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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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, 10:57 am
#2911
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,240
Try explaining fare class to a planeload of people.
Apr 11, 2017, 10:57 am
#2912
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: BUR
Posts: 769
this is going too far. we need to take action and start to roll back some of the pro-airline and pro-merger attitude in the industry. I'd suggest the following: (call your Congress jockeys)
1. Use the Sherman act to roll back mergers and outright break up United. (and possibly American too)
2. Set legal limitations on how many number of seats can be installed in certain airplane models and body types.
3. Do away with the TSA fee (and get rid of TSA)
4. Disclose airlines lobbying activities and industry donation to political campaigns with more scrutiny
5. Let foreign airlines fly US domestic routes by making it easier for ex-USA airlines to compete - you can look this up.... it's just a stroke of a pen.
6. Let airlines go bankrupt. It's OK for them go belly up. Some of them deserve it. Consumer lose the hub or the easy connection either way through a merger or a bankruptcy anyway.
this has gone too far......
1. Use the Sherman act to roll back mergers and outright break up United. (and possibly American too)
2. Set legal limitations on how many number of seats can be installed in certain airplane models and body types.
3. Do away with the TSA fee (and get rid of TSA)
4. Disclose airlines lobbying activities and industry donation to political campaigns with more scrutiny
5. Let foreign airlines fly US domestic routes by making it easier for ex-USA airlines to compete - you can look this up.... it's just a stroke of a pen.
6. Let airlines go bankrupt. It's OK for them go belly up. Some of them deserve it. Consumer lose the hub or the easy connection either way through a merger or a bankruptcy anyway.
this has gone too far......
Apr 11, 2017, 10:58 am
#2913
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
This point has been belabored over hundreds of posts. Those defending United have been forced to admit that according to the reasonable, ordinary definition of "boarding" the doctor had already boarded the plane. Further, United's CEO admitted that the plane was "fully boarded" when the incident occurred. As such, it is inconceivable how a passenger who has already boarded a plane can be "denied boarding."
The United defenders respond by claiming that United intended "boarding" to mean something contrary to what reasonable people understand the word to mean, and according to this definition, someone has not boarded a plane until the door is closed and the plane has pushed back from the gate. Of course, this definition of "boarding" is ludicrous. Imagine how you would respond to a text from your husband or wife, after you have taken on your seat on plane, inquiring if you have boarded the plane. This interpretation also ignores the fact that United's Contract of Carriage in another section that doesn't concern oversold flights specifically reserves to United the right to remove passengers from planes under certain circumstances, none of which apply here.
The United defenders respond by claiming that United intended "boarding" to mean something contrary to what reasonable people understand the word to mean, and according to this definition, someone has not boarded a plane until the door is closed and the plane has pushed back from the gate. Of course, this definition of "boarding" is ludicrous. Imagine how you would respond to a text from your husband or wife, after you have taken on your seat on plane, inquiring if you have boarded the plane. This interpretation also ignores the fact that United's Contract of Carriage in another section that doesn't concern oversold flights specifically reserves to United the right to remove passengers from planes under certain circumstances, none of which apply here.
Apr 11, 2017, 10:58 am
#2914
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CAK/CLE
Programs: UA Plat/AA,DL Dirt/HH Diamond,Hyatt Something-ist/Hz Prez,Avis Pres Club
Posts: 674
This point has been belabored over hundreds of posts. Those defending United have been forced to admit that according to the reasonable, ordinary definition of "boarding" the doctor had already boarded the plane. Further, United's CEO admitted that the plane was "fully boarded" when the incident occurred. As such, it is inconceivable how a passenger who has already boarded a plane can be "denied boarding."
The United defenders respond by claiming that United intended "boarding" to mean something contrary to what reasonable people understand the word to mean, and according to this definition, someone has not boarded a plane until the door is closed and the plane has pushed back from the gate. Of course, this definition of "boarding" is ludicrous. Imagine how you would respond to a text from your husband or wife, after you have taken on your seat on plane, inquiring if you have boarded the plane. This interpretation also ignores the fact that United's Contract of Carriage in another section that doesn't concern oversold flights specifically reserves to United the right to remove passengers from planes under certain circumstances, none of which apply here.
