Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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
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.
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
- Passenger one row behind and on the aisle footage BEFORE man was dragged off https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=655_1492004707
- Videos of man being removed https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4b7_1491983214 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nAZEk6nsNE
- Video of man re-entering plane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNEQDWpYbZA (link dead)
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
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.
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
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
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
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
- Chicago Aviation Department said on the Monday afternoon after the incident that the officer who had dragged the passenger off the plane had been placed on leave pending an investigation. Spokesperson Karen Pride said in an email that "The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the Department."
- 4/12/17: Two more Chicago Aviation officers involved are suspended
- Muñoz does ABC interview, announcing United will no longer use law enforcement to remove passengers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90jSUe_vdhM
- United announces policy change that crews traveling on their aircraft must be booked at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
- United releases multiple changes in overbooking / denied boarding policies "We are making changes to ensure that we always put customers first" (http://newsroom.united.com/2017-04-2...mer-Experience) released 27 April 2017
- Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
- Response to Senate Commerce Committee questions - 1 May 2017
- United Airlines PR Boss to Step Down
- James Long, one of several officers involved in removing David Dao from the April 9, 2017, flight to make room for airline employees, filed suit on Tuesday against United, Chicago’s Department of Aviation and its commissioner, Ginger Evans. The lawsuit, filed in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois, alleges he was not properly trained on how to use force.
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines
Poll link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KP68GYG
Results link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
Reference MaterialResults link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
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.aspxIf 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.
Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}
Apr 11, 2017, 7:48 am
#2566
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: 100,417
I just saw a news story on CNN interviewing a passenger rights advocate. The maximum an airline can offer is $1350 in compensation. He wondered why they didn't offer at least closer to the maximum to see if they could get some takers.
I am not a frequent flier but when I heard and saw the story... I'll be damned if I fly United after what I saw. The majority of us could careless about who was right or wrong ... it's all in visuals
I am not a frequent flier but when I heard and saw the story... I'll be damned if I fly United after what I saw. The majority of us could careless about who was right or wrong ... it's all in visuals
In VDB, the airline can offer anything (not illegal, so obviously not a ton of illegal drugs or a child prostitute) that it and the passenger negotiate. DL regularly offers a VDBs well in excess of $1350 depending on the circumstances.
For an official IDB, compensation in money is mandatory according to USA DOT regulations. The rules say that if the scheduled arrival delay on a domestic segment is four hours or longer, compensation will be the minimum of $1350 or four times the fare the passenger paid for the segment. If the passenger had a cheap ticket, UA would only be obligated to pay something like $400, and probably less if it was a connecting flight. By picking those with cheap tickets to IDB, UA never has to pay anything close to $1350.
An airline is free to provide additional customer service gestures to IDBed passengers if it chooses to do so. DOT rules only state the amount of money that the carrier must pay.
Last edited by MSPeconomist; Apr 11, 2017 at 6:48 pm Reason: Typo
Apr 11, 2017, 7:48 am
#2567
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
If the ORD gate agents had had the brains to taxi their four deadheaders down to Midway and put them on the evening Southwest nonstop to SDF for $100 each, we wouldn't be talking about this, either.
Apr 11, 2017, 7:48 am
#2568
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 259
Why not have an open auction of the seat right at the gate by UA? Start with $100 and up the offer every $50 until someone comes forward? Have a cap, of say, $10000. Make it sufficiently big that someone (or a bunch of folks) will bite. Instead of United (or FAA or whaever) setting the max price, let the passengers put a price?
Except this time.
Apr 11, 2017, 7:48 am
#2569
Join Date: Nov 2011
Programs: Amex Platinum, Marriott Platinum, SPG Gold, Hyatt Platinum
Posts: 240
Sure, and there are extensive legal constraints on that discretion. Hence, the reason, for instance, that a number of posters upthread have half-jokingly pointed out to you that the crew does not have the discretion to instruct a passenger to strip naked and to sing Frozen in the galley, and that the passenger's refusal to do so would be perfectly legal.
