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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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, 12:38 pm
  #3106  
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
Originally Posted by PushingTin
All a lawyer has to do is ask if any FA has ever said "Welcome aboard" when someone, ahem, boards an airplane.
Yup, there's a sign at the gate that says "NOW BOARDING" when passengers are getting on the plane. It doesn't say "BOARDING LATER." I'd like to see a judge consider the argument that boarding the aircraft isn't really "boarding."
BearX220 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:38 pm
  #3107  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by KCalla
Well put!
Better yet, the LEO should have heard the complaint, told United no laws were being broken, and that United would need to deal with the situation without expecting them to intervene. A higher offer would have been put out, potentially even with cash instead of vouchers people didn't want, and somebody would have volunteered.
DrPSB is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:39 pm
  #3108  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,092
Now that it's been established the guy in question is a convicted criminal with a history of mental issues, I expect people to separate the two issues here:

- Industry practice/protocols related to IDB
- Lunatic refuses to comply with police orders and obtains minor injuries while being removed from the plane.

The former is of course 'bad service' and really just another part of the efficiency drive that's so typical of this high risk, low margin industry. But it's also just one of many such things in commercial aviation and it seems legit odd to me that people are 'shocked' by the fact you can get bumped from a flight after taking a seat. Experienced flyers know that anything goes until the door is closed and you're off the ground.

The latter is really just another illustration of the unstable running into problems when compliance is requested. I think the cops could probably have tried to be a bit gentler about it but at the same time, it just wouldn't happen to a normal person who acts in a normal, predictable fashion. That issue is totally divorced from the IDB and airline policy issue though.
Ber2dca is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:40 pm
  #3109  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 47
Originally Posted by pbd456
if the offer is good, there are other passengers who will respond to it faster.
Yep, they didn't need this particular man off the plane, any passenger who volunteered would have accomplished the goal. But we'll never know what amount would have induced a volunteer to accept since United abandoned the negotiations after they hit $800/$1000 and decided triggering an involuntary bump was the better option. That judgment turned out great for them, didn't it.
ddarko is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:40 pm
  #3110  
 
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 DrPSB
Better yet, the LEO should have heard the complaint, told United no laws were being broken, and that United would need to deal with the situation without expecting them to intervene. A higher offer would have been put out, potentially even with cash instead of vouchers people didn't want, and somebody would have volunteered.
One of the posts in the Air Canada threads outlined a not dissimilar IDB situation where the LEOs told the GAs to figure it out themselves.
Bohemian1 is online now  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:41 pm
  #3111  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: LIT
Programs: Blinged Out
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by enviroian
LOLOL
Doesn't matter what happened years ago, in a civil suit, preponderance of the evidence is key to determining whether UA is liable or not.

The evidence doesn't look good for UA at the moment. There would have to literally be video of him pulling a Ben Stiller on-board to change anyone's mind now that the image of his bloody face is etched in peoples' heads.

Would you feel different if he were a clergyman, brothel owner, pipe fitter, lawyer, politician, fireman? What he did years ago has no bearing on what happened on that flight.
SeaHawg is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:41 pm
  #3112  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Programs: Landry's President's Club, Marriott Silver, Awesomeness EXPLT
Posts: 20,420
Wondering if UA will hire this guy as a GA??
stockmanjr is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:41 pm
  #3113  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: somewhere north of stateside...
Posts: 4,155
A passenger on the flight was on CNN, interviewed by Jake Tapper.

This passenger stated that Dr. Dao initially volunteered to be bumped, but when he was told that the next flight wasn't for 22 hours, he said it was not possible.

I question if this had anything to do with his selection.
makin'miles is online now  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:42 pm
  #3114  
jbb
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Programs: SQ *Gold
Posts: 871
Originally Posted by Ber2dca

I think the cops could probably have tried to be a bit gentler about it but at the same time, it just wouldn't happen to a normal person who acts in a normal, predictable fashion. That issue is totally divorced from the IDB and airline policy issue though.
IMO it was the cops who did not act in a normal, predictable fashion. Physically yanking a 69-year old man from a crowded aircraft and dragging him off the plane is NOT normal. Which is precisely why this story has made global headlines.
jbb is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:42 pm
  #3115  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,664
Originally Posted by PushingTin
Are Skywest and ExpressJet real airlines? I thought they were contractors- or are they both?
What do you mean by real? They are both Part 121 carriers with operating certificates the same as UAL, DAL, AAL, SWA, or JBU.