The United defenders respond by claiming that United intended "boarding" to mean something contrary to what reasonable people understand the word to mean, and according to this definition, someone has not boarded a plane until the door is closed and the plane has pushed back from the gate. Of course, this definition of "boarding" is ludicrous. Imagine how you would respond to a text from your husband or wife, after you have taken on your seat on plane, inquiring if you have boarded the plane. This interpretation also ignores the fact that United's Contract of Carriage in another section that doesn't concern oversold flights specifically reserves to United the right to remove passengers from planes under certain circumstances, none of which apply here.
People must be careful about what they wish for....
Apr 11, 2017, 10:58 am
#2915
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nawthun Virginia
Programs: Air: UA (Gold), AA, WN, DL; Hotel: Hilton (Diamond), plus all the rest
Posts: 135
I'm truly amazed at the armchair lawyers .. and "others" who created accounts to just post on this thread. Even the ones who've never contributed to the forum stopping in to post their .02 bytes. Hopefully, you all become an ongoing contributing member of the forum.. and not some "drive-by" posters who are piling on 
Apr 11, 2017, 11:01 am
#2916
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SNA
Programs: AA gold, DL Gold, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Plat
Posts: 446
this is going too far. we need to take action and start to roll back some of the pro-airline and pro-merger attitude in the industry. I'd suggest the following: (call your Congress jockeys)
1. Use the Sherman act to roll back mergers and outright break up United. (and possibly American too)
2. Set legal limitations on how many number of seats can be installed in certain airplane models and body types.
3. Do away with the TSA fee (and get rid of TSA)
4. Disclose airlines lobbying activities and industry donation to political campaigns with more scrutiny
5. Let foreign airlines fly US domestic routes by making it easier for ex-USA airlines to compete - you can look this up.... it's just a stroke of a pen.
6. Let airlines go bankrupt. It's OK for them go belly up. Some of them deserve it. Consumer lose the hub or the easy connection either way through a merger or a bankruptcy anyway.
this has gone too far......
1. Use the Sherman act to roll back mergers and outright break up United. (and possibly American too)
2. Set legal limitations on how many number of seats can be installed in certain airplane models and body types.
3. Do away with the TSA fee (and get rid of TSA)
4. Disclose airlines lobbying activities and industry donation to political campaigns with more scrutiny
5. Let foreign airlines fly US domestic routes by making it easier for ex-USA airlines to compete - you can look this up.... it's just a stroke of a pen.
6. Let airlines go bankrupt. It's OK for them go belly up. Some of them deserve it. Consumer lose the hub or the easy connection either way through a merger or a bankruptcy anyway.
this has gone too far......
Hate to state the obvious but the consolidation of the US airline industry has been detrimental to the well being of the US consumer.
Apr 11, 2017, 11:01 am
#2917
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 87
Here's my take.
While there can be no justification for what happened, I pose the following hypothetical. I purchase a tix, board, and in my seat. For whatever reason, it's determined that I must de-board. I refuse. When the authorities are called, I still refuse to budge.
Should I be removed by force? Or, allowed to stay and another pax removed? If the latter, then everyone in the future when asked to move or de-board would simply just refuse, knowing nothing can be done to remove them by force. This we cannot be allowed to happen, since it will render efficient flight operations nearly impossible.
Of course, UAL could have handled the situation much better; but, removing the Pax (assuming the process was adhered to) is absolutely the right decision. The notion of letting anyone who whines/complains enough to have his way is a concept so foreign when I was growing up that I can't believe it's the mantra of the world today.
This is absurd behavior on both UA and the Pax. Unbelievable.
While there can be no justification for what happened, I pose the following hypothetical. I purchase a tix, board, and in my seat. For whatever reason, it's determined that I must de-board. I refuse. When the authorities are called, I still refuse to budge.
