Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Community
Wiki Posts
Search
Old Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
WELCOME, THREAD GUIDELINES and SUMMARY PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk! Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that cover the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel (not politics or arguments about politics or religion, etc. – those discussion are best in the OMNI forum)

The incident discussed in this thread has touched a nerve for many, and many posters are passionate about their opinions and concerns. However we should still have a civil and respectful discussion of this topic. This is because FlyerTalk is meant to be a friendly, helpful, and collegial community. (Rule 12.)

1. The normal FlyerTalk Rules apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions in thread). Please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.

2. You are expected to respect the FlyerTalk community's diversity, and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Do not cite, copy, or report on such.

3. While you can disagree with an opinion, the holder of that opinion has the same right to their opinion as you have to yours. We request all to respect that and disagree or discuss their point of views without getting overly personal and without attacking the other poster(s). This is expected as a requirement in FT Rule 12.

4. Overly exaggerative posts as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously may be summarily deleted.

5. In addition, those who repeatedly fail to comply with FlyerTalk Rules, may be subjected to FlyerTalk disciplinary actions and, e.g., have membership privileges suspended, or masked from this forum.

If you have questions about the Rules or concerns about what another has posted in this or other threads in this forum, please do not post about that. Rather, notify the moderators by using the alert symbol within each post or email or send a private message to us moderators.

Let’s have this discussion in a way that, when we look back on it, we can be proud of how we handled ourselves as a community.

The United Moderator team:
J.Edward
l'etoile
Ocn Vw 1K
Pat89339
WineCountryUA

N.B. PLEASE do not alter the contents of this moderator note
Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
CHICAGO, April 27, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- We are pleased to report that United and Dr. Dao have reached an amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident that occurred aboard flight 3411. We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do.
DOT findings related to the UA3411 9 April 2017 IDB incident 12 May 2017

What facts do we know?
  • UA3411, operated by Republic Airways, ORD-SDF on Sunday, April 9, 2017. UA3411 was the second to last flight to SDF for United. AA3509 and UA4771 were the two remaining departures for the day. Also, AA and DL had connecting options providing for same-day arrival in SDF.
  • After the flight was fully boarded, United determined four seats were needed to accommodate crew to SDF for a flight on Monday.
  • United solicited volunteers for VDB. (BUT stopped at $800 in UA$s, not cash). Chose not to go to the levels such as 1350 that airlines have been known to go even in case of weather impacted disruption)
  • After receiving no volunteers for $800 vouchers, a passenger volunteered for $1,600 and was "laughed at" and refused, United determined four passengers to be removed from the flight.
  • One passenger refused and Chicago Aviation Security Officers were called to forcibly remove the passenger.
  • The passenger hit the armrest in the aisle and received a concussion, a broken nose, a bloodied lip, and the loss of two teeth.
  • After being removed from the plane, the passenger re-boarded saying "I need to go home" repeatedly, before being removed again.
  • United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said the flight was sold out — but not oversold. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines – the unit that operated Flight 3411 – decided they had to remove four passengers from the flight to accommodate crewmembers who were needed in Louisville the next day for a “downline connection.”

United Express Flight 3411 Review and Action Report - released 27 April 2017

Videos

Internal Communication by Oscar Munoz
Oscar Munoz sent an internal communication to UA employees (sources: View From The Wing, Chicago Tribune):
Dear Team,

Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.

As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.

I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.

Oscar

Summary of Flight 3411
  • On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.
  • We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
  • He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
  • Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
  • Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
Email sent to all employees at 2:08PM on Tuesday, April 11.
Dear Team,

The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.

I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.

It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.

I promise you we will do better.

Sincerely,

Oscar
Statement to customers - 27 April 2017
Each flight you take with us represents an important promise we make to you, our customer. It's not simply that we make sure you reach your destination safely and on time, but also that you will be treated with the highest level of service and the deepest sense of dignity and respect.

Earlier this month, we broke that trust when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of our planes. We can never say we are sorry enough for what occurred, but we also know meaningful actions will speak louder than words.

For the past several weeks, we have been urgently working to answer two questions: How did this happen, and how can we do our best to ensure this never happens again?

It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.

