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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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, 3:10 pm
  #4981  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: EWR
Posts: 680
Originally Posted by Rdenney
Yes, but when you call the cops, the probability of a physical confrontation increases substantially, and that requires no great powers of prophecy. That was the fateful decision here. When faced with implacable refusal, the GA could just as easily have said, "Okay, sir." and moved to the next person on the list.
The problem with that is if the GA just accepted Dao's refusal, the next person(s) on the list, seeing that refusing the request will let them stay on the plane, will simply refuse also.
lazard is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:10 pm
  #4982  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 28,129
Originally Posted by kenn0223
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
I think the status of these guys is pretty murky but there is, or was, an effort before the Chicago Aldermen to approve these folks authority to be armed. I would think that would require LEO status, whatever that means, in that state.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:11 pm
  #4983  
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: 100,417
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.
Yet, an airline employee should be aware of various international cultures. It's not so surprising that Dr. Dao felt very shamed to have been asked to leave the aircraft. A stubborn refusal to leave is not a surprising reaction.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:11 pm
  #4984  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,664
Originally Posted by GadgetFreak
I understand the difference. But a rule change or law change should obviate that clause of the contract. Let UA work out the compensation details with their pilots union.
How much more per ticket are you willing to pay in lieu of this benefit? And based on the fact that RPA struggles to find pilots how many flights are you will to be cut?
ROCAT is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:12 pm
  #4985  
 
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 sw3
Quite the opposite, as this text ignores the fact that Rule 21 includes unforeseeable conditions as a reason to refuse of transport. Here there was an unforeseeable condition, the need to use seats for a replacement crew because UA4600 Denver-Louisville was going to be delayed for an unknown or very long time, perhaps even cancelled, making it impossible for the UA4600 crew to fly the next morning out of Louisville as scheduled.
Except that all the rules of Rule 21 fall under the heading "safety". This was not a safety issue.

But it was a customer-service issue. They could easily have gotten the crew there on time by properly finding the market for voluntary bumps.
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:14 pm
  #4986  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: SEA
Posts: 2,556
United personnel have made the following claims about Mr. Dao:
  • He was belligerent
  • He had to be removed by force by CPD and airport police
  • He attempted to strike law enforcement

I have seen no evidence of belligerence or attempted assault on police by Mr. Dao; no evidence that the CPD was involved in his removal from the aircraft.

I have seen evidence of physical injury, including a possible head concussion (something which has now been confirmed) for which immediate medical aid was not provided, as it clearly should have been.

muji is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:16 pm
  #4987  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by sw3
Quite the opposite, as this text ignores the fact that Rule 21 includes unforeseeable conditions as a reason to refuse of transport. Here there was an unforeseeable condition, the need to use seats for a replacement crew because UA4600 Denver-Louisville was going to be delayed for an unknown or very long time, perhaps even cancelled, making it impossible for the UA4600 crew to fly the next morning out of Louisville as scheduled.

Also it is very naive from that lawyer to think that when a passenger's butt touches a seat they must ride no matter what, just like when a NFL player is down the very millisecond his knee touches the grass. UA might even have decided to turn the plane back after departure to pick up the replacement crew if the UA4600 delay had been known after departure, if they calculated that the costs for the extra op, fuel and IDB compensation would have been less than the costs of disrupting an entire day of flights for the aircraft and its passengers.
He doesn't sound naive in the least. He sounds like he is saying that for all intents and purposes his client was boarded. Since he was boarded United had no authority whatsoever to kick him off. There is a list of reasons why United can kick him off. None of those boxes seem to have been ticked.
Klimo is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:18 pm
  #4988  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 11
Originally Posted by Boggie Dog
$20,000 (seems very high) for a charter or a court case that when all is said and done in cost and settlements, damage to the brand, and other factors costing $10 to $50 million or more.

Perhaps United needs to sharpen their pencils a bit to figure this one out.
Here's a worksheet for that pencil sharpening:

Number of IDB passengers per year by United: 10,000
Approx Number of flights this occurs on: 2,500
Approx cost of charter to ferry excess passengers instead of IDB: $20,000
Total cost to replace IDB with charter: $50M. Per year.

