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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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, 11:28 pm
  #4531  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis, MN (MSP)
Programs: DL DM, UA 1K MM, Subway Club Member
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by raehl311
1) Because the force used after the passenger hit his head was not reasonable.
2) Because the public is furious, and there is no way in hell United is going to take this to trial, and attorneys get paid for big settlements.

Actual legal liability is not the only consideration in lawsuits.

The passenger was absolutely wrong. Being wrong isn't a zero-sum game, so other parties may have ALSO been wrong (and the security guys at least almost certainly were), but this incident would not have happened if the passenger had left the plane when asked, and United was absolutely in the right to ask the passenger to leave. Maybe not best business practice, but certainly the law says they can tell people they can't fly at the cost of 4x their one-way airfare, max $1,350.
As noted above, the biggest losers in this whole thing are likely to be the taxpayers of the City of Chicago since they are the ones who are going to pay the settlement
kenn0223 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:29 pm
  #4532  
Original Member and FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Kansas City, MO, USA
Programs: DL PM/MM, AA ExPlat, Hyatt Glob, HH Dia, National ECE, Hertz PC
Posts: 16,579
Originally Posted by kenn0223
The someone in this case is almost certainly the taxpayers of the City of Chicago and United's liability insurance company. Based on the video, the taxpayers look to be the ones who will foot most of the bill since the hands that drew the blood where those of a City of Chicago employee.
If and when the City is found liable, it's unlikely the brunt would be borne by the 'taxpayers' of Chicago, rather it would be paid by the O'Hare Airport Enterprise Fund, which generated $950 million in operating revenue in 2015 (the most recent year they've released a CAFR), and those revenues come from the airlines, tenants, and passengers of O'Hare (which of course has some overlap with the taxpayers of Chicago, but is not the same).
Beckles is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:29 pm
  #4533  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EAU
Programs: UA 1K, CO Plat, NW Plat, Marriott Premiere Plat, SPG Plat, Priority Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 4,712
Originally Posted by alanslegal
Pretty racist example in my book. You can just say 'I ask the cops to remove that guy' and we get your example.
I asserted that if I ask someone to leave my property, say a restaurant, that if they don't leave, and I call the cops, the cops are going to make them leave, with force if necessary.

They countered that not all requests for someone to leave property are legal.

I countered that that doesn't matter, you figure that out after the fact, the cops are STILL going to remove the person from the property, with force if necessary.

I then provided an example SPECIFICALLY SELECTED because the request is not legal - you can't tell someone to leave your property because of their race.

I didn't need an example of police removing someone for a LEGAL request.
raehl311 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:35 pm
  #4534  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis, MN (MSP)
Programs: DL DM, UA 1K MM, Subway Club Member
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by Beckles
If and when the City is found liable, it's unlikely the brunt would be borne by the 'taxpayers' of Chicago, rather it would be paid by the O'Hare Airport Enterprise Fund, which generated $950 million in operating revenue in 2015 (the most recent year they've released a CAFR), and those revenues come from the airlines, tenants, and passengers of O'Hare (which of course has some overlap with the taxpayers of Chicago, but is not the same).
Oh come on, that's too much reality. It's much more dramatic to say the taxpayers :-) I assume there is an insurance company in the middle somewhere too.

I guess the crazy part is more that many/most of the people on this forum will ultimately and indirectly pay this guy's settlement (assuming DOA is found fully or partially liable).
kenn0223 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:37 pm
  #4535  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 39
Originally Posted by Summa Cum Laude Touro Law Center
Raehl, I would urge you to consider the possibility that the the legality of the passenger's continued presence on the plane is a little more complicated than you appreciate. A license permitting a person to be present on another's property that is paired with valuable considerations generally (rather than generally, I should say in several jurissictions) is not terminable at will, assuming full compliance with the conditions of the license, unless the terms of license provide it is terminable at will.
But could it be the opposite and it is revocable unless explicitly stated that is irrevocable depending on the jurisdiction?
Hachima is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:41 pm
  #4536  
Original Member and FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Kansas City, MO, USA
Programs: DL PM/MM, AA ExPlat, Hyatt Glob, HH Dia, National ECE, Hertz PC
Posts: 16,579
Originally Posted by kenn0223
Oh come on, that's too much reality. It's much more dramatic to say the taxpayers :-) I assume there is an insurance company in the middle somewhere too.

I guess the crazy part is more that many/most of the people on this forum will ultimately and indirectly pay this guy's settlement (assuming DOA is found fully or partially liable).
I would expect they're self-insured up to a pretty big number, paying judgements and settlements is just a cost of doing business for an operation that large, I would expect the same is probably true with United.

When you consider the airport's annual operating revenue is $950 million, even say a $10 million settlement or judgement isn't a big deal, it's 1% for one year, a blip.
Beckles is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:43 pm
  #4537  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis, MN (MSP)
Programs: DL DM, UA 1K MM, Subway Club Member
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by Beckles
I would expect they're self-insured up to a pretty big number, paying judgements and settlements is just a cost of doing business for an operation that large, I would expect the same is probably true with United.

