Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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
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.
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
- Passenger one row behind and on the aisle footage BEFORE man was dragged off https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=655_1492004707
- Videos of man being removed https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4b7_1491983214 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nAZEk6nsNE
- Video of man re-entering plane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNEQDWpYbZA (link dead)
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
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.
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
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
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
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
- Chicago Aviation Department said on the Monday afternoon after the incident that the officer who had dragged the passenger off the plane had been placed on leave pending an investigation. Spokesperson Karen Pride said in an email that "The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the Department."
- 4/12/17: Two more Chicago Aviation officers involved are suspended
- Muñoz does ABC interview, announcing United will no longer use law enforcement to remove passengers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90jSUe_vdhM
- United announces policy change that crews traveling on their aircraft must be booked at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
- United releases multiple changes in overbooking / denied boarding policies "We are making changes to ensure that we always put customers first" (http://newsroom.united.com/2017-04-2...mer-Experience) released 27 April 2017
- Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
- Response to Senate Commerce Committee questions - 1 May 2017
- United Airlines PR Boss to Step Down
- James Long, one of several officers involved in removing David Dao from the April 9, 2017, flight to make room for airline employees, filed suit on Tuesday against United, Chicago’s Department of Aviation and its commissioner, Ginger Evans. The lawsuit, filed in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois, alleges he was not properly trained on how to use force.
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines
Poll link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KP68GYG
Results link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
Reference MaterialResults link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
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.aspxIf 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.
Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}
Apr 12, 2017, 6:40 pm
#4427
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,434
6. He was asked numerous times to leave the aircraft by United officials, he leaves, changes his mind then decides to run past the gate agents back to the aircraft. At this point, he is classified as non-compliant and a security issue which is why law enforcement was called. This is post 9/11. That's a federal offense, you don't run onto an aircraft after being removed. Period. Point. Blank. Once the law gets involved, it is no longer United. That's Chicago O'hare Int'l Airport and Chicago PD. They told him numerous times to exit, nicely, and he didn't comply so there you have it.
The United CEO said the passenger did nothing wrong and apologized for UA's actions. The airport officers have been placed on leave for their actions.
All this has been covered at length in this thread.
Apr 12, 2017, 6:40 pm
#4428
Join Date: Jun 2007
Programs: aa, usair
Posts: 12
Transmitting a litigation hold letter to a putative defendant requesting preservation of potentially relevant materials is about as boilerplate as it gets if a lawsuit is contemplated. Generally speaking, the letter will contain a laundry list of potential sources of data to be stored as is, which, for an accomplished aviation plaintiff's firm like Corboy, will undoubtedly include a request for preservation of the CVR. It covers the bases for a spoliation issue if materials are destroyed after receipt of the notice.
IMO the offer to pax is both to make a public showing of goodwill and to secure the release of potential dubious claims from unsuspecting pax who might otherwise try to glom on to this case...
IMO the offer to pax is both to make a public showing of goodwill and to secure the release of potential dubious claims from unsuspecting pax who might otherwise try to glom on to this case...
Apr 12, 2017, 6:40 pm
#4429
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 599
Here is what I saw on Facebook, so I don't know if it is true or not.
6. He was asked numerous times to leave the aircraft by United officials, he leaves, changes his mind then decides to run past the gate agents back to the aircraft. At this point, he is classified as non-compliant and a security issue which is why law enforcement was called. This is post 9/11. That's a federal offense, you don't run onto an aircraft after being removed. Period. Point. Blank. Once the law gets involved, it is no longer United. That's Chicago O'hare Int'l Airport and Chicago PD. They told him numerous times to exit, nicely, and he didn't comply so there you have it.
6. He was asked numerous times to leave the aircraft by United officials, he leaves, changes his mind then decides to run past the gate agents back to the aircraft. At this point, he is classified as non-compliant and a security issue which is why law enforcement was called. This is post 9/11. That's a federal offense, you don't run onto an aircraft after being removed. Period. Point. Blank. Once the law gets involved, it is no longer United. That's Chicago O'hare Int'l Airport and Chicago PD. They told him numerous times to exit, nicely, and he didn't comply so there you have it.
