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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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 12, 2017, 11:06 am
  #4201  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,405
Originally Posted by bocastephen
Needless to say, this isn't going anywhere fast. Oscar really needs Putin or Kim Jung Un to step up and do something bold.
I saw a tweet earlier today saying something along the lines:
"Other airlines offers Bose noise canceling headphones. United Airlines is glad to introduce their newest enhancement: Beats by United."
WorldLux is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:07 am
  #4202  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: LIT
Programs: Blinged Out
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by toomanybooks
Guy who filmed the incident: "I don't blame the security officers at all."

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ma...rticle/2619950
Don't blame the security guards because when you're a hammer, then everything else is a nail, right?
SeaHawg is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:08 am
  #4203  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Programs: UA gold; WN A; PC plat; Marriott Gold
Posts: 425
Originally Posted by Andy Big Bear
Because, technically, if you know the rules and how to work them you can get the IDB maximum in cash. The VDB voucher they supply you is at the retail cost of the ticket, which even if it is above the $1350 IDB payout, is still cheaper to them than paying actual cash.
That's a very good point, the "breakage" of VDB vouchers. In the main flyertalk thread about this incident, I think I saw a poster say united values vouchers at 20% of their face value. More reason for United to be more generous on VDB offers.
qisu is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:08 am
  #4204  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 60137
Posts: 10,498
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock
Ah, I was thinking more along the lines of Dao going on every news & morning show
No need. Pictures/videos of his bloody face are everywhere.
What could he say in an interview that would amplify the public's outrage/UAL's desire to settle as quickly as possible?
sonofzeus is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:08 am
  #4205  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Programs: AA Plat, UA 1K>Plat>moving to Silver
Posts: 2,089
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
I would hope that the DOT would take an extremely dim view of an airline's strategy to cancel a flight and then send an aircraft on the same route immediately (under a different flight number as a special added section?) as a way to avoid VDB/IDB situations and the resulting compensation to customers.
I think it would have to be a captain's call, and unless it happened a lot, I think DOT will generally defer to a pilot's judgment. Also, presumably if they reboarded the deadheaders and everyone but the 4 bumped passengers (whose BPs would no longer scan), depending on the length of time, it might just be a delay and they might not owe the reboarded passengers anything, only the four that got bumped. (I seem to recall having to deplane once because they decided to top off the fuel one time and there were fumes; we got back on afterwards and took off. I don't see that exercise requires that there be a new flight.)

But the chances of that should be remote. I'm somewhat more concerned that now FAs will be reluctant to call law enforcement when it is really needed, like a belligerent passenger.
Artpen100 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:10 am
  #4206  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: LIT
Programs: Blinged Out
Posts: 716
Originally Posted by sonofzeus
No need. Pictures/videos of his bloody face are everywhere.
What could he say in an interview that would amplify the public's outrage/UAL's desire to settle as quickly as possible?
Exactly right! This hasn't gone away quite like "leggings-gate" did.

Any good attorney would advise his client to continue to let the court of public opinion and their own incompetence rip them to shreds.
SeaHawg is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:12 am
  #4207  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: United: 1K
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by 1KChinito
Hopefully not. Gate agent will be under a lot more pressure trying to figure out VDB and IDB before or while boarding, not after boarding has completed. Oscar already said in ABC's interview this morning a seated passenger would not be forced to deplane.
There has never been a problem that offering more money to get someone to give up their seat wouldn't have solved problems like this one.

I think the other thing that needs to come out of this is a more rigorous definition of overbooking so airlines don't "book" additional passengers (VIP, employees) close to or after boarding has started. If you have 100% check or more and book additional passengers that isn't overbooking in my opinion and IDB should not be the solution to an airline wanting to get a VIP or last minute employee on board, their checkbook and VDB should be the only solution.
dweick is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:17 am
  #4208  
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
Originally Posted by mre5765
Exactly, he's lost his job (beating up passengers). The airport police made it clear when then announced his "leave" that beating up passengers is not part of his job.
He's on full salary and hasn't lost a thing at this point. Probably has a union attorney of his own at this point for whatever investigation/hearings are to come. I wouldn't count on him being unemployed when all this is over based on the statement of an airport police spokesperson.

We don't know what statements UA employees made to the police and have not heard recordings of calls made to the police or viewed police reports which would include statements from UA employees. Where did Mr. Munoz come up with the disruptive and belligerent passenger description? Did that come from UA employees? Were they the same employees that talked to the police?

We don't know "who" made the decision to not arrest and charge- was the officer overruled by a supervisor? When he made the decision to use force, what law was being violated to go to that extreme? Are there specific airport ordinances that the police there can fall back on that might be unique and allow them a wide breadth in removing passengers from aircraft? Don't really have the answers to these questions.

I do hope the police reports/recordings are made public in the days ahead to fill in the blanks.
tom911 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:17 am
  #4209  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: GEG
Posts: 95
I have been following this thread since it started, and while I haven't read all 4,000+ posts, I have probably more than half of them. There are a lot of issues going on here, but what I keep coming back to is this:

It seems apparent that the penalty to the airline for IDB is simply too low. As I understand it, compensation is capped at 200% the one way fare paid for a delay of less than 4 hours and 400% for 4+ hours. Why is 4+ hours lumped into one group? Everyone knows that there is a big difference between 4 hours and 10 hours, or in this case, 22 hours. I think it would make sense to have something like:

1-4 hours = 200%
4-8 hours = 400%
8-12 hours = 600%
12-24 hours = 800%
24+ hours = 1,000%

On the ORD-SDF route, the lowest one way fare appears to be about $100, so with the above, the airline would be looking at a minimum of $800 (cash) to IDB. I read somewhere upthread that when an airline issues a VDB voucher, it only costs them 20% in real money. Not sure if that's true or not, but if it is, then $800 is equivalent to $4,000 in vouchers. I'm pretty sure that UA could have found their 4 volunteers for less than that.

