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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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, 9:29 am
#2776
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 6,752
Re: the racial angle. There is no direct evidence that race played a role in the decision-making. HOWEVER, if people are wondering why many Asians suspect that it could have, this Freakonomics podcast can help explain why.
"A lot of the cheating was across racial and ethnic lines. And this was primarily white on Asian, meaning the whites were cheating the Asians. And I think there are lots of cases in the world in which we’ve seen racial fractionalization be related to less-than-perfectly functioning social relations."
-Essentially, an academic study on social trust found that in inter-racial transactions, the one grouping which led to the most cheating was whites on asians. Lots of theories as to why- stereotyped perceptions of submissiveness and deference to authority perhaps. Whatever the reason, there are indications that Asians can be disproportionately unfairly treated in transactional relationships in the US.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/trust-me/
"A lot of the cheating was across racial and ethnic lines. And this was primarily white on Asian, meaning the whites were cheating the Asians. And I think there are lots of cases in the world in which we’ve seen racial fractionalization be related to less-than-perfectly functioning social relations."
-Essentially, an academic study on social trust found that in inter-racial transactions, the one grouping which led to the most cheating was whites on asians. Lots of theories as to why- stereotyped perceptions of submissiveness and deference to authority perhaps. Whatever the reason, there are indications that Asians can be disproportionately unfairly treated in transactional relationships in the US.
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/trust-me/
The reason why exceptions aren't allowed is to avoid subjectivity, ensure fairness to all, and avoid the very issue alluded to above. So long as UAL can show they followed the law and their internal procedures without bias, they're fine.
Social media outrage will die down when the next fantastic thing occurs. No one will care when UA's next trans-pacific flight will be $100 less than everyone else.
Apr 11, 2017, 9:30 am
#2777
Join Date: Aug 2012
Programs: AA PLT, SPG Gold
Posts: 2,405
Did I say that? No. I said I would love to see a 25 year old white man violently assaulted in the manner this Vietnamese-American gentleman was.
Last edited by l etoile; Apr 11, 2017 at 9:35 am Reason: Discuss the issues, not the member
Apr 11, 2017, 9:30 am
#2778
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: SFO/CDG
Programs: UA 1k
Posts: 211
Your interpretation is a completely reasonable reading except that the employees in that context are not crew but positive space travelers that are similar to normal passengers. For example UA pilots deadheading for international flights will be seated in first class ahead of people on the upgrade list. Seems unfair at first but that is how it works!
I am not an aviation expert but by definition, this does not seem like an oversold flight and therefore UA had no right to remove those passengers. Per UA’s CoC definition:
“Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.”
“Passenger means any person, except members of the crew, carried or holding a confirmed reservation to be carried in an aircraft with the consent of the carrier.”
In this instance, all Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets checked-in and were BOARDED. Are the 4 crew members that showed up late and demanded to board considered “Passengers” by definition? It’s unclear to me.
I think this means it is:
• NOT Oversold Flight. Without those 4 crewmembers, there were seats for all Passengers.
• NOT Denied Boarding situation. Boarding by definition means to allow passengers on board the aircraft. UA allowed these passengers to board and they were in their seats.
So for UA to remove those passengers, they had to be in violation of Rule 21. Per Rule 21, UA has the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for variety of reasons. But this Passenger by definition did not meet any of those reasons for removal. He did not breach any law, was threat to safety, etc. It was only AFTER that UA (with the help of the security officers) tried to illegally and forcefully remove him in the most undignified way possible that he perhaps then became disorderly and failed to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew. UA caused him to behave that way.
I believe UA had no right to remove the Passengers to accommodate the crew and by taking away this unfortunate Passenger’s rights against his will, UA must be punished and something positive will come out of this incident to protect us all in the future.
“Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats.”
“Passenger means any person, except members of the crew, carried or holding a confirmed reservation to be carried in an aircraft with the consent of the carrier.”
In this instance, all Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets checked-in and were BOARDED. Are the 4 crew members that showed up late and demanded to board considered “Passengers” by definition? It’s unclear to me.
I think this means it is:
• NOT Oversold Flight. Without those 4 crewmembers, there were seats for all Passengers.
• NOT Denied Boarding situation. Boarding by definition means to allow passengers on board the aircraft. UA allowed these passengers to board and they were in their seats.