Apr 12, 2017, 6:42 pm
#4430
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17,457
Not really has anything to do with the topic at hand! I'm sure Chinese steel would like to not have the tariff on them either, but protectionism has been a huge part of many (most?) countries infrastructure in relation to utilities, transportation, infrasturcture... How does this relate to the topic at hand?
Apr 12, 2017, 6:53 pm
#4431
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: LHR, HKG
Programs: gate lice
Posts: 315
Misleading at best. United demanded he leave, even though they had no authority under law or their contract of carriage, so they called the airport police. Airport security then dragged him from the plane. He managed to get back on the plane and was again removed.
The United CEO said the passenger did nothing wrong and apologized for UA's actions. The airport officers have been placed on leave for their actions.
All this has been covered at length in this thread.
The United CEO said the passenger did nothing wrong and apologized for UA's actions. The airport officers have been placed on leave for their actions.
All this has been covered at length in this thread.
He did not run out and then run back onto his seat. He was in his seat, talking to a lawyer or a family member on the phone, when LEOs violently dragged him out over a case which should not involve LEOs in the first place.
This incident had nothing to do with safety. Just the poor planning, service, and management of an airline. And the thuggery of Chicago airport cops.
Apr 12, 2017, 6:55 pm
#4432
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
The other three accepted the terms that were offered to them. There is no reason that UA and a passenger (or 1000s previously) can't agree to the IDB terms to exit the airplane. Most passengers will clearly just cave in this situation. The Doctor, quite obviously, didn't. I really recommend you read the linked article, it is a very nice legal analysis of the situation w.r.t. to definition of IDB.
Apr 12, 2017, 6:57 pm
#4433
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: LHR, HKG
Programs: gate lice
Posts: 315
Not really has anything to do with the topic at hand! I'm sure Chinese steel would like to not have the tariff on them either, but protectionism has been a huge part of many (most?) countries infrastructure in relation to utilities, transportation, infrasturcture... How does this relate to the topic at hand?
This does marginally relate to the topic at hand. I'd bet that allowing foreign carriers to serve U.S. routes would force U.S. legacy carriers to improve their service.
Apr 12, 2017, 6:59 pm
#4434
Join Date: Jan 2017
Programs: UA
Posts: 324
Here is what I saw on Facebook, so I don't know if it is true or not.
1. No one at United got mad.
2. They (crew) were not standby, they were a "must ride". (Meaning that they had to get to that destination to operate a flight while maintaining FAA regulations due to weather impacting operations)
3. Whenever you purchase a ticket, you are agreeing to abide by the passenger agreements and CFRs.
4. He wasn't randomly chosen, the computer system used goes by who paid the cheapest ticket, whether or not luggage was checked, status, boarding priority, etc. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING HOW HE WAS CHOSEN AND THE AMOUNT HE PAID FOR HIS FLIGHT FROM THE WEST COAST TO LOUISVILLE WAS THE LOWEST ON THE PLANE. BUT UA WILL SETTLE BEFORE THEY HAVE TO ADMIT TO EVERYONE THAT HE WAS SELECTED BECAUSE HE ORIGINALLY OFFERED TO VDB UNTIL THEY TOLD HIM IT WOULD BE 22 HOURS
5. The flight wasn't originally oversold until the inbound crew encountered a missed connect due to weather impacting operations and legality issues which is why these 4 inflight personnels had to get onto this particular flight to avoid a cancellation of the morning flight as this particular flight from Chicago only flies once at 3pm. UA CLAIMED OVERSOLD FOR ALMOST 72 HOURS. TOMORROWS FLIGHT SHOULD NOT BE THE BUSINESS OF TODAY'S PASSENGER. UA WANTS TO MAKE ONE PAX PAY FOR THEIR OPERATIONAL SCREWUPS. YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE EVERYTHING WEATHER. THERE ARE STANDBY CREWS IN ORD, OR THERE SHOULD BE. WHEN WERE THESE PEOPLE ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO FLY TO SDF? SIMPLY BECAUSE UA DOESN'T HAVE ANY SPARE CREWS ON CALL...DOESN'T MEAN THAT JUST BECAUSE IT RAINS IN DENVER COLORADO OR BURKINA FASO, THAT UA CAN JUST USE THAT AS AN EXCUSE FOR A CREW DISRUPTION IN ALABAMA OR KENTUCKY
6. He was asked numerous times to leave the aircraft by United officials, he leaves, changes his mind then decides to run past the gate agents back to the aircraft. At this point, he is classified as non-compliant and a security issue which is why law enforcement was called. This is post 9/11. That's a federal offense, you don't run onto an aircraft after being removed. Period. Point. Blank. Once the law gets involved, it is no longer United. That's Chicago O'hare Int'l Airport and Chicago PD. They told him numerous times to exit, nicely, and he didn't comply so there you have it.
