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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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, 11:40 am
  #4216  
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
Very fair comment and argument.

I would suggest the GA should have referred back to Flight Ops and informed them passengers had already boarded and seated and aircraft was already ready for doors to be close and for push back.

To remove 4 passengers would delay the flight so what is option B?

Granted, there is maybe no room to maneouver for the GA in this instance due to company policy, but GA should have updated Flight Ops passenger refuses to be offloaded as he is a 68 yr old doctor who claims to have patients to attend to the following morning and waited for further instructions.

Flight ops have a lot to answer for this...thus far, we have heard nothing about their involvement in this.
There are reports that a manager came onto the aircraft and ultimately handled the IDBs. It's not clear at all who called the cops, presumably the GA if we imagine that the manager stayed on board and the GA went back to the podium.

When the manager was called to supervise or assist with the situation, he/she should have brought some copies of the mandatory IDB rights statement.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:45 am
  #4217  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Indianapolis
Programs: Hilton-Diamond Lifetime Platinum AA UA, WN-CP, SPG Gold.
Posts: 7,377
The Union rules ORD.

I have seen planes set on the tarmac, and we all set,,,

Union slow down,

Happens,they call it ,,public transportation ..for a reason..
satman40 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:47 am
  #4218  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SFO
Programs: COdbaUA Platinum 2MM
Posts: 5,532
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.
We do not know for sure. There was not a headline news worldwide maybe because people gave into UA's threat; leave or handcuffed. Now passengers will be more assertive of their rights and not give in to any threat especially when s/he is seated already. I bet you more of these IDB/VDB will be handled at the gate, not on board.
1KChinito is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:50 am
  #4219  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: BOI, et. al
Programs: UA Premier 1k, Marriott Platinum Elite, Star Alliance Gold, SPG Platinum, Yelp Elite
Posts: 219
Originally Posted by satman40
The Union rules ORD.

I have seen planes set on the tarmac, and we all set,,,

Union slow down,

Happens,they call it ,,public transportation ..for a reason..
Very true, I think if you've flown any amount of time we've all seen it, if not lived it.
Andy Big Bear is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:51 am
  #4220  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Programs: Top Tier with all 3 alliances
Posts: 11,666
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.
Oscar and UA volunteered for this, right in the middle of DL having the clusterf meltdown week of the decade, they stepped in and got all the glory and the limelight, lol...
nk15 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:52 am
  #4221  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 239
Originally Posted by exerda
I once turned down a VDB for an overnight which included (1) no hotel; (2) no meals; and (3) $250 in comp. Seriously, why did UA even think that was worth offering? They weren't getting many takers.

I was onboard not long after that, so I don't know what they upped to. I did tell the pax ahead of me who was thinking of accepting to request $600 minimum. We left without anyone being dragged bleeding from the a/c, so someone ultimately bit or was IDBd before boarding.
As someone who annually or so flies transatlantic, with a connecting flight on each end, I could see myself taking an IDB upon finishing the transatlantic leg so long as I got a hotel comp (to go to sleep), without any other compensation.

Last edited by swampwiz; Apr 12, 2017 at 12:00 pm
swampwiz is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:54 am
  #4222  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by TominLazybrook
Actually, its possible (I'm not a lawyer) that Dr Dao has a cause of action against UA even if his past was completely reported correctly. If any UA representative or agent tried to bring up unrelated issues about a private, non-famous person, that could be an issue. He's not a public person and he committed no crime in this matter.
This raises a very good point ... I'd suggest any United employees who posted on Flyertalk regarding Dr. Dao's past might want to consider deleting those posts immediately. Think you're protect by an anonymous screen name? Maybe, but I bet a search of your past posts will reveal you disclosed you work for United at some point.

Last edited by DrPSB; Apr 12, 2017 at 12:30 pm
DrPSB is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:54 am
  #4223  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 10 months VLC, 2 months everywhere else
Programs: *A
Posts: 3,770
Originally Posted by George Purcell
...

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.
So much this.
GuyverII is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:55 am
  #4224  
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,161
CNN reports: "After passengers already boarded the plane, United said it needed to clear some seats because four members of another flight crew needed to sit down. If those crew members didn't get on board, a United spokeswoman said, their flight would have been canceled."

I have also heard this threat of cancelation myself as I experienced 3 flights with IDB after boarding in just the past 4 weeks.

