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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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 11, 2017, 5:13 am
  #2341  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,408
Originally Posted by RumPatrol
To suggest they divine a plane from nowhere to send crew somewhere at a cost of literally hundreds of thousands of dollars is laughably absurd.
If a charter costs hundreds of thousands of dollars there'd be no flights to or from Louisville or a host of other small city airports. The airlines would lose money on every single flight.

The most expensive fare tomorrow non-stop from SDF-ORD is a first class seat on UA for $317. Coach is cheaper at $217. The total cost of buying every seat on the plane would be around $11000. Hundreds of thousands less than what you think.
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 5:15 am
  #2342  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,616
Originally Posted by MDJennings
Just because he ended up with an inadvertent lip Injury doesn't mean the LEO boarded that plane with the intent to injure him.
It doesn't matter what the LEO's intent was.

You keep ignoring this simple truth - no matter how "right" UA was, legally speaking, they have lost the PR battle. And rightly so.
halls120 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 5:15 am
  #2343  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,408
Originally Posted by fly18725
Here's a wrinkle: generally, airlines believe that someone who refuses to follow an employee's instructions, such as getting off the plane, are jeopardizing safety. And the airlines have a point. Would you want to be on a plane with another passenger who's demonstrated they won't listen to the crew? What if there was an emergency, or that passenger started approaching the flight deck?

I think the situation was mishandled, but it is probably helpful for us to understand the perspectives of different parties.
Then they should also ban any passenger with a criminal conviction (no matter how minor) or a speeding ticket? Both clearly show a disrespect for the law and the potential to disrespect the 'law' in an aircraft environment?
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 5:18 am
  #2344  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 401
Originally Posted by halls120
It doesn't matter what the LEO's intent was.

You keep ignoring this simple truth - no matter how "right" UA was, legally speaking, they have lost the PR battle. And rightly so.
When did I ever say this was good PR for them? It's awful, but I don't fault UA (especially when it was Republic). You can't predict when some passenger is going to pout.
MDJennings is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 5:20 am
  #2345  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: IAD
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Rewards - LTPP
Posts: 4,240
airlines shuffle disgruntled passengers around all the time. More people will leave DL for their recent meltdown and recovery than UA.

I swore off US when I missed the first night of my bachelor party in Vegas. That lasted about 5 years. Until I moved to a US hub city.

Just give AA a few weeks, I'm sure they will have some sort of issue that will shuffle more passengers. As principled as some people are, cost and convenience will usually dominate.
njcommodore is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 5:21 am
  #2346  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Originally Posted by LHR/MEL/Europe FF
Then they should also ban any passenger with a criminal conviction (no matter how minor) or a speeding ticket? Both clearly show a disrespect for the law and the potential to disrespect the 'law' in an aircraft environment?
You're clearly being facetious. You clearly aren't listening to what I'm saying so you're involuntarily denied participation in this conversation.

Originally Posted by s0ssos
I doubt anyone on the plane seriously thought he was a safety hazard.

However, you can make up anything you want. You should comment in the other threads as well, about Middle Eastern (they could be bombers!), Indians (cause, well, they look Middle Eastern. Some even wear turbans).
He may not have been a safety hazard. However, I was pointing out that airlines are not comfortable with people that don't follow crew instructions and there are some valid reasons for that discomfort.
fly18725 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 5:21 am
  #2347  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by 2P or not 2P
Which I think he was right to question.

Don't bump pax for crew.
Its worse than that. They were willing to drag this guy off for crew and they weren't willing to overbook a flight on the same day to get an IDB home that day. In fact, they weren't willing to overbook a flight until the next afternoon!
George Purcell is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 5:22 am
  #2348  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 72
The CEO's statement shows he just does not get it and the problems at United start at the top. This is not about policy or regulations, this is about treating every customer as a valued customer not like cargo. This is about treating every customer with respect. United in particular and the airline industry in general forgets they only exist because they have customers who buy their product.
moreofless is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 5:27 am
  #2349  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 401
Originally Posted by ROCAT
If by next flight you mean LOF4771 then Brickyard has no ability to VDB/IDB on that flight as they are completely separate companies.
Good post that I missed in this highly active thread. I guess we should have used Occam's Razer when asking why they didn't go with what most of us thought would be the simpler solution even trying to put them on that.
MDJennings is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 5:30 am
  #2350  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
And we get another twist.

