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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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, 1:16 pm
  #4261  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,470
Originally Posted by NotSoOftenFlyer
Problem here is you have a beaten up plaintiff and 12 people off the street who have seen a lot of videos of him bleeding could be making this determination instead. Plus judges fly too. They are astute to where the public sentiment is and would risk being overturned on something like this

UAL would be smart to redefine every instance of 'boarding' & have a specific Definition of it to avoid future payouts like this.
I don't think the definition of "boarding" is any way dispositive of UA's rights here. The much bigger issue they would have is that they've acknowledged the flight was not overbooked.

But I disagree completely with your legal analysis.

Originally Posted by DrPSB
See the article in lawnewz.com. Are you a legal expert?
Practicing commercial litigator for 20+ years.
Kacee is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:16 pm
  #4262  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: ATL
Programs: DL DM, Hyatt LT DM, Wyndham DM, Hertz PC, HH Gold, SPG Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 2,038
Originally Posted by NotSoOftenFlyer
True that, but Congress has some pretty pissed off members right now (from time to time they fly commercial and so do their staffers) and could have a hand in what happens at DOT and what kinds of CoCs will be acceptable in future.
Except for the lobbyist from 3 massive companies. Likely nothing will change. In fact I'd wager stricter rules sold as "Better for the passenger" could result from this.
dinanm3atl is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:18 pm
  #4263  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
I doubt this will ever go to court (settled for a jackpot sum instead).

Ironically one of the people who filmed the incident felt he 'resisted' and 'brought that on himself'. I was under the impression everyone on the flight speaking publicly was fully supportive of the victim.

http://www.wave3.com/story/35111099/...-united-flight

Still not clear what transpired in the 20 or so minutes before the police arrived, nor on that jetway. Not sure it will ever come out if it's settled the way Disney handled the child who was killed by an alligator.
cerealmarketer is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:18 pm
  #4264  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by NotSoOftenFlyer
True that, but Congress has some pretty pissed off members right now (from time to time they fly commercial and so do their staffers) and could have a hand in what happens at DOT and what kinds of CoCs will be acceptable in future.
Congress is under control of a party that thinks any federal regulation of business is the work of the devil. I will be shocked if anything other than some embarrassing public testimony comes from this. Except .. if law enforcement comes out and says it is not their responsibility to enforce contract disputes on behalf of the airlines then you'll quickly see some changes as they won't be able to leverage that threat against passengers in their calculations as to what they can get away with.
DrPSB is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:20 pm
  #4265  
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SDF
Programs: DL:360/DM/6 MMer; Bonvoy: Lifetime Titanium 10+M pts, 3100+ nights;
Posts: 1,441
Originally Posted by Kacee
Actually, industry usage is highly relevant to contract interpretation and will typically trump both of those interpretive canons. For instance, California Civil Code § 1644 says:

The words of a contract are to be understood in their ordinary and popular sense, rather than according to their strict legal meaning; unless used by the parties in a technical sense, or unless a special meaning is given to them by usage, in which case the latter must be followed.
This is likely only applicable when two parties are negotiating a contact not with a contract of adhesion where the contract terms are written exclusively by one party and "imposed" on the other.

(I am ashamed to admit I have read all 4200+ posts)
DL-Don is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:21 pm
  #4266  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by Kacee
I don't think the definition of "boarding" is any way dispositive of UA's rights here. The much bigger issue they would have is that they've acknowledged the flight was not overbooked.

But I disagree completely with your legal analysis.



Practicing commercial litigator for 20+ years.
Then I bow to your superior knowledge of the legal system. Thanks for offering an informed opinion on this.
DrPSB is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:24 pm
  #4267  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by cerealmarketer
I doubt this will ever go to court (settled for a jackpot sum instead).

Ironically one of the people who filmed the incident felt he 'resisted' and 'brought that on himself'. I was under the impression everyone on the flight speaking publicly was fully supportive of the victim.

http://www.wave3.com/story/35111099/...-united-flight

Still not clear what transpired in the 20 or so minutes before the police arrived, nor on that jetway. Not sure it will ever come out if it's settled the way Disney handled the child who was killed by an alligator.
Based on those quotes, it sounds like the guy is insinuating that bc he resisted the instructions of the LEO to get off the plane, he deserved what he got.

It doesn't seem to be so black and white that the leo had any right to actually force him from the plane.
Klimo is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:25 pm
  #4268  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Programs: Delta
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by cerealmarketer
I doubt this will ever go to court (settled for a jackpot sum instead).

Ironically one of the people who filmed the incident felt he 'resisted' and 'brought that on himself'. I was under the impression everyone on the flight speaking publicly was fully supportive of the victim.

http://www.wave3.com/story/35111099/...-united-flight

Still not clear what transpired in the 20 or so minutes before the police arrived, nor on that jetway. Not sure it will ever come out if it's settled the way Disney handled the child who was killed by an alligator.
Same guy has also said to other media he blames United (& not LEOs) for the incident.
NotSoOftenFlyer is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:28 pm
  #4269  
 
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 Kacee
Yes, you absolutely can. You do it all the time, and those waivers are enforceable.