So, my take is that if any change is to come from this incident, it should be to make IDB much more painful for the airlines, and then they will do whatever it takes to get the volunteers they need to avoid IDB.
Cruss74 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:17 am
  #4210  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Silicon Valley
Programs: UA GS, WN A-List, AA Exec Plat, National Emerald
Posts: 1,020
Originally Posted by economyplusfan
Boarding priority all of a sudden becomes a lot more important. And there will be an infestation of gate lice.
Except that they make execptions to boarding priority to "not separate families". So a person without a family needs to pay more money for a higher fair or have priority to get the same benefit someone else does because of their familial status. That doesn't seem fair.
reamworks is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:19 am
  #4211  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,404
Originally Posted by wolf72
1) I don't think a judge will see any relevance in the passenger's past transgressions in this instance. This is me speaking from handling litigations in the past relating to law suits filed against corporate companies.

2) The passenger was well within his rights to reject a request to be off loaded as he had a duty to his patients the following day and the airline should have looked at the option of 1 of the substitute pilots potentially taking a jump seat and solving the problem. Approval could have been given for this from flight operations and this would not have been an issue.

3) The airline had alternative actions it could have taken but chose not to do so without this becoming physical.
Personally, I think one of the dead headers, either a FA or a pilot or ideally all of them, should have offered to take a jumpseat, either the extra FA one or the one for a pilot in the cockpit. After all, aren't they supposed to be UA team members?

It's disturbing that some passengers have reported that some of these deadheading crew later boarded smiling, with smirks on their faces. It's disgusting!
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:24 am
  #4212  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: CLE
Programs: Continental Gold, Hilton Gold, Holiday Inn Gold
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by Andy Big Bear
+1 I haven't been on this forum in forever, just lurking myself, but that's because I haven't flown UA lately. I used to grit my teeth when I saw "operated by Republic Airlines" on my itinerary. Then I started canceling flights when I saw it. Then I stopped flying UA altogether. Now I'm looking at my old FF account after years as a 1K, wonder what I'm going to do with my spare 100K miles since I really don't want to fly on them again unless I can go somewhere on UA mainline.

Buy an ipad...thats what i did. 86k i think.

Edit---

http://www.mileageplusawards.com/ualoyrewards/home

Last edited by kennynbabes; Apr 12, 2017 at 11:34 am Reason: added link
kennynbabes is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:25 am
  #4213  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Manhattan Beach, California
Programs: BMI Diamond Club Gold forever
Posts: 6,367
Originally Posted by dweick
There has never been a problem that offering more money to get someone to give up their seat wouldn't have solved problems like this one.

I think the other thing that needs to come out of this is a more rigorous definition of overbooking so airlines don't "book" additional passengers (VIP, employees) close to or after boarding has started. If you have 100% check or more and book additional passengers that isn't overbooking in my opinion and IDB should not be the solution to an airline wanting to get a VIP or last minute employee on board, their checkbook and VDB should be the only solution.
Exactly. It is now clear what "boarding" means, notwithstanding the silly arguments in this thread that someone seated on a plane has not boarded. But the other question is what "overbooked" means, and I do think this is where UA may still play fast and loose if there is no analysis of this end of the problem. BTW, I have always wondered if an airline that allowed the "Chairman's" flight to come into existence had the internal controls to handle any of these issues. Clearly not in my opinion, I'd like to see the DOT issue guidance on these two terms as a supplement to its IDB rules.
stephem is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:30 am
  #4214  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Programs: Delta
Posts: 43
So we’re all the beneficiaries, except in relatively rare scenarios?

Exactly. This whole situation has really nothing to do with overbooking. This situation has to do with total mismanagement by the airlines. For them to have a whole plane loaded and then to realize they had to move four employees, that’s just ridiculous. They had to know that fifteen minutes earlier, before they finished boarding the plane. Then they could’ve dealt with it like they ordinarily would’ve.
I'd like to know if in fact Republic gave UAL this much notice that 4 crew were going to be deadheading on 3411. Is it normal that a regional partner gives some minimum amount of notice time (and if so how much time is that usually?)?

Quote is from
Time: Should Overbooking Flights Be Illegal?
http://time.com/4733837/united-airli...r-overbooking/
NotSoOftenFlyer is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:31 am
  #4215  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by stephem
Exactly. It is now clear what "boarding" means, notwithstanding the silly arguments in this thread that someone seated on a plane has not boarded. But the other question is what "overbooked" means, and I do think this is where UA may still play fast and loose if there is no analysis of this end of the problem. BTW, I have always wondered if an airline that allowed the "Chairman's" flight to come into existence had the internal controls to handle any of these issues. Clearly not in my opinion, I'd like to see the DOT issue guidance on these two terms as a supplement to its IDB rules.
Yeah, I'd like to see a run at this by consumer advocates. If you look in the CoC it talks about Oversold being a situation with more "ticketed passengers" than seats, with "ticketed" undefined. Now, it seems pretty clear to me that a "ticketed" passenger is one who has entered into a contract through and exchange of value and is creates a binding of CoC. I've seen a lot of nonsense talk that deadheading positive state employees are also "ticketed." The mere fact they are accounted for in the ticketing system, however, does not create a "ticketed" relationship in any meaningful sense of the term.

I've become absolutely convinced that employee travel is the root of many of the airline horror issues. It exacerbates very high load factors and it contributes immensely to the culture of entitlement that airline employees display towards passengers. If airlines want to use part of their capacity to shuttle employees to their work sites that capacity should not be part of the inventory they use to move paying customers.
George Purcell 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.