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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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 13, 2017, 1:06 pm
  #4906  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Tampa, FL
Programs: UA 1.5mm, *gold, AA - P, Marriot Titanium
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by raehl311
It doesn't matter.


People are claiming, "He was already on the plane, so it can't be an IDB!"
Or, "It was only flight crew, so the flight wasn't oversold!"

First, even if they are right, if it's not an IDB situation, then that just means instead of being due IDB compensation for not being allowed to fly the flight, he's due... NO compensation!

Remember, before IDB regs, which only apply in specific situations, if an airline decided they didn't have space for you to fly, you got... nothing! Later flight or refund, your choice.


Second, those people are wrong.

DoT could not possibly intend that an airline can avoid IDB compensation by letting the passenger board THEN throwing him off the flight, claiming, "We didn't deny him boarding, we just didn't let him fly!" If you are NOT on the plane when it departs, you were denied boarding, regardless of whether you were ever temporarily on the plane.

And, DoT could not possibly intend that an airline can avoid IDB compensation because passengers were IDB'd in preference for flight crew. So, for purposes of IDB, the flight was oversold.

Regardless, IDB doesn't say when an airline can and can't remove a passenger from a flight, it merely prescribes certain procedures and compensation of passengers are IDB'd under certain specific circumstances. That's it.
I have read most of this thread, and need to weigh in from a legal perspective. It seems a lot of people don't understand the concept of boarding, and confuse the legal aspects of the term with the operational aspects. This example is not a case of IDB. The reason I say this has to due with the historical precedent of "boarding". Aviation law was modeled from maritime law. "Boarding" is very clear in both case law, and legally occurs when you step off the gang plank onto the vessel for maritime law, and off the jet bridge onto the aircraft for aviation law. Mr Dao was legally boarded when he stepped onto the plane. At that point, he is legally bound to the command of the captain. From my limited read of both the UA CoC and the DOT rules, there is a hole in how this event is treated due to the fact he cannot be treated as denied boarding according to aviation law. In this situation, the captain has the authority to kick anyone off the plane for whatever reason, and reasonable force could be used to remove him. But then Mr Dao could sue him and the airline for breach of contract.

All this doesn't matter, there is enough bad optics for UA so they would be foolish to do anything but settle.
Jeffw5555 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:06 pm
  #4907  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
Originally Posted by GUWonder
The lawyers aren't naive. They know that they aren't going for a class action unless and until they get what they need by way of this UA incident to do so. If UA is smart, they offer $10M to $20M as part of a settlement to stop this Dao matter from proceeding further and feeding a class action lawsuit.
One requirement of class action is "typicality." So they will need to find a bunch of other people (50+) who had approximately the same outcome.
sbrower is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:06 pm
  #4908  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nawthun Virginia
Programs: Air: UA (Gold), AA, WN, DL; Hotel: Hilton (Diamond), plus all the rest
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by tom911
There is no obligation for the police to read someone their rights prior to talking with them - if there was, every police interaction, field interview or vehicle stop would be accompanied by them. They're not going to stand in the airplane aisle to read him his rights.
I think my post explicitly said the same thing. But before they applied force, they needed to have probable cause to make an arrest, and it would seem that they did not. In fact, he was never arrested, even after his dazed return to the plane, which required UAX to empty the plane to remove him.

But he is within his rights to ask them if they intend to arrest him. If they don't, then they have no standing to interfere in a commercial dispute. That is what is being argued here, and I'm sure that will be hashed out in the coming weeks. We don't really want LEO's applying force to people in commercial/civil disputes where there is no cause for arrest, to we?
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:07 pm
  #4909  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nawthun Virginia
Programs: Air: UA (Gold), AA, WN, DL; Hotel: Hilton (Diamond), plus all the rest
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by Klimo
I think the police could use brute force if a person was truly erratic and a safety concern and decide later not to arrest him. Doesn't appear to be the case here.
But in such a case, they would have probable cause. And that's what I think is missing in this case.
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:09 pm
  #4910  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I don't see much in this piece that makes things better for the customer.

Welcome to Flyertalk.
The parts that are better for the customer are the lower fares, and airline service for the 95% of city pairs that don't have the volume to support point-to-point or hub airport treatment. Though in reality most of the low cost carriers don't operate a pure PTP model, they often have a bus schedule route, which can overlap and provide some connection opportunities, but they are often hugely inefficient and have substantial, and multiple, layovers.

I'm not an airline rep. I am just a regular guy like everyone else here, though I do have a background in Flight Ops.

Thanks for the welcome, though I have been quietly reading on and off for years. Going to be a very interesting debacle that has the potential to dramatically change domestic commercial travel in the US.

It's tangential to the discussion here, but this is a fun academic description of the differences between H&S and PTP networks from about a decade ago. Not too much has changed since then, aside from some additional consolidation. http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcont...&context=jaaer

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 13, 2017 at 1:35 pm Reason: Quote updated to reflect Moderator edit
dmaneyapanda is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:09 pm
  #4911  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SNA
Programs: AA gold, DL Gold, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Plat
Posts: 446
Originally Posted by sbrower
One requirement of class action is "typicality." So they will need to find a bunch of other people (50+) who had approximately the same outcome.
This case is unlikely to be a class action law suit. But what about the hundreds of other phone calls [he said] he is getting regarding other abuses and improprieties by United regarding baggage, ticketing, refunds, cancellations, downgrades, denied boarding, etc etc?
PilgrimsProgress is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:09 pm
  #4912  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 72
Originally Posted by Jeffw5555
I have read most of this thread, and need to weigh in from a legal perspective. It seems a lot of people don't understand the concept of boarding, and confuse the legal aspects of the term with the operational aspects. This example is not a case of IDB. The reason I say this has to due with the historical precedent of "boarding". Aviation law was modeled from maritime law. "Boarding" is very clear in both case law, and legally occurs when you step off the gang plank onto the vessel for maritime law, and off the jet bridge onto the aircraft for aviation law. Mr Dao was legally boarded when he stepped onto the plane. At that point, he is legally bound to the command of the captain. From my limited read of both the UA CoC and the DOT rules, there is a hole in how this event is treated due to the fact he cannot be treated as denied boarding according to aviation law. In this situation, the captain has the authority to kick anyone off the plane for whatever reason, and reasonable force could be used to remove him. But then Mr Dao could sue him and the airline for breach of contract.

