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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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, 3:39 pm
  #5011  
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 muji
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
Belligerence does not need to include physical roughness, just like violence and abuse can be verbal (spoken or written) and psychological, not only physical. Defying crew and police requests/instructions/orders, saying I won't get out, threatening to sue, etc. undoubtedly has to qualify as being (verbally) belligerent
sw3 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:39 pm
  #5012  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: New England
Programs: Marriott Platinum, United Silver, American Platinum, National Exec platinum
Posts: 26
United says no more law enforcement...

The company said it will no longer ask law enforcement officers to remove passengers from our flights "unless it is a matter of safety and security." United also is reviewing policies on training and crew movement and how "oversold" flights are handled.

We all know what will happen...the Gate Agent will lie and say passenger being threat even when just simply questioning blockheaded GA or FA and cops will be called. I don't buy this at all. We all know what almost unlimited power the GA and FA has...and until know it has been unchecked. This unfortunate incident was bound to happen...and happen it did in a major way.
nefanboy is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:40 pm
  #5013  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by minnyfly
Oh sure, blow off facts because they're inconvenient. Here's another data point - the late morning ORD-SDF flight left with an empty seat. The Dr. would not have had to wait until 2pm to leave ORD. Not that it would have mattered in his case, but it might have mattered to somebody else in the VDB process to know exactly how soon they might get home, not just how late.
It's completely irrelevant that there was some unknown possibility of getting home earlier.

How would they have known they might get home earlier? "you have a chance at standby, but all flights are full" How on earth does that help anyone in that situation at that time. Jsut bc a seat opened up is totally irrelevant
Klimo is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:41 pm
  #5014  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SEA
Programs: DL DM, HH diamond
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by nefanboy
The company said it will no longer ask law enforcement officers to remove passengers from our flights "unless it is a matter of safety and security." United also is reviewing policies on training and crew movement and how "oversold" flights are handled.

We all know what will happen...the Gate Agent will lie and say passenger being threat even when just simply questioning blockheaded GA or FA and cops will be called. I don't buy this at all. We all know what almost unlimited power the GA and FA has...and until know it has been unchecked. This unfortunate incident was bound to happen...and happen it did in a major way.
And in fact by all accounts this is exactly what happened in Dr. Dao's case.
AK-business-traveler is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:41 pm
  #5015  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by pinniped
It's interesting: I think we've moved past some of the initial outrage at United and their cruelly unsympathetic CEO. Now there's a broader nationwide conversation about the entire airline cartel and how it treats customers. While I don't actually *expect* the current crop of Congresscritters to actually do anything (there's no evidence they have any inclination to do anything for "the little guy" at the expense of their corporate patrons), it would be a pretty easy way to score some favorability ratings (and votes) of their own. United might be the single most hated entity in America right now, but Congress could easily be #2 - and that's true in both red and blue districts.

Thus I can see the market playing all of the stocks a bit cool for a while. Perhaps equally cool, as any change to existing rules would affect all of them, not just United.
100% correct, I would just add that lots of buying happens on the 'rebound' theory. Any impact will show up in the next few months, the markets for airline stocks have consistently lagged events over the last few years.
spin88 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:42 pm
  #5016  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by sw3
He is naive because he thinks that any single passenger becomes more important than keeping the whole aviation system running smoothly the very millisecond his/her butt touches a seat, or the very millisecond his/her shoes touch the plane floor or whatever.
Explain to me how its the customers responsibility to maintain the aviation system? The only responsibility customers have to to abide by the rules and laws set out by the fed and contracts by the carrier. nothing else. The Dr. did just that.
Klimo is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:45 pm
  #5017  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,579
Originally Posted by Kacee
Right. The fate of the "whole aviation system" hinged on these four employees getting on that flight.
I had a flight yesterday on AA in a different part of the country. I'm personally glad these four UA employees got onboard, thus sparing the entire aviation system from total shutdown. Otherwise, I'd probably still be driving home right now...
pinniped is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:45 pm
  #5018  
 
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 minnyfly
Oh sure, blow off facts because they're inconvenient. Here's another data point - the late morning ORD-SDF flight left with an empty seat. The Dr. would not have had to wait until 2pm to leave ORD. Not that it would have mattered in his case, but it might have mattered to somebody else in the VDB process to know exactly how soon they might get home, not just how late.
So, he would have sat at ORD for another two hours that night to see if he could standby on that flight, and when that didn't work, he'd be in a hotel. Then, he'd have been back at the airport the next morning, in the hopes that he would get to standby on that flight. The probability is that he would not, which is why they would have booked him on the afternoon flight. And he would still have missed a day of work, and enjoyed another 8-10 hours of sitting around that blasted airport (and I feel like I have years of experience sitting at that airport).

Yes, you are really emphasizing the attractiveness of the alternative they presented to him.
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:45 pm
  #5019  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: ORD
Programs: UA Gold, DL Silver
Posts: 64
In an alternate universe, Airlines partner with the Federal Government to set up Federal Aviation courts at all major airports, staffed with judges round the clock with the ability to adjudicate contract law between airlines and pax.

Instead of sending in LEO's, they just send in a team of lawyers to analyze the situation, and file legal action against pax who do not comply with the CoC. Pax decides to wait it out and not comply, then a bench warrant solves that.