1. No one at United got mad.
2. They (crew) were not standby, they were a "must ride". (Meaning that they had to get to that destination to operate a flight while maintaining FAA regulations due to weather impacting operations)
3. Whenever you purchase a ticket, you are agreeing to abide by the passenger agreements and CFRs.
4. He wasn't randomly chosen, the computer system used goes by who paid the cheapest ticket, whether or not luggage was checked, status, boarding priority, etc. I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING HOW HE WAS CHOSEN AND THE AMOUNT HE PAID FOR HIS FLIGHT FROM THE WEST COAST TO LOUISVILLE WAS THE LOWEST ON THE PLANE. BUT UA WILL SETTLE BEFORE THEY HAVE TO ADMIT TO EVERYONE THAT HE WAS SELECTED BECAUSE HE ORIGINALLY OFFERED TO VDB UNTIL THEY TOLD HIM IT WOULD BE 22 HOURS
5. The flight wasn't originally oversold until the inbound crew encountered a missed connect due to weather impacting operations and legality issues which is why these 4 inflight personnels had to get onto this particular flight to avoid a cancellation of the morning flight as this particular flight from Chicago only flies once at 3pm. UA CLAIMED OVERSOLD FOR ALMOST 72 HOURS. TOMORROWS FLIGHT SHOULD NOT BE THE BUSINESS OF TODAY'S PASSENGER. UA WANTS TO MAKE ONE PAX PAY FOR THEIR OPERATIONAL SCREWUPS. YOU CAN'T JUST MAKE EVERYTHING WEATHER. THERE ARE STANDBY CREWS IN ORD, OR THERE SHOULD BE. WHEN WERE THESE PEOPLE ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO FLY TO SDF? SIMPLY BECAUSE UA DOESN'T HAVE ANY SPARE CREWS ON CALL...DOESN'T MEAN THAT JUST BECAUSE IT RAINS IN DENVER COLORADO OR BURKINA FASO, THAT UA CAN JUST USE THAT AS AN EXCUSE FOR A CREW DISRUPTION IN ALABAMA OR KENTUCKY
6. He was asked numerous times to leave the aircraft by United officials, he leaves, changes his mind then decides to run past the gate agents back to the aircraft. At this point, he is classified as non-compliant and a security issue which is why law enforcement was called. This is post 9/11. That's a federal offense, you don't run onto an aircraft after being removed. Period. Point. Blank. Once the law gets involved, it is no longer United. That's Chicago O'hare Int'l Airport and Chicago PD. They told him numerous times to exit, nicely, and he didn't comply so there you have it.
Apr 12, 2017, 7:03 pm
#4435
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 125
Here is what I saw on Facebook, so I don't know if it is true or not.
1. No one at United got mad.
2. They (crew) were not standby, they were a "must ride". (Meaning that they had to get to that destination to operate a flight while maintaining FAA regulations due to weather impacting operations)
3. Whenever you purchase a ticket, you are agreeing to abide by the passenger agreements and CFRs.
4. He wasn't randomly chosen, the computer system used goes by who paid the cheapest ticket, whether or not luggage was checked, status, boarding priority, etc.
5. The flight wasn't originally oversold until the inbound crew encountered a missed connect due to weather impacting operations and legality issues which is why these 4 inflight personnels had to get onto this particular flight to avoid a cancellation of the morning flight as this particular flight from Chicago only flies once at 3pm.