Fixing that problem starts now with changing how we fly, serve and respect our customers. This is a turning point for all of us here at United – and as CEO, it's my responsibility to make sure that we learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to put our customers at the center of everything we do.

That’s why we announced that we will no longer ask law enforcement to remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.

We also know that despite our best efforts, when things don’t go the way they should, we need to be there for you to make things right. There are several new ways we’re going to do just that.

We will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000 and will be eliminating the red tape on permanently lost bags with a new "no-questions-asked" $1,500 reimbursement policy. We will also be rolling out a new app for our employees that will enable them to provide on-the-spot goodwill gestures in the form of miles, travel credit and other amenities when your experience with us misses the mark. You can learn more about these commitments and many other changes at hub.united.com.

While these actions are important, I have found myself reflecting more broadly on the role we play and the responsibilities we have to you and the communities we serve.

I believe we must go further in redefining what United's corporate citizenship looks like in our society. If our chief good as a company is only getting you to and from your destination, that would show a lack of moral imagination on our part. You can and ought to expect more from us, and we intend to live up to those higher expectations in the way we embody social responsibility and civic leadership everywhere we operate. I hope you will see that pledge express itself in our actions going forward, of which these initial, though important, changes are merely a first step.

Our goal should be nothing less than to make you truly proud to say, "I fly United."

Ultimately, the measure of our success is your satisfaction and the past several weeks have moved us to go further than ever before in elevating your experience with us. I know our 87,000 employees have taken this message to heart, and they are as energized as ever to fulfill our promise to serve you better with each flight and earn the trust you’ve given us.

We are working harder than ever for the privilege to serve you and I know we will be stronger, better and the customer-focused airline you expect and deserve.

With Great Gratitude,

Oscar Munoz
CEO
United Airlines
Aftermath
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines Reference Material

UA's Customer Commitment says:
Occasionally we may not be able to provide you with a seat on a specific flight, even if you hold a ticket, have checked in, are present to board on time, and comply with other requirements. This is called an oversale, and occurs when restrictions apply to operating a particular flight safely (such as aircraft weight limits); when we have to substitute a smaller aircraft in place of a larger aircraft that was originally scheduled; or if more customers have checked in and are prepared to board than we have available seats.

If your flight is in an oversale situation, you will not be denied a seat until we first ask for volunteers willing to give up their confirmed seats. If there are not enough volunteers, we will deny boarding to passengers in accordance with our written policy on boarding priority. If you are involuntarily denied boarding and have complied with our check-in and other applicable rules, we will give you a written statement that describes your rights and explains how we determine boarding priority for an oversold flight. You will generally be entitled to compensation and transportation on an alternate flight.

We make complete rules for the payment of compensation, as well as our policy about boarding priorities, available at airports we serve. We will follow these rules to ensure you are treated fairly. Please be aware that you may be denied boarding without compensation if you do not check in on time or do not meet certain other requirements, or if we offer you alternative transportation that is planned to arrive at your destination or first stopover no later than one hour after the planned arrival time of your original flight.
CoC is here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx
Print Wikipost

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:31 am
  #2971  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nawthun Virginia
Programs: Air: UA (Gold), AA, WN, DL; Hotel: Hilton (Diamond), plus all the rest
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by jwh212
A passenger who refuses to comply with the airline's directives, becomes belligerent, is presumed to be a potential safety risk, if that is the way you need to think of it. Similarly, someone who is intoxicated is also considered to be a safety risk, these are all reasons to be booted.
It doesn't say the "airline's" directives. It says the "flight crew's" directives, in the carrying out of their lawful duties, in this case, related solely to the safety of the passengers and crew.
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:32 am
  #2972  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,012
Originally Posted by NFH
What do you mean by "officially"? I think you'll find that once a passenger's boarding pass is scanned at the gate, the system records that they've boarded. Certainly by the time the passenger is seated on the aircraft, they have boarded, whether you mean officially or unofficially or any other definition.
Oh stop being logical and assuming words have their commonly understood meaning!
trouble747 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:32 am
  #2973  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 6
I think this bullet in the wiki

"After the flight was fully boarded, United determined four seats were needed to accommodate crew to SDF for a flight on Monday."

should remove everything after the needed. The rest is single sourced from UA and other UA communications appear to be less than truthful.
nbxguru is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:33 am
  #2974  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Over the North Atlantic
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 494
Originally Posted by 747FC
1. He reboarded himself because he was not properly restrained by LEOs, probably because they were compassionate people who for some unfathomable reason thought they were dealing with a rational person.
1. I don't think compassionate means what you think it means.