All this doesn't matter, there is enough bad optics for UA so they would be foolish to do anything but settle.

The public does not give at rat's ___ about the legal definition. What they saw was a guy who had been sitting in his seat dragged bloody off the plane. That is what is on trial here not the law.
moreofless is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:10 pm
  #4913  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by Jeffw5555
I have read most of this thread, and need to weigh in from a legal perspective. It seems a lot of people don't understand the concept of boarding, and confuse the legal aspects of the term with the operational aspects. This example is not a case of IDB. The reason I say this has to due with the historical precedent of "boarding". Aviation law was modeled from maritime law. "Boarding" is very clear in both case law, and legally occurs when you step off the gang plank onto the vessel for maritime law, and off the jet bridge onto the aircraft for aviation law. Mr Dao was legally boarded when he stepped onto the plane. At that point, he is legally bound to the command of the captain. From my limited read of both the UA CoC and the DOT rules, there is a hole in how this event is treated due to the fact he cannot be treated as denied boarding according to aviation law. In this situation, the captain has the authority to kick anyone off the plane for whatever reason, and reasonable force could be used to remove him. But then Mr Dao could sue him and the airline for breach of contract.

All this doesn't matter, there is enough bad optics for UA so they would be foolish to do anything but settle.
Thanks for the legal opinion. I have a question though. You say that the captain can remove him for any reason. The captain in this case seems to be no where near the situation. Does that change anything in your statement?
Klimo is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:10 pm
  #4914  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,159
Originally Posted by FiveMileFinal
Hold up...

In the video, one of them was clearly wearing a vest that said POLICE across the back. So ... do we have people impersonating LEOs at this point? Crazy to ask, yes, but then, this whole thing is crazy.
Originally Posted by kenn0223
Yes, that guy is wearing a Chicago DOA uniform jacket that has the word "Police" on the back when, in fact, he is not a police officer. You'll notice earlier in the video he is wearing a black/dark uniform which is a DOA security uniform. CPD's duty uniform, including those at ORD, is light blue. You'll also notice none of them have guns or tasers -- all requirements of an on-duty CPD officer.
Link to Chicago Tribune article dealing with the status of these personnel:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...413-story.html

They must be state-certified Police Officers, but appear they do not exercise full police powers while working in this capacity. And they are not armed.

Aviation officers can "temporarily detain and take people into custody until Chicago police arrives," said city spokeswoman Jennifer Martinez
Which follows the scenario of why the passenger was not charged. CPD arrived and decided no charges were warranted.
goodeats21 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:11 pm
  #4915  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Nawthun Virginia
Programs: Air: UA (Gold), AA, WN, DL; Hotel: Hilton (Diamond), plus all the rest
Posts: 135
Originally Posted by Kacee
At which point the police proceeded to give Dao a concussion, break his nose, and knock out two of his teeth.
Right.
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:11 pm
  #4916  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by George Purcell
This is what I think as well--that Dao's interests are going to be much more about metaphorically pounding United's face into a seat and dragging them down the aisle than getting a check with lots of numbers after it. Not saying he won't get paid--he will--but what's the value to a guy in his situation of also causing huge damage to the business that robbed him?
He's got children and grandchildren. What kind of lesson does he want to give his family members? I can't imagine he wants his family to be viewed as people who can be easily bought, and so I really hope he decides it is worth it to give UAL an expensive bloody nose that involves major corporate cultural reconstructive surgery that results in denied boarding/transport passengers better off in the main, at least when flying UA.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:12 pm
  #4917  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by Kacee
Yes, for anyone in doubt, sarcasm.
Your error was in not using the sarcasm emoticon.
DrPSB is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:15 pm
  #4918  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA
Programs: AAdvantage, MileagePlus, SkyMiles
Posts: 4,159
Originally Posted by DL-Don
Perfect, thanks! That works for me
MrAndy1369 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:15 pm
  #4919  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by Klimo
Thanks for the legal opinion. I have a question though. You say that the captain can remove him for any reason. The captain in this case seems to be no where near the situation. Does that change anything in your statement?
The captain isn't kicking anybody off the plane. He can ask law enforcement to do so, but I rather doubt he/she is going to be getting into a brawl with a passenger themselves. The question then becomes, are law enforcement required to act upon the directives of the airline pilot and does the pilot have civil liability for doing so when the CoC and aviation law do not support the decision.

I predict this is going to be one of the fallouts from this incident - the belief by airlines, and airline captains, that they can rely on law enforcement to enforce contract disputes under laws and procedures designed for public safety. Airline pilots do have significant authority. But the idea they are able to order any behavior by a passenger without regard to lawsuit or legal sanction doesn't seem to hold water.
DrPSB is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 1:15 pm
  #4920  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by sbrower
One requirement of class action is "typicality." So they will need to find a bunch of other people (50+) who had approximately the same outcome.
But for that, they don't need Dao to be the typical one. They just need Dao to open the door to enable another case, one that can be made into a class action.
GUWonder 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.