Depending on the state, a waiver of gross negligence or recklessness may not be enforceable.

The inaccurate amateur lawyering here has reached pandemic proportion
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3308&context=californialaw review

Note especially the discussion of Lockwood vs. New York Central Railway Company, which went to the supreme court and is held as applicable in all common carrier cases. Such cases are marked by the customer being at a severe bargaining disadvantage when making the contract, and thus cannot be held to have consented to relinquish their rights to damages in the case of negligence. This may have been superseded, but I rather doubt it. I'm happy to be educated, however.
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:28 pm
  #4270  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,434
Originally Posted by DL-Don
This is likely only applicable when two parties are negotiating a contact not with a contract of adhesion where the contract terms are written exclusively by one party and "imposed" on the other.
That was my first thought. More specifically, if both parties are in an industry and the industry has an accepted usage, then that usage controls. But even in a negotiated contract, if the two parties legitimately have different interpretations of the same term, what controls? Airline usage because it concerns air travel? Construe against the drafter? Is it even clear UA defines a person in a seat as still in the process of boarding?

Here's another analysis of the situation under UA's CoC and relevant law, including finding problems with much reporting. http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/...ment-fail.html

I wonder if the Supreme Court's Ginsberg v. Northwest case affects the any of the legal analysis.
richarddd is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:30 pm
  #4271  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: National Capitol Region
Programs: Delta Dirt Medallion,AA,USairways, WN Rapid Rewards, National Emerald Club
Posts: 3,912
Originally Posted by Andy Big Bear
Everyone who has worked on an airline knows that until you button up the plane and arm the door, you're still boarding. However, as I learned in my business life the hard way, its a well-established legal principle that if you have a contract with a layperson, it's the "common understanding" of a term, not the industry-specific understanding, that is the only one relevant for "what if" scenarios.

I think the general public thinks that when they are on board a plane, they've boarded, and the law is on their side on that unless the CoC specifically defines what it means to "board." I don't believe it does.
Despite the writhing and gyrations on this board, United's own internal communication documents the flight as "Fully boarded". I don't know how much clearer it could be.
hazelrah is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:33 pm
  #4272  
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 Klimo
It doesn't seem to be so black and white that the leo had any right to actually force him from the plane.
All the more reason to release the police report.
tom911 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:34 pm
  #4273  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Programs: Delta
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by DrPSB
Congress is under control of a party that thinks any federal regulation of business is the work of the devil. I will be shocked if anything other than some embarrassing public testimony comes from this. Except .. if law enforcement comes out and says it is not their responsibility to enforce contract disputes on behalf of the airlines then you'll quickly see some changes as they won't be able to leverage that threat against passengers in their calculations as to what they can get away with.
Congress spends A LOT of time on planes (and even more on phones) hustling for money to keep their seats on The Hill (too much if you ask me). People getting beat downs on planes (which could be one of them if a carrier's employees don't recognize them) is something they can easily unite 'in a bipartisan fashion' behind putting a stop to. The public is overwhelmingly for it and the public is getting kind of restless with The Hill for the gridlock on 'more difficult' issues (debt ceiling rises, budgets, whatever big issues matter to all of us). They could easily throw United under the bus on this, chalk it up as a 'win' and then go right back to gridlock on those harder issues.

The only other 'wins' Congress can count on are pushing through specific names for public buildings in their districts (they got a lot of that done but little else lo these many past years). It's THAT gridlocked.

I'm a relative of a now deceased lobbyist and know plenty of people still in Gucci Gulch plying that trade. And yes I'm cynical. But this is a no-brainer for them.
NotSoOftenFlyer is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:35 pm
  #4274  
 
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 Klimo
Based on those quotes, it sounds like the guy is insinuating that bc he resisted the instructions of the LEO to get off the plane, he deserved what he got.

It doesn't seem to be so black and white that the leo had any right to actually force him from the plane.
To me, therein lies the rub, people should be able to assert what they believe to be their rights to a police officer without fear of being assaulted for doing so. There's a big difference between passive resistance to authority and doing something that requires a violent response. Just because someone reports a disturbance to the police, doesn't mean that the person who was disturbed was in the right. Who knows how it came to what happened, the police have qualified immunity, but the FA does not, so the next twist in this story may be holding him or her to account for their actions in this.
Andy Big Bear is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 1:35 pm
  #4275  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Programs: Delta
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Rdenney
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3308&context=californialaw review

Note especially the discussion of Lockwood vs. New York Central Railway Company, which went to the supreme court and is held as applicable in all common carrier cases. Such cases are marked by the customer being at a severe bargaining disadvantage when making the contract, and thus cannot be held to have consented to relinquish their rights to damages in the case of negligence. This may have been superseded, but I rather doubt it. I'm happy to be educated, however.
+1
NotSoOftenFlyer 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.