When you consider the airport's annual operating revenue is $950 million, even say a $10 million settlement or judgement isn't a big deal, it's 1% for one year, a blip.
Heck, given this mild winter they probably have $10M sitting around in their snow removal budget.
kenn0223 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 11:57 pm
  #4538  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
Originally Posted by s0ssos
Is your history relevant to your posting? It sure is. It always is. But we (as a society) have chosen to say that your bad does not define your present nor future
Actually, society does say past behavior can define your future. Hence felony convictions.
fly18725 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 12:02 am
  #4539  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: YYZ/YTZ/YUL
Programs: BA Gold, TK Elite
Posts: 1,558
Originally Posted by raehl311
I asserted that if I ask someone to leave my property, say a restaurant, that if they don't leave, and I call the cops, the cops are going to make them leave, with force if necessary.

They countered that not all requests for someone to leave property are legal.

I countered that that doesn't matter, you figure that out after the fact, the cops are STILL going to remove the person from the property, with force if necessary.

I then provided an example SPECIFICALLY SELECTED because the request is not legal - you can't tell someone to leave your property because of their race.

I didn't need an example of police removing someone for a LEGAL request.
Outside of the South in the 1960s I would be surprised if the cops followed your request to violently remove a customer from your restaurant if that customer has done nothing wrong, is sitting quietly at his table and is simply trying to enjoy the meal you had previously sold him.
TravellingSalesman is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 12:29 am
  #4540  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17,428
Originally Posted by raehl311
I asserted that if I ask someone to leave my property, say a restaurant, that if they don't leave, and I call the cops, the cops are going to make them leave, with force if necessary.

They countered that not all requests for someone to leave property are legal.

I countered that that doesn't matter, you figure that out after the fact, the cops are STILL going to remove the person from the property, with force if necessary.

I then provided an example SPECIFICALLY SELECTED because the request is not legal - you can't tell someone to leave your property because of their race.

I didn't need an example of police removing someone for a LEGAL request.
They may do it for you once. But you keep calling them to haul off people you sold dinner to, and who haven't done anything illegal, but happen to be occupying a table you want to give to your sister in law, and they'll stop coming around at all when you call. For example, you think Officer X is going to play bouncer for United ever again?
rickg523 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:12 am
  #4541  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sacramento
Programs: UA 2MM/GS; SPG Lifetime Plat; MHC Lifetime; Tar Heel forever; and I "Dig the Pig" at Piggly Wiggly
Posts: 12,152
Never dare a cop. Ever.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/04/12/united...d-plane-video/
kevinsac is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:43 am
  #4542  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 350
Originally Posted by kevinsac
Why not? Seems like the best way to get a multi million dollar payout
deskover54 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:56 am
  #4543  
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: 100,398
Originally Posted by bedelman
I'm suddenly remembering United throwing a passenger off for taking a single photo with his iPhone. http://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.c...king-pictures/ . We're lucky to have the excellent video+audio evidence we do. Yet every such recording violates United's claimed prohibition on photographing or audio or video recording of other customers or airline personnel.

Could one additional change, resulting from this unfortunate situation, be that United is forced to cease prohibiting video recording? In this case, at least, video recording protected everyone and got the truth out. My instinct is that it should be praised, not banned.
A couple hours ago, NBC was making the point that the people on the flight who recorded the incident and then posted the video could be in trouble legally or at least with UA.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:05 am
  #4544  
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Programs: Miles&More AirNZ BA Emirates Finnair Plus
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Live4Upgrade
I would have been ticked to get pulled off but ORD-SDF is drivable (5.5 hours) if his obligations were truly "urgent".

Wouldn't have been cheaper drive their crew to destination?
tiharoa is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:05 am
  #4545  
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: 100,398
Originally Posted by kenn0223
If I was United I would be pissed at the City of Chicago. It was their guy who did the beating and I'd argue this entire thing is the City's fault. I doubt anyone at United thought they would see a semi-conscious passenger pulled up the aisle because they overbooked the flight. What seems to have happened is a City employee was more than happy to use a significant amount of physical force with (based on the video) with little attempt to diffuse the situation and, clearly, no common sense about context and the clear option to use much less force or just go back to United and say the situation does not justify force. Instead, the City beat the .... out of the guy; not surprising really considering the decades (if not century) long pattern of abuse by the City of Chicago's various law enforcement agencies (of which the Department of Aviation Security is one).

Why aren't any of these people (http://www.flychicago.com/business/C...s/default.aspx) on CNN defending their employees? Specifically Commissioner Ginger S. Evans, you'd think she would be right up there with Munoz saying they are conducting a full investigation and promise to change. BTW Commission Evans can be reached at [email protected], perhaps we could all ask her what her department is planning to do.

United is one of Chicago's largest employers and it is crazy that the City is happy to let them stand alone here.
Is ORD airport even located within the City of Chicago? I would have guessed Rosemont. IIRC tax rates at airport hotels aren't the same as tax rates at downtown hotels.
MSPeconomist 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.