Should I be removed by force? Or, allowed to stay and another pax removed? If the latter, then everyone in the future when asked to move or de-board would simply just refuse, knowing nothing can be done to remove them by force. This we cannot be allowed to happen, since it will render efficient flight operations nearly impossible.
Of course, UAL could have handled the situation much better; but, removing the Pax (assuming the process was adhered to) is absolutely the right decision. The notion of letting anyone who whines/complains enough to have his way is a concept so foreign when I was growing up that I can't believe it's the mantra of the world today.
This is absurd behavior on both UA and the Pax. Unbelievable.
This person obviously didn't have status. His luggage is probably in the plane hold. He's 69 years old and just wants to get home (so let's throw out the 5 hour drive issue). Cash isn't being offered. He probably doesn't fly often enough to value a $800 voucher with a one year expiration.
If the first 2 passengers "picked" were Asian (I've not confirmed that story), then he's well within his rights to ask if only Asians are being picked to deplane (and why). Even when some poorly dressed "police" show up, I'm not going to blame him for staying in his seat.
What to do? How about giving him $1000 in cash while trying to get him out of the seat? Money talks. Vouchers not so much. Setting a precedent? It happens.
Amazing that a woman and her family pulled 11k worth of vouchers from Delta this past weekend for NYC to Florida flights, and this guy gets a bloody lip and knocked on the head on UA.
Apr 11, 2017, 11:01 am
#2918
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,012
Reading all these posts over the past few days have been quite surprising:
1. I find myself defending UA for once
2. People think a DYKWIA is a hero for not complying with UA staff and resisting security
3. People think its OK for a DYKWIA to delay the travel plans of hundreds of people
4. People suddenly think written IDB procedures which have existed for years and are followed daily are immoral.
Guess what, when you force a physical response (even by not moving), it's going to get messy.
In all my flying, I've never personally encountered this type of incident and never worried about it. However, seeing people's reactions, I fear that the odds of one DYKWIA disrupting my travel plans could be much higher than I thought
1. I find myself defending UA for once
2. People think a DYKWIA is a hero for not complying with UA staff and resisting security
3. People think its OK for a DYKWIA to delay the travel plans of hundreds of people
4. People suddenly think written IDB procedures which have existed for years and are followed daily are immoral.
Guess what, when you force a physical response (even by not moving), it's going to get messy.
In all my flying, I've never personally encountered this type of incident and never worried about it. However, seeing people's reactions, I fear that the odds of one DYKWIA disrupting my travel plans could be much higher than I thought
Apr 11, 2017, 11:02 am
#2920
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
It's more like you use your parking permit to park your car one morning and then the university employees come over to your workplace and say we have someone more important who needs to park his car in your spot and if you don't move it we will violently drag you to your car and make you move it.
Apr 11, 2017, 11:03 am
#2921
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Princeton, NJ; Lviv Ukraine
Programs: UA 3.6MM, AF/KL Lifetime Plat, BA Gold, AA 1MM, IC Spire RA, Kimpton IC, Marriott Plat, et alia
Posts: 2,732
Reading all these posts over the past few days have been quite surprising:
1. I find myself defending UA for once
2. People think a DYKWIA is a hero for not complying with UA staff and resisting security
3. People think its OK for a DYKWIA to delay the travel plans of hundreds of people
4. People suddenly think written IDB procedures which have existed for years and are followed daily are immoral.
Guess what, when you force a physical response (even by not moving), it's going to get messy.
In all my flying, I've never personally encountered this type of incident and never worried about it. However, seeing people's reactions, I fear that the odds of one DYKWIA disrupting my travel plans could be much higher than I thought
1. I find myself defending UA for once
2. People think a DYKWIA is a hero for not complying with UA staff and resisting security
3. People think its OK for a DYKWIA to delay the travel plans of hundreds of people
4. People suddenly think written IDB procedures which have existed for years and are followed daily are immoral.
Guess what, when you force a physical response (even by not moving), it's going to get messy.
