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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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, 12:14 pm
  #3046  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
Originally Posted by muishkin
I don't think extortion means what you think it means.
Obliviously I do and you don't. What has been suggested would empower the passengers to escalate any situation with threat. The airline now has no rights on their own property. They are held hostage to the passenger's demands. Their only recourse would be to cancel the flight.
minnyfly is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:14 pm
  #3047  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: SFO/CDG
Programs: UA 1k
Posts: 211
They need the employees to be in a hotel by a certain time to be available to fly the next morning by FAA regulations. This flight was the way to do that. I would guess (but don't know) that this situation was recognized/created very shortly before the flight in question was scheduled to leave. I don't think its the fault of the deadheading crew.

The second level problem is that the gate agents do not have the authority to just offer limitless compensation to get people to deplane. None of this justifies the outcome.


Originally Posted by NotSoOftenFlyer
Okay so how is this not the fault of the 4 UA employees calling in sooner (they have cell phones right?) to let gate agent(s) know that there was going to be a problem?

Had it been me I would have gotten the employees an Uber or something rather than risk pissing off (much less battering) a passenger but hindsight is 20/20.

Thanks BuBu4!
SFO28L is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:14 pm
  #3048  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Originally Posted by stinky123
What is does for me is to convince me that the UA employees dumping the guy's personal information out there on the internet are even more disgusting and morally compromised than I could have imagined.
I'm not sure this is the case. I take no position on the people who work for UA, but why would they have any information about the passenger to dump onto the Internet? I usually don't have to submit my entire life history to an airline in order to purchase a ticket.
jkhuggins is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:15 pm
  #3049  
 
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
Originally Posted by NotSoOftenFlyer
Okay so how is this not the fault of the 4 UA employees calling in sooner (they have cell phones right?) to let gate agent(s) know that there was going to be a problem?

Had it been me I would have gotten the employees an Uber or something rather than risk pissing off (much less battering) a passenger but hindsight is 20/20.

Thanks BuBu4!
Do we know that the crew being sent to SDF knew far in advance that they would be sent there? It isn't necessarily their job to call ahead to a gate to say "hold us some seats!".....that is the job of the carrier and gate staff.

5 hours in a car traveling to SDF would have counted against the rest time that the crew needed, making it impossible for them to work the flight they were being sent to SDF for in the first place. UA probably should have sent 4 people by ground transportation to SDF right away if a flight wasn't going to do it sooner, but the ride was not an option for the crew.
UAzip is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:15 pm
  #3050  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
Ben Baldanza, of all people (ex-Spirit CEO), interviewed on CNBC just now. Never thought I'd see the day when Baldanza is schooling United on customer service.

He said:

** This is an incident that was caused largely by UA. Had someone notified the gate in advance that the deadheaders were en route, the gate could have handled boarding accordingly.

** UA public response thus far has been tone-deaf; they should have said, right off the top, we've made a lot of mistakes here.

** They probably have some internal policy that limits how high the gate can go (on compensation offers)... gate agents tend to do a good job with overbooking when they know there's going to be an issue... that wasn't the case here.

** (Should consumers assume the seat they sit down in during boarding, that they've paid for, isn't really theirs until the plane takes off? Was what UA did legal or not?) Whether it's legal or not, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

** The decision to pull people off the plane didn't need to happen. The decision to call security in was probably because they felt constrained re: how much they could give to customers in compensation.

** (Should there be protection for consumers against getting pulled off the plane?) It's a slippery slope, though -- what if someone is genuinely belligerent, or a security risk?
BearX220 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:16 pm
  #3051  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SNA
Programs: AA gold, DL Gold, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Plat
Posts: 446
Originally Posted by bioyuki
+1

I spent yesterday reading up on 14 CFR and 49 USC and the case law for a PIC or FA kicking passengers off, but that doesn't seem to be the situation here. Should be interesting to do a search to see if there's any precedent on 'boarding' out there...
Common usage of the word boarding is to "get on" an aircraft regardless of the ambiguous fine print. I doubt the vast majority of English-speaking people will read anything more into the word.
PilgrimsProgress is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:16 pm
  #3052  
NFH
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London (LCY)
Programs: BA bronze, Hilton gold, Marriott gold, IHG plat, Meliá gold, Radisson gold, Hyatt disc, AmexPlat
Posts: 977
Originally Posted by iplaybass
While according to CofC, UA was within its boundaries to take the actions they did.
Please quote the relevant term from United's CoC that allowed it to remove a boarded passenger for this reason.
NFH is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:16 pm
  #3053  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,664
Originally Posted by NotSoOftenFlyer
Okay so how is this not the fault of the 4 UA employees calling in sooner (they have cell phones right?) to let gate agent(s) know that there was going to be a problem?