2. He could not have been clear minded especially since it's likely that he suffered some sort of head trauma during the first removal.







8 & 9. Once police officers make a decision to intervene with a case, based upon the facts presented and obvious, and their knowledge of law and experience, the following occur:

A. Issue verbal request to comply
B. Issue verbal command to comply
C. Use that amount of physical force necessary to ensure compliance.

This was never a case of the LEOs using excessive force. It is unfortunate when someone gets injured during the course of an arrest, but that happens when the perpetrator refuses to comply with lawful orders and physical force is necessary.

Too bad that the Chicago Airport Police are not standing by their LEOs. Apparently, they have better PR advice than UA.

You have way too much faith in the law enforcement. They suffer the same flaws as any other human beings, and can be prone to excesses.
muishkin is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:33 am
  #2975  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
Originally Posted by NFH
Not true. United could have made an increased cash offer instead of resorting to violence by proxy. Violence is an unreasonable way to deal with a passenger who is reasonably exercising his contractual right.
I can't believe you want to empower and legalize extortion. Unbelievable.
minnyfly is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:34 am
  #2976  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nawthun Virginia
Programs: Air: UA (Gold), AA, WN, DL; Hotel: Hilton (Diamond), plus all the rest
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by Summa Cum Laude Touro Law Center
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.
Yes. United can define "boarding" however they like, if they do so clearly in the CofC, which they have not done. That is another legal principle: The burden of clarity is on the writer of the document, not on the reader. Ambiguity always favors the reader (in this case, the pax). This is true everywhere in contract law--the designer and owner are responsible for ambiguity, not the contractor. In the absence of clarity, the plain reading is what I see judges ruling. And the airline itself calls scanning and entering the airplane "boarding". "We are now boarding group 1" "Global services may board at any time." Obviously, those usages are not defining "boarding" as closing the door, push-back, or becoming airborne.

Last edited by Rdenney; Apr 11, 2017 at 1:07 pm
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:34 am
  #2977  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,012
Originally Posted by 747FC
This was never a case of the LEOs using excessive force. It is unfortunate when someone gets injured during the course of an arrest, but that happens when the perpetrator refuses to comply with lawful orders and physical force is necessary.

Too bad that the Chicago Airport Police are not standing by their LEOs. Apparently, they have better PR advice than UA.
And you honestly think you know enough about the situation to disregard the Authority's statement that the officer was not following SOP?
trouble747 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:34 am
  #2978  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 6,232
Originally Posted by trouble747
Oh stop being logical and assuming words have their commonly understood meaning!
Agreed. Otherwise what would lawyers have left to do?
Bohemian1 is online now  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:35 am
  #2979  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: SFO
Programs: Free agent, UA 1K, Bonvoy Gold
Posts: 353
Originally Posted by Steffo
This thing with UA 3411 I think will similarly have a disproportionate effect on Chinese travelers. I think you'll see a decent number of those who have the choice making efforts to avoid the airline. And UA has invested heavily in routes from China to the US.
This. The number of my Chinese friends (Taiwan/HK/Mainland) who've posted about this on FB and the Chinese SNS' is insane.
bioyuki is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:35 am
  #2980  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: London
Programs: BA Silver, Hilton Gold, IHG Platinum
Posts: 59
Involuntarily Unloaded

How many of you in this thread have ever been involuntarily unloaded from a plane? If you have, like I have, then you probably share my empathy for this guy's situation.

I spent a few days stuck in Lukla, Nepal trying to get a seat on one of the few flights heading back to Kathmandu, and was lucky enough to get the last seat on one of those planes. The pilot started the engines up, and just when it seemed like we were going to start taxiing off, the back door opened up and the gate agent told me I had to get off because the plane was overweight.