In all my flying, I've never personally encountered this type of incident and never worried about it. However, seeing people's reactions, I fear that the odds of one DYKWIA disrupting my travel plans could be much higher than I thought
Apr 11, 2017, 11:04 am
#2922
Join Date: Jul 2005
Programs: SQ *Gold
Posts: 871
The crux of my disagreement with you centers on this. He did not "force" a physical response. The airline had other options and it is a disgusting society that tolerates institutional violence as a course of action at such a low threshold. They could have reasoned with him, talked to him and continued talking to him until they convinced him or someone else volunteered to go and take higher compensation. There were MANY options on the table at this point.
Apr 11, 2017, 11:05 am
#2923
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,664
I've been wondering about the chain of events that caused the RJ carrier to need to deadhead a full crew to Louisville. Normally their crew would fly in working some flight and then fly out, back to a hub, also working a flight. The last flight in the evening would have the crew overnight there and then work a flight the next day, albeit not necessarily the first flight out if they were the last flight in due to the required rest period. In many cases, the crew would stay together with the same aircraft for an entire crew trip, but in other cases, optimal usage of the aircraft could mean flipping crews and planes to minimize the time the aircraft is sitting parked on the ground at some airport.
Does anyone know whether there was some RJ flight operated by the same carrier that was behind schedule and therefore arriving late into Louisville, thereby necessitating that an additional crew be flown in so that the flight would not be delayed waiting for overnight crew rest.
I'm suspicious about the following:
--When should it have become clear to UA or the RJ operator that some crew would be arriving late and therefore unable to depart on time the following morning due to crew rest minimums?
--What happened to the flights leaving Louisville on Monday? If the four crew that caused the IDBs arrived much later than planned due to the long delays to clean up the blood, etc., at some point it should have become an operation in vain to have those four crew members travel to Louisville.
--Could UA have used other UA or other airline flights too move the four crew members close enough to Louisville ? It's really the same reason why UA couldn't have had them driven to Louisville, although I suspect that UA (or other airlines) might have had space available on flights departing at an appropriate time (not much after the originally scheduled departure time of 5:40 pm for the flight on which the incident occurred) from ORC to airports close to Louisville.
--The two deadheading FAs were qualified to ride in jumpseats on the full flight? Why didn't
They offer to do so, given that it's a short flight and they wouldn't be working until the next day. Similarly, could one of the pilots have ridden in the cockpit? [Does this aircraft have an additional seat in the cockpit?] Would either of the pilots been qualified to ride in a jumpseat?
Does anyone know whether there was some RJ flight operated by the same carrier that was behind schedule and therefore arriving late into Louisville, thereby necessitating that an additional crew be flown in so that the flight would not be delayed waiting for overnight crew rest.
I'm suspicious about the following:
--When should it have become clear to UA or the RJ operator that some crew would be arriving late and therefore unable to depart on time the following morning due to crew rest minimums?
--What happened to the flights leaving Louisville on Monday? If the four crew that caused the IDBs arrived much later than planned due to the long delays to clean up the blood, etc., at some point it should have become an operation in vain to have those four crew members travel to Louisville.
--Could UA have used other UA or other airline flights too move the four crew members close enough to Louisville ? It's really the same reason why UA couldn't have had them driven to Louisville, although I suspect that UA (or other airlines) might have had space available on flights departing at an appropriate time (not much after the originally scheduled departure time of 5:40 pm for the flight on which the incident occurred) from ORC to airports close to Louisville.
--The two deadheading FAs were qualified to ride in jumpseats on the full flight? Why didn't
They offer to do so, given that it's a short flight and they wouldn't be working until the next day. Similarly, could one of the pilots have ridden in the cockpit? [Does this aircraft have an additional seat in the cockpit?] Would either of the pilots been qualified to ride in a jumpseat?
Unless there was space available in the cabin for sale RPA cannot force LOF to VDB/IDB pax for them. Using a jumpseat on a diffrent airline is a big risk as it cannot be used as confirmed seating.