Had it been me I would have gotten the employees an Uber or something rather than risk pissing off (much less battering) a passenger but hindsight is 20/20.

Thanks BuBu4!
Transport by ground would likely not have worked do to FAA rest rules.

The 4 likely didn't know until slightly before the gate agent did, the crew wouldn't have been to call the gate, the information would come probably from other OPS personal.
ROCAT is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:16 pm
  #3054  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,049
Originally Posted by 24left
I commend your enthusiasm and effort and noticed that your post 1997 referenced 2000. I can't believe I read every post from start until approx 2:00 am ET and I am still impressed at the overall civility and interesting perspectives.
Thanks there's always 3000 (I think I'm a little above the IDP cut though) and 4000! Well, and.....
GadgetFreak is online now  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:16 pm
  #3055  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Programs: A3 *G, AA exePlat, AS MVP 75k Gold, JL sapphire, UA silver
Posts: 4,035
Originally Posted by UAzip
Do we know that the crew being sent to SDF knew far in advance that they would be sent there? It isn't necessarily their job to call ahead to a gate to say "hold us some seats!".....that is the job of the carrier and gate staff.

5 hours in a car traveling to SDF would have counted against the rest time that the crew needed, making it impossible for them to work the flight they were being sent to SDF for in the first place. UA probably should have sent 4 people by ground transportation to SDF right away if a flight wasn't going to do it sooner, but the ride was not an option for the crew.
they could have paid and ask some passengers to take a car. butt instead, they offered 800 funny vouche, and a flight 22 hrs later.
pbd456 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:17 pm
  #3056  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Programs: Delta
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by SFO28L
They need the employees to be in a hotel by a certain time to be available to fly the next morning by FAA regulations. This flight was the way to do that. I would guess (but don't know) that this situation was recognized/created very shortly before the flight in question was scheduled to leave. I don't think its the fault of the deadheading crew.

The second level problem is that the gate agents do not have the authority to just offer limitless compensation to get people to deplane. None of this justifies the outcome.
Second part first: I think back in the day gate agents may have had more authority / flexibility in making offers to VDB or IVDB passengers?

First part: Could they not have chartered a plane for the 4 UA employees to get to Louisville? Not cheap I know but that or maybe another airline could have accommodated them? Just brainstorming here.
NotSoOftenFlyer is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:18 pm
  #3057  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Programs: Landry's President's Club, Marriott Silver, Awesomeness EXPLT
Posts: 20,420
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
I'm not sure this is the case. I take no position on the people who work for UA, but why would they have any information about the passenger to dump onto the Internet? I usually don't have to submit my entire life history to an airline in order to purchase a ticket.
It doesn't take very long to get a background check on someone when you're a large corporation.
stockmanjr is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:19 pm
  #3058  
NFH
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London (LCY)
Programs: BA bronze, Hilton gold, Marriott gold, IHG plat, Meliá gold, Radisson gold, Hyatt disc, AmexPlat
Posts: 977
Originally Posted by PilgrimsProgress
Common usage of the word boarding is to "get on" an aircraft regardless of the ambiguous fine print. I doubt the vast majority of English-speaking people will read anything more into the word.
You're right. But I don't even see any ambiguous fine print. The meaning of the word is clear and unambiguous. Even if United sought to persuade a court that there was ambiguity, it would fall against them under the doctrine of contra proferentem.
NFH is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:19 pm
  #3059  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Programs: A3 *G, AA exePlat, AS MVP 75k Gold, JL sapphire, UA silver
Posts: 4,035
Originally Posted by NotSoOftenFlyer
Second part first: I think back in the day gate agents may have had more authority / flexibility in making offers to VDB or IVDB passengers?

First part: Could they not have chartered a plane for the 4 UA employees to get to Louisville? Not cheap I know but that or maybe another airline could have accommodated them? Just brainstorming here.
they dont even need that. they can charter a taxi for the 4 VDB and give them vouches.

they can put them on other airlines like AA or DL (connecting)

they can oversell the next flight
pbd456 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:20 pm
  #3060  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Programs: Landry's President's Club, Marriott Silver, Awesomeness EXPLT
Posts: 20,420
Originally Posted by SFO28L

The second level problem is that the gate agents do not have the authority to just offer limitless compensation to get people to deplane. None of this justifies the outcome.
You know there's a great invention called the telephone which you can use to call someone higher up that can authorize a higher number probably takes all of two minutes.
Cheers
Howie
stockmanjr 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.