Regardless of the legal issues here, however, public perception is FAR more important than the legal nuances. I think that many of us agree that the passenger should have de-planed, but his refusal to do so has become just a footnote in the overall context of United and the security guards' decision to further escalate the situation and to treat him in a way that no human being in his situation should EVER be treated.
In short, United had a number of reasonable options available to it, such as increasing the compensation offers until they found a volunteer, etc... Yet, they went with the most unreasonable, most inhumane option available, and then, in response to the ensuing PR firestorm, doubled down and insisted that they acted properly. Such a tone deaf response only adds fuels people's already considerable outrage over United's ill advised conduct.
Regardless of the legal issues here, however, public perception is FAR more important than the legal nuances. I think that many of us agree that the passenger should have de-planed, but his refusal to do so has become just a footnote in the overall context of United and the security guards' decision to further escalate the situation and to treat him in a way that no human being in his situation should EVER be treated.
In short, United had a number of reasonable options available to it, such as increasing the compensation offers until they found a volunteer, etc... Yet, they went with the most unreasonable, most inhumane option available, and then, in response to the ensuing PR firestorm, doubled down and insisted that they acted properly. Such a tone deaf response only adds fuels people's already considerable outrage over United's ill advised conduct.
Apr 11, 2017, 7:49 am
#2570
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: UA Gold, AA DL
Posts: 25
They have the right to deny boarding, but that does not imply the right to forcibly remove a person from the plane who has already boarded. We'll probably get to see how a judge and jury defines the word "boarding", but any plain reading of that word (including how the gate agents use it) means entering the aircraft--maybe even the jetbridge given that the "boarding" happens at the scanner--and taking one's seat.
The video I saw made it quite clear how his face got bloody--it came into contact with the armrest after the LEO's handling of him resulted in a loss of physical control. There was the beginnings of bleeding when they were dragging him (when his glasses were displaced), and it continued to bleed, spilling out of his mouth.
As to property owners having the right to eject trespassers, well, not so fast. This man had a right to be there, and was indeed invited to be there. He was not doing anything to cause the airline to rescind that invitation except being high up on a list he was never shown. What the pax heard was "random" even if that is not what was said. He had no expectation of being forcibly removed from the airplane, so of course he is going to stand his ground. The airline is not someone's living room, and the man was not loitering. They have provided a public accommodation for which he paid and was invited to use.
The video I saw made it quite clear how his face got bloody--it came into contact with the armrest after the LEO's handling of him resulted in a loss of physical control. There was the beginnings of bleeding when they were dragging him (when his glasses were displaced), and it continued to bleed, spilling out of his mouth.
As to property owners having the right to eject trespassers, well, not so fast. This man had a right to be there, and was indeed invited to be there. He was not doing anything to cause the airline to rescind that invitation except being high up on a list he was never shown. What the pax heard was "random" even if that is not what was said. He had no expectation of being forcibly removed from the airplane, so of course he is going to stand his ground. The airline is not someone's living room, and the man was not loitering. They have provided a public accommodation for which he paid and was invited to use.
I agree that its a huge problem for UA's credibility because the average passenger is going to think that once they are in the seat they are all good.
however in the end the issue is that he was asked to leave the plane, dis-invited to use your parlance, and he refused to do so. He does not have a right to anything, he is a guest on a vessel under private ownership and must abide both their rules as well as US law while aboard, which he did not do.
I agree that UA in this case did not have the authority to forcibly remove someone from the plane, however the airport police do have that authority once asked by the airline.
Apr 11, 2017, 7:50 am
#2571
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 259
Sure, and there are extensive legal constraints on that discretion. Hence, the reason, for instance, that a number of posters upthread have half-jokingly pointed out to you that the crew does not have the discretion to instruct a passenger to strip naked and to sing Frozen in the galley, and that the passenger's refusal to do so would be perfectly legal.
