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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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, 2:25 pm
  #4951  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cleveland, OH
Programs: UA-GS 1MM), Hertz Pres Circle, Starriott Titanium)
Posts: 1,966
Originally Posted by Rdenney
He is reported as being ethnic Chinese from Vietnam. But the outrage in China is not insignificant, even if he is Vietnamese.
His Nationality may have been Vietnamese, I believe he is a US Citizen. As an ethnic Chinese person, I believe the correct designation would be "Chinese American."

Either way, if China believes the treatment was in part due to his ethnicity, then they have every right to be upset.
LordHamster is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:25 pm
  #4952  
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
Originally Posted by kenn0223
There were no "cops" or "police" involved. The three officers involved are City of Chicago Aviation Security Officers.
Someone needs to update the Chicago Tribune as clearly they think otherwise and refer to them as part time or full time cops, the aviation police force or aviation police in today's article. They even mention they receive the same training as other Illinois police officers. I don't see the word "security" mentioned once in that article.

Why do you think local reporting has it so wrong?

It's good to see the articles are no longer solely focusing on UA.

Chicago Tribune: What are the Chicago aviation police?

Two lines from that article were of interest to me:

Aviation officers can "temporarily detain and take people into custody until Chicago police arrives," said city spokeswoman Jennifer Martinez. But only Chicago police can file an arrest report, she said.
tom911 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:28 pm
  #4953  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by BSpeaker
2. If all four of these MustRides were pilots, and if the destination was a 5 hour drive away, that would make it less than an hour to fly where they needed to be on a charter jet. Surely UA/Republic has access to small planes? Why didn't they fly them to their next destination? It would have cost considerably less than the $75K they paid to reimburse all the pax on this flight. And it certainly will cost less than the attorneys, bad PR, lost business, bribes to lobbyists and congress, and all the other outflows of $$ we don't know about.
I don't know what "access to small planes" means. I doubt United had any planes with unassigned crew just sitting around not being used for anything, though if they did ORD is the most likely place for them to be.

Charter is often contracted days or weeks in advance, so there's no guarantee or even likelihood of availability at the last minute. And if it is available, it is prohibitively expensive.

For sure, the cheapest and most effective way for them to get pilots to Louisville in time to make their duty time window is to force them onto the plane about to head to Louisville, and pay off a few passengers if needed.

Obviously, in retrospect, even prohibitive expense would have been better than what they now have, but as far as I know no one can yet see the future. They (Flight Ops, GA, law enforcement) made the decisions that they thought were right for themselves and the airline at the time they made them.
dmaneyapanda is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:30 pm
  #4954  
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 tom911
Someone needs to update the Chicago Tribune as clearly they think otherwise and refer to them as part time or full time cops, the aviation police force or aviation police in today's article. They even mention they receive the same training as other Illinois police officers. I don't see the word "security" mentioned once in that article.

Why do you think local reporting has it so wrong?

It's good to see the articles are no longer solely focusing on UA.

Chicago Tribune: What are the Chicago aviation police?

Two lines from that article were of interest to me:
As in most things in life, it is complicated and nuanced.

You can be a sworn officer, but working security outside of your jurisdiction.

Receiving the same training as LEOs does not mean you are a LEO.

Etc.
goodeats21 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:31 pm
  #4955  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: CO
Programs: UA OG-1K, Marriott Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,360
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nce/100409492/

Oh, crud-zizes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nce/100409492/

Jesse Jackson prowling your pavement. That is when you know it is going to get painful, long, and expensive....
PushingTin is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:32 pm
  #4956  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,038
Originally Posted by dmaneyapanda
I don't know what "access to small planes" means. I doubt United had any planes with unassigned crew just sitting around not being used for anything, though if they did ORD is the most likely place for them to be.

Charter is often contracted days or weeks in advance, so there's no guarantee or even likelihood of availability at the last minute. And if it is available, it is prohibitively expensive.

Obviously, in retrospect, even prohibitive expense would have been better than what they now have, but as far as I know no one can yet see the future. They made the decisions that they thought were right for themselves and the airlines at the time they made them.
Welcome to Flyertalk.

I think the term "prohibitively expensive" needs to recalibrated in this case. I suspect this may cost them a triple-7s worth by the time this is all said and done. Maybe several. While the stock did bounce back, the initial drop was a fleet worth. I think the problem came down to thinking they could save the company a few hundred bucks at the expense of a customer to make up for the companies mistake.
GadgetFreak is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:35 pm
  #4957  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 11
I don't deny that. I fact, I said that.

But at the time the decisions were made, they didn't know what the eventual cost would be. Life would be easier for everyone if we could see the future.

It is certainly the case that no one at United would have authorized sending pilots on charters at $20k a pop rather than letting them go as ticketed passengers on their own planes moving on their own network before Sunday.

Even spending more in VDBs is not really fait accomplis. 30-40k IDBs each year. Say 10k of them are United's. If the differential between the IDB cost and VDB cost is $300, that's $3M in additional cost each year. Assuming the settlement with the Dr. is $10M, that's still only a 3 year payback before not doing it is more cost effective.