If you think the CoC would be long and labyrinthine now, just imagine this situation!
IamBartman is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:46 pm
  #5020  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: In btw SJC & SFO
Programs: Marriott Titanium & LTP, Hilton Diamond (Aspire card), Hyatt Globalist, UA Gold (almost free agent)
Posts: 510
Vow 5000+ posts already and going!

Actually I like United and have been treated well so far maybe due to my status there. However I really hope UA will pay dearly to this unlucky (or lucky)guy and have some fundamental changes to become a real service oriented airline. I doubt this will happen as long Union......
tomwhom is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:47 pm
  #5021  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: St. Louis, MO, USA
Programs: AA PPro, Mariott Gold Elite, Lowly kettle across every other loyalty program.
Posts: 778
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.
Since the airline isn't responsible for consequential damages, they should not make their operational issues my problem. If my job depended on being at a meeting the next morning, and the best I can get from the airline is, "we'll definitely have you there tomorrow afternoon," I would not want to get off the plane either.

The airline's responsibility at that point should be to find 4 people who do not NEED to be on THAT specific flight. As has been pointed out, most people have a price for a 24-hour delay of the airline's making. If it's $1600 cash compensation, so be it. If it's renting some other form of transport to get offloaded pax to their destination that night, fine. It's already been settled that by regulation they couldn't do this for the employees, but it would have been a LOT less expensive than what they've brought down on themselves. (Damaging? Probably not in the long run. After all, you only have so many choices and so many seats on other domestic carriers.)

Had United and it's corporate culture understood this from the get-go, all of this would have been a non-issue.
iplaybass is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:47 pm
  #5022  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,406
Originally Posted by DrunkCargo
4) Pax refuses.
5) the rest...

It's #4 that is criminal.
and #5 may have criminal components too, of zero interest to me on FT.
Show me the line in any law where it says that it is illegal to refuse a request of an F/A. This wasn't an IDB situation as DOT rules or COC might refer to. The passenger was boarded (both in the eyes of UA and IMO the eyes of the average passenger).

Originally Posted by DrunkCargo
Any FF should expect IRROP post-boarding can occur resulting in complete offload, inoperable seat requiring musical chairs, onboard seat swap negotiation between private parties, FA juggling for "weights and balances" or just to make space for friends... all this has happened to me, as I'm sure all of you.
Let's go through your illustrations
Inoperable seat: Either the passenger can be relocated to another seat without having to bump any passenger or the passenger has to be bumped. Both decisions are justified by safety rules and deep down in FAA regulations there's probably a rule stating that a passenger can't be allocated a seat that doesn't meet safety standards.

In case of mere functionality problems (e.g. lie flat function doesn't work; display doesn't work), a passenger may request a new seat, which the crew can actually refuse (and some do). Swapping seats is merely optional.

Seat swap negotiations: There's no obligation for a passenger to switch. In fact, most members on FT probably have already refused a seat swap or - vice versa - accepted a seat swap depending on whether or not the swap would not inconvenience them.

Fa juggling for "weights and balances": It's again a question of security. If the PIC says that the aircraft needs to be balanced, you'll have to comply. This is different from a "you guys all boarded, but we decided that we need 4 seats for our own. Accept these vouchers or get stuffed" situation.

Making space for friends: See 'Seat swap "negotiations" '. If the day comes where a member of the crew forces me to switch seats, despite me not wanting to switch seats, solely for the purpose of his/her friend getting my seat, I will see to it that that F/A will no longer work for that airline at the end of the day.

BTW: None of the situations you listed compares to the present one.
WorldLux is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:48 pm
  #5023  
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 Kacee
Right. The fate of the "whole aviation system" hinged on these four employees getting on that flight.
The lawyer's text implies that any passenger on any plane anywhere should be a must ride after having a boarding pass printed, his/her fingers touching the boarding pass, having the boarding pass scanned, crossed the plane door, sat inside the plane, stow the carry-on or whatever words are used, hence the whole aviation system would be disrupted if all passengers would be given the absolute and irrevocable right to fly regardless of the consequences.
sw3 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:49 pm
  #5024  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: ATL
Programs: Delta PlM, 1M
Posts: 6,365
Originally Posted by Rdenney
#4 is not a crime. I believe that has been solidly established, and also acknowledged by United. You should revise your thinking about that; it changes your conclusions.
I have no idea how this has been established.

If you are on somebody's property, and they insist you leave, you have to leave (there are of course some exceptions, such as living there). And there are specific laws for planes saying as such. When the police tell you to leave, you are certainly committing a crime by staying.

That UA might have violated their own COC is an issue one can debate. But that is a separate issue.

In general, I hate this phrase, but in this case it is perfect - Two wrongs do not make a right.
exwannabe is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 3:50 pm
  #5025  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by IamBartman
In an alternate universe, Airlines partner with the Federal Government to set up Federal Aviation courts at all major airports, staffed with judges round the clock with the ability to adjudicate contract law between airlines and pax.

Instead of sending in LEO's, they just send in a team of lawyers to analyze the situation, and file legal action against pax who do not comply with the CoC. Pax decides to wait it out and not comply, then a bench warrant solves that.

If you think the CoC would be long and labyrinthine now, just imagine this situation!
Or ... they allow gate agents to offer real inducements that people will agree to instead of resorting to the threat of bodily harm when there is a need to free up a seat.
DrPSB 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.