Regardless of the legal issues here, however, public perception is FAR more important than the legal nuances. I think that many of us agree that the passenger should have de-planed, but his refusal to do so has become just a footnote in the overall context of United and the security guards' decision to further escalate the situation and to treat him in a way that no human being in his situation should EVER be treated.
In short, United had a number of reasonable options available to it, such as increasing the compensation offers until they found a volunteer, etc... Yet, they went with the most unreasonable, most inhumane option available, and then, in response to the ensuing PR firestorm, doubled down and insisted that they acted properly. Such a tone deaf response only adds fuels people's already considerable outrage over United's ill advised conduct.
Regardless of the legal issues here, however, public perception is FAR more important than the legal nuances. I think that many of us agree that the passenger should have de-planed, but his refusal to do so has become just a footnote in the overall context of United and the security guards' decision to further escalate the situation and to treat him in a way that no human being in his situation should EVER be treated.
In short, United had a number of reasonable options available to it, such as increasing the compensation offers until they found a volunteer, etc... Yet, they went with the most unreasonable, most inhumane option available, and then, in response to the ensuing PR firestorm, doubled down and insisted that they acted properly. Such a tone deaf response only adds fuels people's already considerable outrage over United's ill advised conduct.
Apr 11, 2017, 7:51 am
#2572
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: AP
Posts: 50
Now, when people take any united airline, they realllllly should ask crew member seriously "Will I be dragged if oversold?" NO kidding.
AnDDDDDDDDDDDDDD it will be really really fun if whole fight passengers wore a T-shirt "Will I be dragged if oversold?"
Shame on United
AnDDDDDDDDDDDDDD it will be really really fun if whole fight passengers wore a T-shirt "Will I be dragged if oversold?"
Shame on United
Apr 11, 2017, 7:51 am
#2573
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Shanghai, Seattle, Chennai
Posts: 315
Many here have been saying that this could have equally likely happened on AA or DL or whatever. [deleted per Rule 16] happened, maybe an errant gate agent and rotten SOPs. The only right course of action for Munoz to do is to apologize, flat out. No conditionalities, ifs ands or buts. It's like making a racist or sexist statement, then trying to justify it - don't even try.
Munoz didn't do what was required. Now he should hurt. The entire airline should hurt because its leadership is rotten and doesn't understand basic human decency. If you believe boycotts don't work, please call your senators and tell them to stop the embargoes against North Korea, Iran and others not falling in line.
I will take my Gold elsewhere. Bye United, please hang Munoz out to dry.
Munoz didn't do what was required. Now he should hurt. The entire airline should hurt because its leadership is rotten and doesn't understand basic human decency. If you believe boycotts don't work, please call your senators and tell them to stop the embargoes against North Korea, Iran and others not falling in line.
I will take my Gold elsewhere. Bye United, please hang Munoz out to dry.
Last edited by Pat89339; Apr 11, 2017 at 3:15 pm Reason: TOS 16
Apr 11, 2017, 7:51 am
#2574
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,012
Sorry, I'm not going to blindly follow any and every directive of a LEO. In this circumstance, I imagine I would have left the plane without any need for the officers to be called. But you're offering a pretty absurd generalization. For example, I'm not going to follow an officer's instruction to do something I find morally reprehensible, or that I believe could result in harm to a loved one.
Apr 11, 2017, 7:51 am
#2576
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: LBB
Programs: UA 1K 1MM ★G | Marriott LTT | Hilton ♦ | Hertz PC | Global Entry TSA Pre ✓
Posts: 2,820
Besides, the amount of time it would have taken that deadheaded crew to get to MDW and fly down would have put them into SDF late enough to significantly delay or negate their ability to fly the next morning.
Apr 11, 2017, 7:52 am
#2578
Join Date: May 2015
Location: BWI
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 165
The old "seven P's" clearly applies to United here, but I am still amazed that they could not get enough volunteers to travel later. Unless I was connecting to an overseas flight or catching a cruise ship, I would gladly take a few hundred bucks and a hotel stay.