An E175 does have a singular jumpseat which may have been occupied by someone with higher priority or rules prohibited it. I have a hard time believing that it was simply forgotten about and not thought of.
Apr 11, 2017, 11:05 am
#2924
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: BOS
Programs: JetBlue Mosaic, WN A List Preferred, Hyatt Globalest, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum, IHG Spire
Posts: 3,966
Questions About Chronology Of Events
1. What are the circumstances by which the doctor re-boarded 3411 after he was initially ejected by the police officers?
2. What exactly happened after he boarded 3411 for the 2nd time? It seems like he got off again, but the circumstances are not clear? And what are the circumstances of how he re-boarded this aircraft?
3. Was the doctor medically evaluated by EMS, and what was the disposition of the evaluation i.e. transport to hospital, treated on scene, or refused to go to the hospital i.e. AMA?
4. What happened to the doctor after 3411 pushed from ORD? I mean is he still at ORD? How did he get to SDF? Did UA give him a hotel voucher?
5. I'm assuming he was just detained by LEO's, but never arrested or charged with a crime?
6. Where is he now, and how is he still anonymous?
7. Are there any radio traffic recordings from UA operations, ORD police, ORD EMS, etc. that have surfaced? Those tapes may tell a lot, usually the disposition of police and EMS calls is given over the radio to the dispatcher. Think, Pandora's Clock.
8. What level of ORD police responded to the gate, and authorized the use of force. I.e. was a commanding officer such as a sargent or Lieutenant consulted about the amount of force or the operational tactics that should have been used in this case?
9. What are the "right" operational tactics for a LEO in a case like this, i.e. pax refused to vacate the plane when ordered to do so.
2. What exactly happened after he boarded 3411 for the 2nd time? It seems like he got off again, but the circumstances are not clear? And what are the circumstances of how he re-boarded this aircraft?
3. Was the doctor medically evaluated by EMS, and what was the disposition of the evaluation i.e. transport to hospital, treated on scene, or refused to go to the hospital i.e. AMA?
4. What happened to the doctor after 3411 pushed from ORD? I mean is he still at ORD? How did he get to SDF? Did UA give him a hotel voucher?
5. I'm assuming he was just detained by LEO's, but never arrested or charged with a crime?
6. Where is he now, and how is he still anonymous?
7. Are there any radio traffic recordings from UA operations, ORD police, ORD EMS, etc. that have surfaced? Those tapes may tell a lot, usually the disposition of police and EMS calls is given over the radio to the dispatcher. Think, Pandora's Clock.
8. What level of ORD police responded to the gate, and authorized the use of force. I.e. was a commanding officer such as a sargent or Lieutenant consulted about the amount of force or the operational tactics that should have been used in this case?
9. What are the "right" operational tactics for a LEO in a case like this, i.e. pax refused to vacate the plane when ordered to do so.
Apr 11, 2017, 11:05 am
#2925
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 87
Reading all these posts over the past few days have been quite surprising:
1. I find myself defending UA for once
2. People think a DYKWIA is a hero for not complying with UA staff and resisting security
3. People think its OK for a DYKWIA to delay the travel plans of hundreds of people
4. People suddenly think written IDB procedures which have existed for years and are followed daily are immoral.
Guess what, when you force a physical response (even by not moving), it's going to get messy.
In all my flying, I've never personally encountered this type of incident and never worried about it. However, seeing people's reactions, I fear that the odds of one DYKWIA disrupting my travel plans could be much higher than I thought
1. I find myself defending UA for once
2. People think a DYKWIA is a hero for not complying with UA staff and resisting security
3. People think its OK for a DYKWIA to delay the travel plans of hundreds of people
4. People suddenly think written IDB procedures which have existed for years and are followed daily are immoral.
Guess what, when you force a physical response (even by not moving), it's going to get messy.
In all my flying, I've never personally encountered this type of incident and never worried about it. However, seeing people's reactions, I fear that the odds of one DYKWIA disrupting my travel plans could be much higher than I thought