This news source identifies the pasenger as David Dao.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story...ion/100295216/

A search for David Dao MD in kentucky reveals medical review board papers (2016) noting he was convicted of a felony for prescribing pain killers in exchange for sexual favors to a former patient / employee and restricting him to one day a week of office-only, inpatient practice in internal medicine. No surgery, etc at least as of Feb 2016.

http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/kbml...ders/22439.pdf

No confirmation this is the same David Dao, but man this story keeps twisting and turning.

"the licensee had become sexually interested in a patient who had been referred to his practice, Patient A; during the initial evaluation, the licensee performed a complete physical examination, including a genital examination, for patient A who had been referred for collapsed lungs and chest pain. shortly after his first appointment, the licensee made Patient A his office manager, according to Patient A, he quit that job because of inappropriate remarks made by the licensee; after he quit, the licensee pursued him aggressively, finally arranging to provide controlled substance prescriptions to him in exchange for sexual acts."

The David Dao mentioned already served his sentence.

Last edited by cerealmarketer; Apr 11, 2017 at 5:53 am
cerealmarketer is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 5:32 am
  #2351  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 259
Originally Posted by jp12687
My opinion on this? The cops over reached when they removed the guy. That said what were they supposed to do with a passenger refusing to leave a plane?
Absolutely nothing.
simpletastes is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 5:32 am
  #2352  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,616
Originally Posted by cerealmarketer
And we get another twist.
Attacking the victim's prior bad acts - now there's a sure fire winning PR approach.
halls120 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 5:34 am
  #2353  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 35
Originally Posted by MDJennings
Lip service.

I Wouldn't be surprised to see a walk back along the lines of, "while we regret the unfortunate injury to Mr. Dao, our investigation has determined our LEO acted appropriately. In the future, we hope all incidents are able to be resolved without the need for physical force." We'll just have to wait and see.
http://www.courier-journal.com/story...lle/100274374/

Well here is your answer.....

The Chicago Department of Aviation said Monday afternoon that it had placed the security officer who pulled the man out of his seat on leave pending a “thorough review” of the situation.

The aviation department said in an emailed statement that the incident wasn’t in accordance with its standard operating procedure and the officer’s actions “are obviously not condoned by the Department.”
So now you have it in black and white. Officers actions not appropriate.
soonerborn is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 5:34 am
  #2354  
NFH
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London (LCY)
Programs: BA bronze, Hilton gold, Marriott gold, IHG plat, Meliá gold, Radisson gold, Hyatt disc, AmexPlat
Posts: 977
Does anyone have a link to the relevant legislation that requires passengers to obey crew? As I'm in the UK, Google is mostly giving me UK-centric results. For example the relevant UK legislation states "Every person in an aircraft must obey all lawful commands which the pilot in command of that aircraft may give for the purpose of securing the safety of the aircraft and of persons or property carried in the aircraft, or the safety, efficiency or regularity of air navigation". Obviously UK legislation is irrelevant, but I would be very surprised if the equivalent US legislation required passengers to obey absolutely any command by crew. For example, passengers would not have to obey a command to undress and run down the aisle naked. There will be limits as to purpose of commands that must be obeyed, and I'm guessing that leaving the aircraft for the purpose in this scenario might not be one of them.
NFH is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 5:34 am
  #2355  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 259
Originally Posted by fly18725
Here's a wrinkle: generally, airlines believe that someone who refuses to follow an employee's instructions, such as getting off the plane, are jeopardizing safety.
What if I was involuntarily downgraded, asked to see a supervisor, and the agent used that as a pretext to call the cops? This is a commercial and customer relations issue, not a safety issue
simpletastes 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.