Does anyone else feel this is a form of blackmail and that United could potentially be accused of criminal activity for lying? It is absolutely not true that flight 3411 would need to be canceled if those 4 crew members would not be let aboard.
AirbusFan2B is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:57 am
  #4225  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: ATL
Programs: DL Scattered Smothered Covered Medallion, Some hotel & car stuff, Kroger Plus Card
Posts: 10,745
Originally Posted by AirbusFan2B
CNN reports: "After passengers already boarded the plane, United said it needed to clear some seats because four members of another flight crew needed to sit down. If those crew members didn't get on board, a United spokeswoman said, their flight would have been canceled."

I have also heard this threat of cancelation myself as I experienced 3 flights with IDB after boarding in just the past 4 weeks.

Does anyone else feel this is a form of blackmail and that United could potentially be accused of criminal activity for lying? It is absolutely not true that flight 3411 would need to be canceled if those 4 crew members would not be let aboard.
I read that as the flight the 4 deadheading crew were to be operating would have to be cancelled, since the crew wouldn't be in SDF to operate it.
gooselee is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:59 am
  #4226  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Programs: Top Tier with all 3 alliances
Posts: 11,666
Next time they should take their deadheading crew standing, like PIA....
nk15 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:59 am
  #4227  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 239
Originally Posted by George Purcell
It's the insanity of an airline allowing employees to commute to work on flights.
Airlines want the flexibility to move staff around as they see fit, which is the reason why typically they demand that staff be based at a major hub - although pilots might get by with commuting from anywhere. Otherwise, the staff would need to be relocated with every change.
swampwiz is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:59 am
  #4228  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: AA EXP, UA1K/2MM, Marriott Platinum Premier Lifetime
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by George Purcell
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,

You are talking like someone who has the ability to think outside of the box.

I have been thinking that since 9/11 airlines (mostly US based) have been taking benefits away from customers, increasing the price of air fares, consolidating all in the name of driving revenue up. Also, they could treat you like they wanted and if you even thought about countering they could easily say they were threatened and all in the name of security you were escorted away.

The airlines have created this system of mistrust from the customer for years basically by telling the customers this is what you get and you should feel lucky to get it. There has been little or no movement made to make customers happy or provide better customer service in the name of increased revenue.

I dont care if an airline has the latest planes with the fastest internet and best food, if they dont have good customer service what does it matter?

United ultimately caused this situation to explode the way it did. The CEO exacerbated the situation by reacting the way he did. Giving a garbage apology, standing with his employees, blasting the customer then finally giving some sort of apology. I would say this only happened because of the amount of stock price drop and with summer approaching UA needs to be nice to get the travelers.

I feel like customers finally have a little something they can use to say they wont take the garbage treatment anymore. The question I have is, does United really change anything or continue the PR spin, lower prices, get the customer back and still treat them like garbage.

Too early to tell, but I can't see the airline changing because they haven't shown me anything to date to let me know they are listening.

we will see....
shortkidd is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 12:02 pm
  #4229  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: Marriott, IHG, Delta, United
Posts: 575
Originally Posted by Cruss74
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.

I would just get rid of the % of fare all together, and say the airline must auction for volunteers up to a very large sum that (rarely, if ever) would get met (say $5k to $10k). If for some rare reason the $10k offer was made and still no one accepted, than you IDB and give the bumped the $10k.

That would be the correct thing to do, and only allow the IDB to occur at the gate unless there is an actual flight safety reason (weight limit, etc.)
kavok is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 12:03 pm
  #4230  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,735
Originally Posted by Artpen100
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.
I doubt that the FA's will become reluctant to call for help with a clearly out of control passenger, in part because when someone is out of control the other pax probably want the troublemaker off the plane just as much as crew do. I was on an AA flight last summer where there was a woman clearly under the influence of some controlled substance (she reeked of booze) all through boarding she was screaming at the crew, blocking the aisle, etc. Finally the Captain asked her to leave, then she buckled herself in. A few minutes later LEO's came on board and eventually had to carry her off the plane. Then the rest of pax applauded. Any video taken of that incident would show a screaming, belligerent pax with whom the crew made multiple attempts to calm down before they escalated and multiple attempts by the LEO's to persuade her to leave on her own 2 feet before they physically removed her. She was put into a squad car on the tarmac after being taken off the plane.

Not every forced removal is comparable to what happened in this case.
CDTraveler 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.