6. He was asked numerous times to leave the aircraft by United officials, he leaves, changes his mind then decides to run past the gate agents back to the aircraft. At this point, he is classified as non-compliant and a security issue which is why law enforcement was called. This is post 9/11. That's a federal offense, you don't run onto an aircraft after being removed. Period. Point. Blank. Once the law gets involved, it is no longer United. That's Chicago O'hare Int'l Airport and Chicago PD. They told him numerous times to exit, nicely, and he didn't comply so there you have it.
1. No one at United got mad.
2. They (crew) were not standby, they were a "must ride". (Meaning that they had to get to that destination to operate a flight while maintaining FAA regulations due to weather impacting operations)
3. Whenever you purchase a ticket, you are agreeing to abide by the passenger agreements and CFRs.
4. He wasn't randomly chosen, the computer system used goes by who paid the cheapest ticket, whether or not luggage was checked, status, boarding priority, etc.
5. The flight wasn't originally oversold until the inbound crew encountered a missed connect due to weather impacting operations and legality issues which is why these 4 inflight personnels had to get onto this particular flight to avoid a cancellation of the morning flight as this particular flight from Chicago only flies once at 3pm.
6. He was asked numerous times to leave the aircraft by United officials, he leaves, changes his mind then decides to run past the gate agents back to the aircraft. At this point, he is classified as non-compliant and a security issue which is why law enforcement was called. This is post 9/11. That's a federal offense, you don't run onto an aircraft after being removed. Period. Point. Blank. Once the law gets involved, it is no longer United. That's Chicago O'hare Int'l Airport and Chicago PD. They told him numerous times to exit, nicely, and he didn't comply so there you have it.
#6 is laughably inaccurate in every single sense. Take some time to read the wiki to educate yourself.
Apr 12, 2017, 7:07 pm
#4436
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,706
Apr 12, 2017, 7:10 pm
#4437
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 80
If boarding is closed when the doors are shut, how come I keep reading stories on this very website of passengers being turned away because "boarding was closed at T-20 and we gave your seat away" while standing in front of an open door. Then it's about the paperwork being xfred from gate to flight crew. Now it's the door has to be closed. Someone relayed a story of a plane returning to the gate to collect a late non-rev and IDB a passenger.
Bottom line here is that a gate agent, manager, passenger, and bouncer in a uniform have likely precipitated a change for the better in domestic customer experience. Allowing international carriers to compete on domestic routes could have accomplished the same thing, but we like doing things the hard way in the US.
Bottom line here is that a gate agent, manager, passenger, and bouncer in a uniform have likely precipitated a change for the better in domestic customer experience. Allowing international carriers to compete on domestic routes could have accomplished the same thing, but we like doing things the hard way in the US.
Apr 12, 2017, 7:16 pm
#4438
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Lone Tree, CO
Programs: United Mileage Plus, BA Executive Club, Hyatt Gold Passport
Posts: 744
I wonder if they had "randomly" selected someone who looked like they were an MMA fighter, instead of a 69 yr old Asian, if they would have pressed the issue once he said no. I think they would have started looking for someone else
Apr 12, 2017, 7:25 pm
#4439
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 350
6. He was asked numerous times to leave the aircraft by United officials, he leaves, changes his mind then decides to run past the gate agents back to the aircraft. At this point, he is classified as non-compliant and a security issue which is why law enforcement was called. This is post 9/11. That's a federal offense, you don't run onto an aircraft after being removed. Period. Point. Blank. Once the law gets involved, it is no longer United. That's Chicago O'hare Int'l Airport and Chicago PD. They told him numerous times to exit, nicely, and he didn't comply so there you have it.
Apr 12, 2017, 7:28 pm
#4440
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/UA
Posts: 10,775
I wonder if a voice recording of his conversation with the lawyer will be part of discovery.
"They want me to get off this plane, should I comply or throw a fit?"
"Stand your ground, let them drag you out, make sure people are filming, and you and I will be set for life"
"They want me to get off this plane, should I comply or throw a fit?"
"Stand your ground, let them drag you out, make sure people are filming, and you and I will be set for life"