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}

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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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}

Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:20 am
  #4786  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Manhattan Beach, California
Programs: BMI Diamond Club Gold forever
Posts: 6,367
Originally Posted by johnden
If a LEO decides to arrest you, resisting actively, even in illegitimate cases, opens up the potential to be charged with a variety of additional crimes.

Aside from the legality, unless your goal is to protest and/or draw attention, refusing orders from a LEO when they seem inclined to use force and/or arrest powers serves no utility. Our legal system is not setup to handle such issues on the street, these battles are best for the courts post-arrest.
That's a complete oversimplification of the US legal system and in fact not true. An important check on unfettered and illegitimate police use of force is in fact the very conduct with the passenger here engaged in. You might not yourself choose to do this and might even look down on it, but chellenging inappropriate and/or wrongful use/exercise of authority is in fact very American and very much a part of our legal system. Large jury verdicts to people willing to stand up are a critical form of incentive for law enforcement organizations to properly train and supervise their workforces.
stephem is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:21 am
  #4787  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Programs: Frontier Gold, DL estranged 1MMer, Spirit VIP, CO/NW/UA/AA once gold/plat/comped gold now dust.
Posts: 38,122
Originally Posted by GadgetFreak
I think that coffee verdict was quite appropriate. She suffered very bad ( I think third degree which are potentially life threatening) burns and as I recall there was internal correspondence warning McDonalds about the dangers from their insurance company and also correspondence that they served this hot to discourage free refills and have people leave the store.

But the most important thing was that, as you said, it was a long time ago. Maybe equally important there weren't nasty videos then.
I think also in that case is that McDonald's offered something like $800 to make it go away but it wasn't enough to pay the medical bills. They might have bought her off otherwise. The thing became a talking point for conservatives (with some key details stripped, as mentioned), but the thing they forget is that if someone has trouble with actual bills and there's a hint of someone else being at fault even partially, it becomes much easier for an injury lawyer to talk them into suing. Not everyone wants to go through all that for an uncertain payoff that may go mostly to the lawyer anyway, but when you've got even a few thousand in medical bills that you'd have a hard time paying otherwise, it can feel like you're backed into a corner.

Also, lest we forget, that incident was before the ACA. If we go back to 50+ million uninsured and having to pay every dime or sue for recovery if they think a company is at fault, then it's perfect conditions for having more cases like that.
RustyC is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:23 am
  #4788  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wesley Chapel, FL
Programs: American Airlines
Posts: 29,959
Originally Posted by Dieuwer
To set an example, could China revoke UA's landing rights?
This has nothing to do with China. The man is Vietnamese.
enviroian is online now  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:23 am
  #4789  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
I have the same curiosity.

There is a confirmed quote from one pax who was filming that he was 'angry' and said something about being Asian to the United agent.

We've heard (but i have not seen confirmed) reports he initially accepted a VDB amount, but declined after hearing the new flight option. Perfectly fair, but a piece of time that's a gap.

There's also a **not at all validated rumor** he left the plane before the altercation. Maybe to negotiate VDB?

The 30 or so minute period between boarding and the police showing up is very, very much in the dark. And filling in those minutes is, regardless of what happened, something important to understand.

I'd love to hear from that guy in the orange shirt who seems pretty nonplussed about the whole thing.

Not going to change the outcome that the passenger will become quite wealthy and we'll see changes to how UA handles overbooking.

Originally Posted by Baze
I'm going to play devils advocate here for discussions sake.

Has anything come out yet about UA's interaction with Dr Dao BEFORE the videos started rolling? What caused UA to call the police in to remove Dr. Dao? Something had to happen to make UA call in the police, they don't just start with the police to have someone IDB'd. Did a GA or FA approach Dr. Dao and explain the situation and that he had been selected to be involuntarily asked to leave the plane? Was he belligerent in this initial contact?

This is the problem I have with social media, everyone assumes the story starts when the cameras start rolling.

Don't get me wrong, what happened AFTER the cameras started rolling is way beyond anything that should ever have happened and CPD and UA should be held accountable, but to what degree? Did Dr. Dao do anything before the cameras started rolling to warrant having the police come onboard to remove him.

