Club, Hertz Presidents Circle
Posts: 323
Originally Posted by GuyverII
United is getting crucified at the reddit thread. Completely opposite reaction from here, where many of you are backing the airline. Front page as well. Horrible, horrible optics for UA.

https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comm...booked_united/

Well, it could have been worse. The person being dragged off the plane could have been a young women wearing leggings.
Peter T. is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 11:24 pm
  #1866  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,036
Some of the posts remind me of the section towards the end of "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" ( I think it was there) when he describes the verbal gymnastics that priests in wealthy parishes in Dublin go through to explain that the words in the New Testament that said "it's easier for a rich man to pass through the eye of a needle than to enter Kingdom of Heaven" didn't really mean that.

All the discussions of CoC and such are academic in large part I think. People don't get stuff like that. They get videos of screaming people with blood on their face. If you don't believe me ask Stephan King.
GadgetFreak is online now  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 11:25 pm
  #1867  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by t_cliff
The old pax was knocked bloody unconscious and dragged out like dead meat. Excessive force for sure. I can't imagine that 3 of those cops could not physically carry a 69 yo pax. Cops ran amok at a minimum. Anybody buy CPD's description of that pax fell and hit the arm rest with injury like this? Most likely is the cops dropped / threw his head on the arm rest.
3 cops could certainly carry a 69 year old.

But he was seated in a narrow economy row. Only one cop could get in to attempt to get him out of the row.

Once in the aisle, again, physical dimensions permit only 2 people - one on either side - to assist in 'carrying' the passenger out.

I doubt the cop threw him on the arm rest as he had no leverage to do anything anyway - it was hard enough for him to just get at the passenger no less do anything 'controlled' and 'intentional' to him. He likely just had a poor grip to begin with, and lost grip on the pax as the struggle continued.

Doesn't make it any better, but again, why be so sensational about it? We don't know what happened, why don't we just discuss things we know about instead of assuming that everyone in the world is out to get us all the time.

Cops don't hate us. Corporations don't hate us. They just want whats best for them.

What was best for the company was to get its staff on in place of 4 rev pax's. What was best for the Cop was to resolve the situation he was given. They didn't do these things because they hate the average middle-class american. They just did what they did because in the instance of the moment, that was what they were tasked to do. Nothing more.
c2cflyer is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 11:26 pm
  #1868  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by BayAreaPilot
Definitely bad form for the gate agents to board passengers they may have to IDB, but the passenger should have gotten off the plane when asked. The FAA is not amused by passengers who fail to comply with crewmember instructions.
Its not an IDB if you board. There is a real question of whether the airline had a right to remove a passenger without cause. See Rules 21 and 25 of the CoC. Complying with crewmember instructions is not absolute - for one thing the GA is not a crewmember.
looktowindward is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 11:27 pm
  #1869  
uwr
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: SEA
Programs: AS MVP Gold75K
Posts: 850
The situation is sad for the passenger, but it's laughable that United and its shills on FT are trying to make this into a legal argument.

It has nothing to do with legality. It has everything to do with common decency, how a business treats customers, and public relations. UA needs to learn from Nordstrom's.
uwr is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 11:27 pm
  #1870  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 24
Originally Posted by SpinOn2
What do you think would happen if you were on private property of someone, police asked you to leave many times, and you simply refused to leave?

This would happen.

Had he walked off, he probably would have been rebooked and given $1400 in cash compensation amongst possible other items. Instead he refused to obey orders of a LEO, a CRIME.
That depends. If you have an executed contract and you have paid for the right to be there, the cops would laugh in your face. Its a civil matter. Contracts mean something in the law. Most cops are smart enough to realize that.
looktowindward is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 11:27 pm
  #1871  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by ND Sol
That is not the reason why the quote from the COC was posted. It was meant as an example of when a passenger could be denied boarding involuntarily after the door was initially closed for weight/balance restrictions and its characterization under the COC as constituting "an oversold flight".
And that interpretation is WRONG WRONG WRONG. If United messes up their W&B calc for a plane with less than 60 seats and determimes after passengers have boarded (W&B is not based on the actual weight of the passengers) that boarded passengers need to be removed from the flight, United's authority under the CoC to do so is Rule 21(B), since flying a plane outside the permissible W&B envelope would violate gov't regulations.

EDIT: The irrelevant provision cited in Rule 25 concerning W&B does not serve as an additional basis for UA to deny boarding for passengers.

Last edited by Summa Cum Laude Touro Law Center; Apr 10, 2017 at 11:36 pm
Summa Cum Laude Touro Law Center is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 11:27 pm
  #1872  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 144
Originally Posted by denuaflier
With that logic, you should stand up and agree that Oscar's statement is a problem and UA should own up to their mistake. If you see up thread, it seems that UA did not provide written document per DOT IDB guidelines. So let's start with UA's shortcomings before blaming the customer.
I've said many times that UA's response POST INCIDENT was lacking and their PR will have many lessons learned from this event. Thats a completely separate discussion from all the B.S. people are making up or self-insinuating about what happened prior to and during the incident, and what racial, corporate or testosterone driven fantastical motivations inspired them.
c2cflyer is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 11:27 pm
  #1873  
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Programs: UA Gold MM, HHonors Gold, Hertz Five Star Gold, Marriott Gold, Avis First
Posts: 462
Originally Posted by uwr
The situation is sad for the passenger, but it's laughable that United and its shills on FT are trying to make this into a legal argument.

It has nothing to do with legality. It has everything to do with common decency, how a business treats customers, and public relations. UA needs to learn from Nordstrom's.
This.^
denuaflier is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 11:28 pm
  #1874  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Programs: AA Gold, Enterprise PLT, Marriott Gold
Posts: 604
Originally Posted by denuaflier
HOLD OFF - Not so fast. This was a private property that was "rented" by the passenger. He is not trespassing. He had a right to that seat.
Yes, unless due reason to not have that seat. "Renting" something does not give you the ability to do whatever you want. He was asked to leave, he refused. UA had a right to IDB him. They followed procedure laid forth. What are they supposed to tickle the man until he complies? UA did not ask for him to be ripped off his seat. Usually after repeated refusal to comply with crew, LEO's will come on and most people wise up and follow instructions. He did not, and it became a crime where the law enforcement acted as they saw fit. Whether or not they went overboard is a matter against the LEO, not UA. Unless a UA member drug him out themselves, they are not liable for that. For all you know the UA member involved felt the dragging of him out was too far as well.
SpinOn2 is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 11:30 pm
  #1875  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,036
Originally Posted by c2cflyer
3 cops could certainly carry a 69 year old.

But he was seated in a narrow economy row. Only one cop could get in to attempt to get him out of the row.

Once in the aisle, again, physical dimensions permit only 2 people - one on either side - to assist in 'carrying' the passenger out.

I doubt the cop threw him on the arm rest as he had no leverage to do anything anyway - it was hard enough for him to just get at the passenger no less do anything 'controlled' and 'intentional' to him. He likely just had a poor grip to begin with, and lost grip on the pax as the struggle continued.

Doesn't make it any better, but again, why be so sensational about it? We don't know what happened, why don't we just discuss things we know about instead of assuming that everyone in the world is out to get us all the time.

Cops don't hate us. Corporations don't hate us. They just want whats best for them.

What was best for the company was to get its staff on in place of 4 rev pax's. What was best for the Cop was to resolve the situation he was given. They didn't do these things because they hate the average middle-class american. They just did what they did because in the instance of the moment, that was what they were tasked to do. Nothing more.
This is not good for United. And cops don't have to enforce contract law with violence.
GadgetFreak is online now  


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.