So for UA to remove those passengers, they had to be in violation of Rule 21. Per Rule 21, UA has the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for variety of reasons. But this Passenger by definition did not meet any of those reasons for removal. He did not breach any law, was threat to safety, etc. It was only AFTER that UA (with the help of the security officers) tried to illegally and forcefully remove him in the most undignified way possible that he perhaps then became disorderly and failed to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew. UA caused him to behave that way.
I believe UA had no right to remove the Passengers to accommodate the crew and by taking away this unfortunate Passenger’s rights against his will, UA must be punished and something positive will come out of this incident to protect us all in the future.
Apr 11, 2017, 9:30 am
#2779
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 80
First of all, the identity of the person has not been positively confirmed. People say he's Chinese, but this "David A. Dao" is Vietnamese. Stop spreading rumors. Second of all, this has jack all to do with what United has done.
Apr 11, 2017, 9:31 am
#2780
Join Date: Jul 2005
Programs: SQ *Gold
Posts: 871
Where did you get this number from or is it a personal estimate? Theoretically, airfares should rise if they ban overbooking, but unless there's been a study to cite, that rise could be anywhere from 0.1% - ???
Apr 11, 2017, 9:31 am
#2781
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: UA Gold, AA DL
Posts: 25
Well, this is a air carrier part 121 flight, not a part 135 flight, so your second regulation doesn't apply. Everything I've seen about this incident and everything I've seen while flying says that it was the gate agent and/or a supervisor who was pulling people off the flight since flight attendants don't generally get involved and wait for the GA to provide the passenger manifest. And gate agents and supervisors aren't crew members. And even if a FA got involved, I'm not convinced you could apply 121.580 before the aircraft is away from the gate; a number of FAA regulations including when you can log time as crew require that the "aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight."
But I don't know why you come back to these arguments when a simple trespass complaint could be used.
But I don't know why you come back to these arguments when a simple trespass complaint could be used.
the actual most recent legislation as far as I can tell is 64 FR 1080
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-199.../pdf/99-58.pdf
I agree that the person could probably also be booted for trespass, however if CFR 121 applies, I would think that that would be the preferred law to complain under since the law is more specific and penalties more appropriate.
Apr 11, 2017, 9:32 am
#2782
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Providence RI
Programs: American Exec Plat, Hyatt Refugeeist, Marriot Gold, Air Canada Cattle Class, Korean Air Morning Plat
Posts: 988
A mistake is an event that happens to everyone.
An error is when a mistake is not corrected.
UA keeps making things worse. The background, the conjecture, the procedures........it doesn't matter. What matters to most sane people who saw this video is a man who
1/ bought and paid for a seat
2/ boarded the aircraft
3/ was chosen at 'random'
4/ asked to deboard
Nobody should have been let onto a flight in the first place if you an overbooked situation. We all know the ins and outs of the frequent flyer lounges, the rules, the priority seating etc. Most people do not.
If you went to Burger King and ordered a meal, paid for a meal, were given a meal, took it to the table, then a manager said she will give you a free voucher for another burger tomorrow if she can have your sandwich back.......we'd all say no. If she then announced they are out of burgers and have to feed the staff so she is going to choose people randomly to take away the burgers. Then calls the cops to back him/her up and take your burger. The the cops slammed your head into the table and dragged you out of the restaurant (bleeding) while other diners recorded the event on their phones.
I think we all would be upset.
An error is when a mistake is not corrected.
UA keeps making things worse. The background, the conjecture, the procedures........it doesn't matter. What matters to most sane people who saw this video is a man who
1/ bought and paid for a seat
2/ boarded the aircraft
3/ was chosen at 'random'
4/ asked to deboard
Nobody should have been let onto a flight in the first place if you an overbooked situation. We all know the ins and outs of the frequent flyer lounges, the rules, the priority seating etc. Most people do not.
If you went to Burger King and ordered a meal, paid for a meal, were given a meal, took it to the table, then a manager said she will give you a free voucher for another burger tomorrow if she can have your sandwich back.......we'd all say no. If she then announced they are out of burgers and have to feed the staff so she is going to choose people randomly to take away the burgers. Then calls the cops to back him/her up and take your burger. The the cops slammed your head into the table and dragged you out of the restaurant (bleeding) while other diners recorded the event on their phones.
I think we all would be upset.
Apr 11, 2017, 9:32 am
#2783
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: NYC
Programs: Skymiles Platinum / Alaska MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 90
It's hard to underestimate how big a scandal this is in China with it dominating social media. Considering United's moves toward Asia (including using HKG as one of the first routes for Polaris), the PR fallout of this is just a colossal blunder - including the dredging up of dirt on the passenger.