I can appreciate there are some differences in opinion about the meaning of 'Involuntary Denial of Boarding', but to me there is a very clear difference between getting told no at the gate versus being asked to leave your seat. Perhaps if United's PR department had that level of empathy, then they would realize what a nightmare this is.

One more thing. The word belligerent has many synonyms ranging in weight from hostile and combative to contentious and argumentative. I think we can all agree that it would be disingenuous to call someone 'belligerent' for saying something like 'No, I would prefer not to leave my seat'. As for those seeking to discredit the character of this victim, I personally find this man's background to give more cause for empathy. Then again, I believe in redemption, and the idea that people can learn from their mistakes. Hopefully United can pick up this simple lesson.

Last edited by CasaDeTony; Apr 11, 2017 at 11:37 am Reason: Capitalization
CasaDeTony is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:35 am
  #2981  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,394
Originally Posted by works2r
seems like what they could have done was just say there was MX, deboarded the entire plane, and then deny during a re-boarding sequence?

but, realistically, as the only people who actually know the sequence of events are the crew, some pax, and possibly the GAs involved - if the sequence of events went:

a) boarded all seats
b) announce and attempt VDB
c) IDB selection process
d) notify IDB and deboard
e) notify local LEO/transport station authority as per SOP
f) IDB'd pax not obeying lawful command
g) LEO using or not using SOP to extract IDB pax from acft

i think reasonably, the only recourse for IDB'd pax is to go after UA (or Republic in this case, I would assume) for documentable damages, LE orgs for using excessive force?
LEO's exist for public safety. Not fixing a UA customer service issue. This is a civil matter and not a criminal matter.

UA can hide behind the contract of carriage and "not following crew member instructions" But it's flimsy at best.

What happens if the crew member decides that every needs to drop and give them 50 pushups? Can the crew order you to punch your spouse? They don't get unlimited authority just because you're sitting on an airplane. So that argument is hog-wash, it had nothing to do with the security of the flight and everything to do with fixing UA's mistake.

So if you eliminate the Flight crew's following order's authority, then there is no authority to call the police, and no lawful order that can be given to the person.

Just because someone wears a badge does not give them unlimited authority.
kop84 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:36 am
  #2982  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by minnyfly
I can't believe you want to empower and legalize extortion. Unbelievable.
Paying market price is extortion?
erlich is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:36 am
  #2983  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,060
Sarcastic post. I guess the guy was lucky he was a frail Asian dude.

If it had been a dude of middle eastern ethnicity (or some "terrorist" looking person), that guy would have been tasered or shot.

.... LEO and the police state.
Rommie2k6 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:37 am
  #2984  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,060
Originally Posted by kop84
LEO's exist for public safety. Not fixing a UA customer service issue. This is a civil matter and not a criminal matter.

UA can hide behind the contract of carriage and "not following crew member instructions" But it's flimsy at best.

What happens if the crew member decides that every needs to drop and give them 50 pushups? Can the crew order you to punch your spouse? They don't get unlimited authority just because you're sitting on an airplane. So that argument is hog-wash, it had nothing to do with the security of the flight and everything to do with fixing UA's mistake.

So if you eliminate the Flight crew's following order's authority, then there is no authority to call the police, and no lawful order that can be given to the person.

Just because someone wears a badge does not give them unlimited authority.
Precisely! The places that give unlimited power to badges incidentally include Nazi Germany.
Rommie2k6 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 11:38 am
  #2985  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PHL
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, Marriott Gold, IHG Platinum, Raddison Platinum, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 5,271
Originally Posted by minnyfly

Originally Posted by NFH
Not true. United could have made an increased cash offer instead of resorting to violence by proxy. Violence is an unreasonable way to deal with a passenger who is reasonably exercising his contractual right.
I can't believe you want to empower and legalize extortion. Unbelievable.
UA is the one who is exercising their contractual right to remove him from the plane. They are under no obligation to reward a passenger for non-compliance with the agreed to contract. All that will do is encourage others to do the same

As for excessive force, that's for the courts to decide. It looked like they were just trying to pull him out of his seat and he PHYSICALLY resisted causing his own injuries. Then seeing he lost the battle decided to lay down and get dragged out only to break free and run back aboard.
eng3 is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.