I will grant that this case is exceptional in some ways because the passenger was already on the plane. But things are never as simple as they appear, even in hindsight.
dmaneyapanda is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:18 pm
  #4989  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
Originally Posted by DiscHandler
Also, "later in the day" was actually reported as 2pm the following day (which is probably why most of the working passengers wouldn't take a $800 voucher to miss a day of work).
One big fact about that has not been talked about. Next afternoon was the first flight with confirmed space. That is what the airline is required to state and guarantee. It's sounds bad, but that's not necessarily what would have happened. You can bet every bumped passenger would have been placed on standby for the next flight, and so on, and there was one more flight that night. He might have been home that night anyway. From the video we've seen, it's unknown whether the Dr. knew everything about the situation, and it doesn't appear the Dr. was interested in finding out either.
minnyfly is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:19 pm
  #4990  
 
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 lazard
The problem with that is if the GA just accepted Dao's refusal, the next person(s) on the list, seeing that refusing the request will let them stay on the plane, will simply refuse also.
Which I addressed in my next paragraph. Did you stop reading?

The reason they thought it would work is they thought nobody would refuse it. They had no contingency short of force for dealing with such a refusal, and lacked the imagination to see how that might play out. It doesn't take much imagination, frankly.
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:19 pm
  #4991  
sw3
Used to be 'etrevino'
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: MTY
Programs: AA, BA, AM Plat, HH Silver, SPG Gold, Amex Plat
Posts: 134
Originally Posted by IncyWincy
As some have said, there are lots of other airlines, smaller airlines and LCCs elsewhere in the world facing revenue problems and the pressure to sell as many tickets as possible, yet they do not have these incidents.
Very likely that many don't have these incidents because they're so small or cut costs so much that they don't have enough replacement crews available at enough places to solve unexpected crew shortages on the spot. Actually it speaks volumes that UA and its regional affiliate found an ERJ145 replacement crew available and deployed it so quickly to solve the unforeseen problem at Louisville. Other airlines would have had to "solve" the problem by cancelling flights or getting the flights out with very long delays, actually denying timely transport to whole planeloads instead of a few bumped passengers.
sw3 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:20 pm
  #4992  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by minnyfly
One big fact about that has not been talked about. Next afternoon was the first flight with confirmed space. That is what the airline is required to state and guarantee. It's sounds bad, but that's not necessarily what would have happened. You can bet every bumped passenger would have been placed on standby for the next flight, and so on, and there was one more flight that night. He might have been home that night anyway. From the video we've seen, it's unknown whether the Dr. knew everything about the situation, and it doesn't appear the Dr. was interested in finding out either.
ohhh wow. I might have an oft chance at getting home earlier. How awesome. /s
Klimo is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:22 pm
  #4993  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by minnyfly
One big fact about that has not been talked about. Next afternoon was the first flight with confirmed space. That is what the airline is required to state and guarantee. It's sounds bad, but that's not necessarily what would have happened. You can bet every bumped passenger would have been placed on standby for the next flight, and so on, and there was one more flight that night. He might have been home that night anyway. From the video we've seen, it's unknown whether the Dr. knew everything about the situation, and it doesn't appear the Dr. was interested in finding out either.
Yeah, it's just FINE to force an overbook (that isn't a real overbook) for United employees. You just a paying customer? No force overbook for you when we deny you a flight!
George Purcell is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:23 pm
  #4994  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,686
Originally Posted by FiveMileFinal
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.
I'll take that bet. AMR closed down about the same %, DAL closed down 1.5x as much as UAL or AMR, LUV closed down about the same as DAL, down 1.5x as much in terms of %

Last edited by fastair; Apr 13, 2017 at 11:05 pm Reason: i wrote 2.5x meant 1.5x iphone typos
fastair is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:23 pm
  #4995  
 
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 dmaneyapanda
Here's a worksheet for that pencil sharpening:

Number of IDB passengers per year by United: 10,000
Approx Number of flights this occurs on: 2,500
Approx cost of charter to ferry excess passengers instead of IDB: $20,000
Total cost to replace IDB with charter: $50M. Per year.

I will grant that this case is exceptional in some ways because the passenger was already on the plane. But things are never as simple as they appear, even in hindsight.
Had this occurred before the passenger was boarded, we would not be having this conversation. But Dr. Dao would have still been screwed, just to a lesser extent, and with no further recourse.
Rdenney 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.