Nothing is a/moral in the world of finance, I guess.
dmaneyapanda is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:36 pm
  #4958  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by Hammer0425
You are incorrect. Any pilot who is CASS approved may ride in the cockpit jumpseat at the discretion of the Captain. While technically you become an additional crewmember, you do not need to be qualified to operate the aircraft by any means to ride in a cockpit jumpseat.
So, was the jumpseat(s) occupied?
andover is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:38 pm
  #4959  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,038
Originally Posted by dmaneyapanda
I don't deny that. I fact, I said that.

But at the time the decisions were made, they didn't know what the eventual cost would be. Life would be easier for everyone if we could see the future.
Yes, you did. I think the larger problem is a habit of offloading UA's errors on customers. They tried to do that here I think and it will cost them very, very dearly I expect. As I mentioned before, what were they thinking of doing this on a plane full of cameras?
GadgetFreak is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:38 pm
  #4960  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: ATL
Programs: DL Scattered Smothered Covered Medallion, Some hotel & car stuff, Kroger Plus Card
Posts: 10,745
Originally Posted by simpleflyer
This time, though, it seems it actually WAS awful - the wolf being cried about, really had appeared and dragged an innocent man in its jaws off of an aircraft.
I agree with you, and it's sad that wolf has been cried so many times that we now start from a place of doubt when we encounter truly horrible situations like this one.
gooselee is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:39 pm
  #4961  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: EWR
Posts: 680
Originally Posted by GadgetFreak
Welcome to Flyertalk.

I think the term "prohibitively expensive" needs to recalibrated in this case. I suspect this may cost them a triple-7s worth by the time this is all said and done. Maybe several. While the stock did bounce back, the initial drop was a fleet worth. I think the problem came down to thinking they could save the company a few hundred bucks at the expense of a customer to make up for the companies mistake.
hindsight is 20/20. Pretty sure they didn't expect to have a passenger be so steadfast in his refusal to leave the plane and for the ensuing events to occur.
lazard is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:41 pm
  #4962  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 118
Originally Posted by YuropFlyer
I thought it was FT general knowledge that you need to follow orders by the crew..

Would I have been angry at United if they told me they need my seat? And after failing to offer higher amounts of $$$ so that volunteers would show up? Yes, probably. However, 800$ isn't THAT little of a sum, and apparently there would have been later options to the final destination on that day (I don't know how much later, though)

With the actual "treatment" of the pax obviously no one can agree. But that wasn't United's saying, as much as I understand. They're basically the guys that any airline need to call if they've a pax refusing to comply with crew orders.

That, and his attempt to re-board after he was removed from the flight does finally swing my personal feeling into a direction where I stop having sympathy for this pax.

By the way.. in Europe, an airline doing the same would only have to offer him 250 or 400€ (depending on the flights distance.. ) - that's all what you get for a regular IDB (plus hotel and meals, of course, if needed)

800$ - especially in the form of cash - would have been twice as generous as even for a long-distance (and three times as much than a short-haul) flight within the EU. One can't really say that United was "stingy" in this regard..
Another person who did not read the whole story.

$800 was in form of monopoly money, UA vouchers.

Any actions after the physical assault can be attributed to trauma.
milty908 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:42 pm
  #4963  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: AA ex-EXP, 2MM (ex DL, ex TWA)
Posts: 1,427
Originally Posted by lazard
hindsight is 20/20. Pretty sure they didn't expect to have a passenger be so steadfast in his refusal to leave the plane and for the ensuing events to occur.
Quite. They have become used to getting their way, whatever the circumstances, simply by invoking 'security". That someone would eventually call them on an unreasonable "order", leading to an inevitable escalation, seems to have escaped the in-house counsel?
Wexflyer is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:43 pm
  #4964  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Programs: ba silver
Posts: 729
Originally Posted by goodeats21
As in most things in life, it is complicated and nuanced.

You can be a sworn officer, but working security outside of your jurisdiction.

Receiving the same training as LEOs does not mean you are a LEO.
From what I know , these types of "police" officers tend to be the ones that real police forces don't want, either because they graduated at the bottom or were fired from another police for. I know that's the case in Canada. Judging by what happened it should come as no surprise.
Etc.
stevendorechester is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 2:44 pm
  #4965  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Minneapolis, MN (MSP)
Programs: DL DM, UA 1K MM, Subway Club Member
Posts: 1,988
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
I believe you are somewhat mistaken on these guys status. I have read that they are in fact Sworn Police Officers with limited arrest powers. There has been a move in Chicago to authorize this group to be armed although that likely will be tabled for the foreseeable future after this incident.
The job description says nothing about being a sworn police officer (link). It's clear they want people with military or law enforcement experience but, given their pay scale, I doubt they are getting experienced cops. They are required to get certified as an IL law enforcement officer but that is not the same as being employed as a law enforcement officer. The job description sounds a lot more like a mall security guard than a police officer or something some one would do to bolster a future police officer application.

For reference the City's job description for police officer (here) is much more specific about their duties as law enforcement and requires them to pass the state's Peace Officer exam

Last edited by kenn0223; Apr 13, 2017 at 2:54 pm
kenn0223 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.