They are both owned by by the same company SkyWest Inc who is classified as a major airline by the FAA with a combined fleet of nearly 700 aircraft making it one of the largest in the world.
ROCAT is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:43 pm
  #3116  
 
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 sbrower
But if 100,000 other people have been IDB'd before they got on the plane, and if 10,000 other people have complied with a request from UA personnel to leave the plane in similar circumstances, and if 100 others waited for LEO and then complied, and if 10 got physically pulled off the plane (without hitting their face on the seat and/or without being videoed), then how should UA have known that THIS time with THIS passenger it should be different?
I'll bet a small percentage of the 475,000 IDB's that occurred last year happened to people who had already boarded. But let's say it's 10,000, which I suspect is still high. Every one of those cases would be improved by using approaches that would have avoided this confrontation. It might have cost a bit more, but I'll bet the cost of the one that goes bad overcomes the savings of all the others. There is never an excuse for a gate agent to be brusque and demanding when removing people from the seats they bought, were boarded into, and in which they are already sitting. The burden of accommodation in an IDB situation is on the airline, which is actually what the DOT regulations assert. And in plain customer-service terms, the burden of politeness is on the provider.

My suspicion is that the GA called the cops because she just didn't know what to do, and wanted it resolved before being charged with a delay. The focus on methods rather than outcomes gets poor results generally, but sometimes much poorer than others.
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:43 pm
  #3117  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Programs: UGS, AA CK
Posts: 212
Originally Posted by ijgordon
Possibly, maybe even probably. But if he wanted to avoid getting bashed in the head (and maybe he wanted to get bashed in the head), then he could have taken that up with the court afterward. And the court would have determined the financial damages due as a result of UA breaking its contract.

Like it or not, there is a heightened element deference to the operators of an aircraft. Some may be terorrism related, but certainly a lot has to do with, oh, being in a metal tube that flies 35,000 above the ground. When a passenger on the ground shows a tendency to refuse a reasonable order from the crew, it's in everyone's best interest that the passenger not fly on the plane. And please let's separate "reasonable order" from "contractually permitted order." That is probably why the LEO got involved as he did.
Fortunately the courts are much more prudent regarding personal liberties than you. So the individual in question will receive handsome compensation for what happened.
staren937 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:43 pm
  #3118  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: BART Platinum, AA Plat Pro
Posts: 1,158
Originally Posted by SFO28L
I completely agree, however, working in a large organization it just doesn't happen like that all of the time. I am not in any way saying the gate staff is blameless but they are not empowered to solve the problem, and that is an intentional cost control mechanism by management.
Yup, the lack of empowerment is pretty obvious to any UA frequent flyer. UA made a bet that the $1,350/400% cap was the maximum liability it would ever face for an IDB situation, and set strict limits on its discount coupon offers for VDB accordingly. It retrospect it was a very dumb bet on their part, and now they are paying the price.
milypan is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:43 pm
  #3119  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by Ber2dca
Now that it's been established the guy in question is a convicted criminal with a history of mental issues, I expect people to separate the two issues here:

- Industry practice/protocols related to IDB
- Lunatic refuses to comply with police orders and obtains minor injuries while being removed from the plane.

The former is of course 'bad service' and really just another part of the efficiency drive that's so typical of this high risk, low margin industry. But it's also just one of many such things in commercial aviation and it seems legit odd to me that people are 'shocked' by the fact you can get bumped from a flight after taking a seat. Experienced flyers know that anything goes until the door is closed and you're off the ground.

The latter is really just another illustration of the unstable running into problems when compliance is requested. I think the cops could probably have tried to be a bit gentler about it but at the same time, it just wouldn't happen to a normal person who acts in a normal, predictable fashion. That issue is totally divorced from the IDB and airline policy issue though.
Character evidence is generally prohibited for exactly this reason: people introduce it, extrapolate, and come to ludicrous conclusions.
flyerguy88 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 12:44 pm
  #3120  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: K+K
Programs: *G
Posts: 4,871
Originally Posted by ijgordon
Like it or not, there is a heightened element deference to the operators of an aircraft. Some may be terorrism related, but certainly a lot has to do with, oh, being in a metal tube that flies 35,000 above the ground.

When a passenger on the ground shows a tendency to refuse a reasonable order from the crew, it's in everyone's best interest that the passenger not fly on the plane.
According to reasoned and sound judgement,does a a 69 year old man who was orderly until pulled from his seat at the last possible minute, pose the same probable threat to flight safety..... as a 90kg drunk shouting at random pax and causing unprovoked commotion?

Or should we just throw the T label at anything we deem uncomfortable?
deniah 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.