Apr 11, 2017, 9:33 am
#2784
Join Date: Oct 2008
Programs: UA 1K, 1MM
Posts: 504
I am fine with paying 20-30% more for airfare if the government wants to make overbooking illegal. AA and DL do this too, so it's not just UA. Contact your congressman and senators and have them push for this legislation. Sen. Bob Menendez is already looking at this.
However, by UA designating the crew as NRPS, they had to be put on the plane. The GA had no choice in the matter. So blaming her for the IDB is wrong. She didn't have authority to up the offer for VDB, so she invoked IDB and ordered 4 passengers off the plane.
However, by UA designating the crew as NRPS, they had to be put on the plane. The GA had no choice in the matter. So blaming her for the IDB is wrong. She didn't have authority to up the offer for VDB, so she invoked IDB and ordered 4 passengers off the plane.
Apr 11, 2017, 9:33 am
#2785
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: Chase, Amex, Citi, basically all of them
Posts: 72
Legally, it is simple.
Business-wise, not so much. People are now looking at United as the airline that, even if you are sitting in the plane, they can come and tell you to leave.
Make no mistake. If they did not board the cabin, we wouldn't be even talking about this today.
For most, travel is a stressful thing. Now, United is associated with more stress. Perhaps enough to warrant flying with a new airline. The only redeeming factor here is that the landscape of airlines in the US is such that there is not really another choice. Still, after breaking guitars, now United is breaking faces. They keep on running into PR nightmares.
Business-wise, not so much. People are now looking at United as the airline that, even if you are sitting in the plane, they can come and tell you to leave.
Make no mistake. If they did not board the cabin, we wouldn't be even talking about this today.
For most, travel is a stressful thing. Now, United is associated with more stress. Perhaps enough to warrant flying with a new airline. The only redeeming factor here is that the landscape of airlines in the US is such that there is not really another choice. Still, after breaking guitars, now United is breaking faces. They keep on running into PR nightmares.
And sad thing is based on witness account there was another passenger who volunteered to deboard if they paid him $1,600 and the captain laughed him off. So to save $800, they chose instead to have a Google search of United be associated with the passenger being dragged off the plan.
Apr 11, 2017, 9:34 am
#2786
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: LHR/ATH
Programs: Amex Platinum, LH SEN (Gold), BA Bronze
Posts: 4,489
After the CEO's actions and comments made the situation even worse, the only way this will be fixed is his resignation.
Apr 11, 2017, 9:34 am
#2787
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,319
It is not OK to rough up passengers no matter their moral character. Attacks ad hominem on the victim are despicable and completely miss the point. Not all that surprising on FT, though.
Apr 11, 2017, 9:35 am
#2788
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 80
The first portion you are paying for anyway, just in a different way.
Apr 11, 2017, 9:35 am
#2789
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Providence RI
Programs: American Exec Plat, Hyatt Refugeeist, Marriot Gold, Air Canada Cattle Class, Korean Air Morning Plat
Posts: 988
This man is Han Chinese. He grew up in Vietnam as an ethic Chinese.
Apr 11, 2017, 9:36 am
#2790
Join Date: Jul 2005
Programs: SQ *Gold
Posts: 871
For the sake of argument, let's assume this is true (I have no idea if it is nor do I have any opinions on it). This would be irrelevant if UAL followed their predetermined IDB procedure, namely lowest fares first.
The reason why exceptions aren't allowed is to avoid subjectivity, ensure fairness to all, and avoid the very issue alluded to above. So long as UAL can show they followed the law and their internal procedures without bias, they're fine.
Social media outrage will die down when the next fantastic thing occurs. No one will care when UA's next trans-pacific flight will be $100 less than everyone else.
The reason why exceptions aren't allowed is to avoid subjectivity, ensure fairness to all, and avoid the very issue alluded to above. So long as UAL can show they followed the law and their internal procedures without bias, they're fine.
Social media outrage will die down when the next fantastic thing occurs. No one will care when UA's next trans-pacific flight will be $100 less than everyone else.
Your last part is an over-statement. I am at least one person who would absolutely and have paid a premium to not fly United long-haul precisely because of what I feel is worse customer service relative to Asian or Middle East carriers. SQ charges a premium and offers a better product and that business model has worked much better for them over the past 5 decades then it has for United which had to file for bankruptcy in 2002.