I must add: If the guy proved he was a doctor and said there medical reasons he needed to catch that flight, then United should have moved on to next person on the list.
I must add: If the guy proved he was a doctor and said there medical reasons he needed to catch that flight, then United should have moved on to next person on the list.
Apr 11, 2017, 7:52 am
#2579
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC SE MM, Bonvoy Plat, Hilton G,Nexus, Amex MR Plat,IHG Plat
Posts: 4,428
This is incorrect.
In VDB, the airline can offer anything (not illegal, so obviously not a ton of illegal drugs or a child prostitute) that it and the passenger negotiate. DL regularly offers a VDBs well in excess of $1350 depending on the circumstances.
For an official IDB, compensation in money is mandatory according to USA DOT regulations. The rules say that if the scheduled arrival delay on a domestic segment is four hours or longs, compensation will be the minimum of $1350 or four times the fare the passenger paid for the segment. If the passenger had a cheap ticket, UA would only be obligated to pay something like $400, and probably less if it was a connecting flight. By picking those with cheap tickets to IDB, UA never has to pay anything close to $1350.
An airline is free to provide additional customer service gestures to IDBed passengers if it chooses to do so. DOT rules only state the amount of money that the carrier must pay.
In VDB, the airline can offer anything (not illegal, so obviously not a ton of illegal drugs or a child prostitute) that it and the passenger negotiate. DL regularly offers a VDBs well in excess of $1350 depending on the circumstances.
For an official IDB, compensation in money is mandatory according to USA DOT regulations. The rules say that if the scheduled arrival delay on a domestic segment is four hours or longs, compensation will be the minimum of $1350 or four times the fare the passenger paid for the segment. If the passenger had a cheap ticket, UA would only be obligated to pay something like $400, and probably less if it was a connecting flight. By picking those with cheap tickets to IDB, UA never has to pay anything close to $1350.
An airline is free to provide additional customer service gestures to IDBed passengers if it chooses to do so. DOT rules only state the amount of money that the carrier must pay.
Apr 11, 2017, 7:54 am
#2580
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: UA Gold, AA DL
Posts: 25
Sure, and there are extensive legal constraints on that discretion. Hence, the reason, for instance, that a number of posters upthread have half-jokingly pointed out to you that the crew does not have the discretion to instruct a passenger to strip naked and to sing Frozen in the galley, and that the passenger's refusal to do so would be perfectly legal.
Regardless of the legal issues here, however, public perception is FAR more important than the legal nuances. I think that many of us agree that the passenger should have de-planed, but his refusal to do so has become just a footnote in the overall context of United and the security guards' decision to further escalate the situation and to treat him in a way that no human being in his situation should EVER be treated.
In short, United had a number of reasonable options available to it, such as increasing the compensation offers until they found a volunteer, etc... Yet, they went with the most unreasonable, most inhumane option available, and then, in response to the ensuing PR firestorm, doubled down and insisted that they acted properly. Such a tone deaf response only adds fuels people's already considerable outrage over United's ill advised conduct.
Regardless of the legal issues here, however, public perception is FAR more important than the legal nuances. I think that many of us agree that the passenger should have de-planed, but his refusal to do so has become just a footnote in the overall context of United and the security guards' decision to further escalate the situation and to treat him in a way that no human being in his situation should EVER be treated.
In short, United had a number of reasonable options available to it, such as increasing the compensation offers until they found a volunteer, etc... Yet, they went with the most unreasonable, most inhumane option available, and then, in response to the ensuing PR firestorm, doubled down and insisted that they acted properly. Such a tone deaf response only adds fuels people's already considerable outrage over United's ill advised conduct.
There are actually surprisingly few restrictions on the airline booting you off the plane. Its a lawful request for them to ask you to deplane. It's not asking them to get naked or anything else unlawful.
Like I've said before, obviously the PR is really bad in this case, but that's not what I have been commenting on.