I would just like to know the WHOLE story, not just what we see in the media.
cerealmarketer is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:23 am
  #4790  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: BOS
Posts: 15,027
Originally Posted by RustyC
I think also in that case is that McDonald's offered something like $800 to make it go away but it wasn't enough to pay the medical bills. They might have bought her off otherwise. The thing became a talking point for conservatives (with some key details stripped, as mentioned), but the thing they forget is that if someone has trouble with actual bills and there's a hint of someone else being at fault even partially, it becomes much easier for an injury lawyer to talk them into suing.
Which is similar to what happened to the passenger on UA3411:

David Dao, 69, suffered a concussion, broken nose and damaged sinuses and lost two front teeth when he was dragged off a flight Sunday to make room for United personnel, lawyer Thomas Demetrio said. He said Dao has been released from the hospital and is staying in a "secure" location.
.
Dieuwer is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:24 am
  #4791  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Independent! But mostly BKK, BCN, SFO, PDX, SEA...
Programs: Lawl COVID
Posts: 1,060
Anyone wanna bet that presser is responsible for the 50 cent nick on UAL shares right now? It was at 70$ right before the start, even for the day.

I honestly hope that this drives change throughout the industry. Not just with United, but with all legacy airlines. But I'm especially happy that it's United that's taking this L. This is one they have needed to receive for quite some time.

I thank Dr. Dao for being that guy.
FiveMileFinal is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:24 am
  #4792  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,078
Originally Posted by UAzip
What I'm wondering is what if all the passengers said the same thing because they all HAD to be there on that flight? What if no one were that someone else? There HAS to be a backup plan for what to do if no one takes any offer, no matter how high. It isn't totally logical to say what the lawyer said, although it is indeed likely that someone would take an offer most of the time. What if no one will? Got to have some plan.
Apparently United's backup plan is to beat someone into submission and drag them off the airplane.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:25 am
  #4793  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by gold23
While true, there is also the very real cost of trial prep and the significant risk that comes with a trial jury. UA would have considerably more resources to prepare for any trial, and the % that the victim would receive far less than what they could in settlement is significantly higher than 0.
Given the attorneys the passenger has retained, their resources to prepare for trial is not an issue and will be equal to that of United's.
Summa Cum Laude Touro Law Center is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:25 am
  #4794  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: AU
Programs: former Olympic Airways Gold (yeah - still proud of that!)
Posts: 14,401
Just wanting to clear this up...


3: “So what’s this ‘must ride’ nonsense anyway? They shouldn’t bump a paying customer for a free employee ride!” I’m afraid you’re going to have to take this up with the federal government, not United. And it’s actually pretty important to you as an airline traveler anyway. They were not ‘freeloading home’. That’s called non-rev and they have to wait in line behind your checkbook and often don’t make it home to their families if flights are booked (believe me, I know). No, this was a must fly, a positive space situation. In layman terms, it means that a crew must be flown to an airport to man a flight in order to avoid cancellation of said flight due to crew unavailability. This is a federal DOT regulation, not an airline one. The airlines are required to do so to avoid disruption of air traffic. In other words, if there are no willing volunteers and they need seats to get a crew somewhere to avoid disruption of aviation flow, they can, will, must by federal regulation bump people for the better good of the 1000’s. Why? Because one cancelled flight has a serious domino affect in the delicate, complicated world of connections and aviation law.
Is there actually any such 'law' in existence or is this made up?
LHR/MEL/Europe FF is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:28 am
  #4795  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,907
Originally Posted by lotrbfme
You have not seen the other videos before the beating and the testimony of the passengers on board? They are very well documented
I have not. Only see the scuffle in the seat with LEO's and the dragging off the flight. Can you post links to videos of UA's very first interaction with Dr. Dao asking him to leave the plane before law enforcement was called in? Why would people be videoing at that point. Videoing usually starts with the first scuffle or first appearance of law enforcement. I can't find anything before that happened. And can you post links to the interviews with other passengers of the very first interaction of UA with Dr. Dao being asked to leave? Videos of his initial reaction? if this is so well documented why can't I find it searching for it? So if it is, please posts links so I can see more of the story.

And what happened with the other 3 people IDB'd? Everything I have seen is they needed 4 seats?
Baze is online now  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:29 am
  #4796  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by DrPSB
Do you feel United also may have the risk of being the subject of a class action lawsuit by all passengers who have been subject to involuntary bumps? It seems to me the other party involved, the aviation police, also have exposure. If a lawsuit and publicity result in the airlines no longer being able to use the threats of police action as leverage against passengers in these types of disputes, that also could force change in how overbooking and involuntary bumps are approached.
Whether or not a class action lawsuit against United on this basis is viable, it would be a separate matter from Dao's lawsuit, which involves his unique, individualized damages claim.
Summa Cum Laude Touro Law Center is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:29 am
  #4797  
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 498
Originally Posted by Plumber
I agree.

A jury gave a woman $2.7M in 1994 because McDonalds coffee was too hot. That was a long time ago.

United will be punished heavily here. I dont see them getting away with less than $100M.
well people should look up that McDonalds coffee case, it was really hot, as in third degree burn, hospitalize and need surgery. The coffee was 180–190 °F (82–88 °C) which is common practice for the restaurant chain. Internal reports by McDonald that the heat was excessive but the bean counters did their math and that paying $ to those burn/injury by the hot coffee is better than reducing the heat of the coffee. Please note that at the time of the incident there was already a "hot" warning label on the cup, just not big enough
jkuok is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:29 am
  #4798  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Greensboro, NC, USA
Posts: 100
Originally Posted by johnden
Thanks for your point of view. I'm totally onboard with the contract issues. However I still believe any private business can have you removed from their property at any time for any reason (landlord/tenant and other exceptions apply). The contract may protect a person from prosecution for trespassing, allow them recourse in civil court, etc. I don't believe the contract in any way prevents a business from asking law enforcement to remove an uncooperative customer, either before or after payment, it only provides recourse for the customer after they are removed from the property.

In turn, we have other laws that give law enforcement the power to enforce compliance with their instructions, completely separate from the contract issues. So once law enforcement is involved, their commands carry the weight of the laws in their jurisdiction (and the remedies allowed if they misuse those powers). Nothing I know of allows a customer to disobey a LEO, their arrest powers are usually very broad. Maybe a good lawyer can get compensation for a wrongful arrest, but our laws still require the person to obey and comply. I don't like these laws either, but they have little to do with United.
Time to pop this balloon again (and I am a lawyer). A business can always ask law enforcement to remove someone, but unless a criminal, not civil, law is being broken law enforcement should decline to be involved. There has to be an arrestable offense, or a need to protect the officer or others from physical harm. Some states allow an arrest for refusing to leave real property (criminal trespass) after being requested to do so, but an airplane is not real property.

And no matter how many people believe otherwise, there is NO legal requirement to "comply" with a "lawful order" from law enforcement. (Other than resisting arrest or active interference, which in most states is a crime) It may be dumb and risk all sorts of unpleasantness not to, but there is no law broken by (peacefully) declining to follow the "order." Where on earth did this idea (requirement to comply with lawful order of law enforcement) ever get going?
carolinaflyr is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:30 am
  #4799  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: YYC
Posts: 2,072
I hope that Oscar Munoz loses his job (with a huge golden parachute, no doubt) over this.

The only reason that he is remorseful now is because the BOD is more than likely treating him like the LEO's treated Mr. Dao on Sunday night.

I haven't flown United in years, so can't speak to whether or not their shareholders are deserving of the punishment they're going to receive, but hopefully this will effect change in the broader industry in North America.
YYCCL3 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 11:30 am
  #4800  
 
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 Baze
I have not. Only see the scuffle in the seat with LEO's and the dragging off the flight. Can you post links to videos of UA's very first interaction with Dr. Dao asking him to leave the plane before law enforcement
was called in?
See wiki.
DL-Don is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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.