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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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 14, 2017, 7:54 pm
  #5671  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 814
Originally Posted by ChaseTheMiles
Because of the incident, people are finally seeing what the big bully has been doing to the passengers. On the other hand, if he had known he would be assaulted to the point of losing two front teeth and suffering memory loss due to concussion, maybe he would have quietly complied just like most people.

So I don't think he is a hero in a regular sense, but an "accidental hero."
While I don't excuse United's poor handling of this situation, I would not want to live in a world where people only obey the law when threatened with bodily harm.
MrTemporal is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2017, 8:03 pm
  #5672  
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards (SE), Virgin America Elevate, Hyatt Gold Passport (Platinum), VIA Preference
Posts: 3,134
Originally Posted by newaliases
Correction. If hundreds of very smart people who are into flyer programs so much that they are members of FT can't agree to what the CoC means, then how is any ordinary passenger supposed to?
On the one hand, if you take a complex contract or legal document I can probably find three lawyers and get three variations on what it means.

On the other hand, there comes a point that a complex contract of adhesion which is designed in such a way as to try and give one side in the relationship a "blank check" in it runs the risk of becoming unenforcable for various reasons.

On yet another hand (I seem to be growing hands today...should I see a doctor about that?), no small part of the problem is when the company lays out a complex document (FWIW, realistically any CoC is going to run ten pages or more) and then has "novel" interpretations of parts of it which they do not bother to include or share with the general public. We could all agree on what the apparent text of the CoC means, but that doesn't do us any good if United decides to turn around and play "hide the ball".

Like I said elsewhere, United basically springing its definition of "boarding" on the public in this might well be grounds for anyone wanting to cancel a previously-booked flight to sue for a full refund. I also wonder...though (for example) FFP T&C usually give pretty much a blank check for the airline, etc. to change the T&C without advance notice, there's still a requirement to change the posted contract when the T&C are changed. In a sense United basically admitted to, if not fraud, at least misleading customers as to its CoC. Is there any liability that United could run into otherwise out of that revelation?
GrayAnderson is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2017, 8:14 pm
  #5673  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by GrayAnderson
On the one hand, I'd rather not have people choosing which requests to follow. I do recognize that this causes potential issues.
I think you got 'request' confused with 'demand.'
erlich is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2017, 8:20 pm
  #5674  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by MrTemporal
While I don't excuse United's poor handling of this situation, I would not want to live in a world where people only obey the law when threatened with bodily harm.
Then make laws that come from the consensus of a reasonable majority of people who want to live in peace, not ones that come from lobbyists representing the profit motive of a few.
erlich is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2017, 8:22 pm
  #5675  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Brunei
Programs: Enrich Sapphire. Kris Flyer Silver.Le Club Accorhotels,Starwood.
Posts: 2,201
Originally Posted by jsn55
Amazing how UA gets all the blame, when it falls clearly first on the entitled passenger and second on the officers who removed him. UA made some errors but the passenger caused the problem. Pretty stupid story all the way around. I'm getting a big charge out of all the judges on social media.
Blind as a bat.
wolf72 is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2017, 8:25 pm
  #5676  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 2,808
Originally Posted by MrTemporal
While I don't excuse United's poor handling of this situation, I would not want to live in a world where people only obey the law when threatened with bodily harm.
This was a contract dispute. What does the 'law' and bodily harm have to do with a contract dispute?

You embody exactly the cultural problem at UA. Treating the CofC as something worthy of law enforcement. This is exactly why there are many of us on FT quite worked up about the incident because we 'know' what goes on in the front lines every day as we have witnessed these exchanges all too often. It's time to stop.
prestonh is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2017, 8:26 pm
  #5677  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: AA EXP, UA1K/2MM, Marriott Platinum Premier Lifetime
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by jsn55
Amazing how UA gets all the blame, when it falls clearly first on the entitled passenger and second on the officers who removed him. UA made some errors but the passenger caused the problem. Pretty stupid story all the way around. I'm getting a big charge out of all the judges on social media.
Hold up....you mean the customer....the person who paid his money for a ticket and was expecting to receive a service in exchange for his money.....which part of that makes this gentleman entitled?

Untied screwed up and honestly I hope they get raked over the coals, Oscar gets the boot and the airline finally tries to make a change on the inside. I have a friend who can't see that Untied did anything wrong here. The only question I have is, how would DL, AK or AA have handled this situation? If they would have handled it differently then guess who the odd man out is.
shortkidd is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2017, 8:36 pm
  #5678  
 
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 MrTemporal
While I don't excuse United's poor handling of this situation, I would not want to live in a world where people only obey the law when threatened with bodily harm.
You prefer a world where gate agents and security guards think their unlawful commands are the law? How do you think that practice stops? It's not like United customers haven't complained about this sort thing before. I may not have many posts, but I actually have read this forum for a while.
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2017, 8:42 pm
  #5679  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: SEA
Programs: Delta TDK(or care)WIA, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,869
Originally Posted by MrTemporal
While I don't excuse United's poor handling of this situation, I would not want to live in a world where people only obey the law when threatened with bodily harm.
I could not agree more!

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...a471ed2662.jpg
Carl Johnson is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2017, 8:53 pm
  #5680  
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: 100,413
Originally Posted by Kacee
Reported at $800 funny money.



Actually, it's 4x the fare, up to a max of $1350. On a cheap fare, the airline can IDB for very very cheap.

They should change it to (something like) the lesser of 4x the fare or $2000.
That wouldn't help. It's hard to imagine many segments where the cheapest fare any passenger paid for the segment isn't well under $500. I think you mean the maximum of $2000 or four times the fare, so that any IDB would cost the airline at least $2000.

Currently it's very rare that a carrier actually pays $1350 for an IDB, except possibly for a few expensive international flights, but even then surely some passengers have paid less than $1350 for a RT with some connecting segments so that the fare per segment drops below $675.

I'm curious what it would have cost UA to pay for someone to take the AA flight from ORD to SDF.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2017, 9:11 pm
  #5681  
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: 100,413
Originally Posted by Nevsky
There is no regulatory limit to what an airline can pay for IDB. It is only the maximum they are required to pay.

From the DOT website: "However, if you are bumped involuntarily you have the right to insist on a check if that is your preference. Once you cash the check (or accept the free flight), you will probably lose the ability to pursue more money from the airline later on. However, if being bumped costs you more money than the airline will pay you at the airport, you can try to negotiate a higher settlement with their complaint department. If this doesn't work, you usually have 30 days from the date on the check to decide if you want to accept the amount of the check. You are always free to decline the check (e.g., not cash it) and take the airline to court to try to obtain more compensation. DOT's denied boarding regulation spells out the airlines' minimum obligation to people they bump involuntarily."
NO, DOT regulations set the MINIMUM that the airline is required to pay, not the maximum.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2017, 9:19 pm
  #5682  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA MileagePlus (Premier Gold); Hilton HHonors (Gold); Chase Ultimate Rewards; Amex Plat
Posts: 6,680
Originally Posted by MSPeconomist
NO, DOT regulations set the MINIMUM that the airline is required to pay, not the maximum.
Technically the DOT regulatio spell out the minimum AND the maximum. The language in the law says the airline "shall pay..." and then gives a defined amount of 4 times the fare, but in no case higher than $1350. It doesn't say "shall pay at least", it says "shall pay", which means exactly. Now, airlines would ALSO be free to throw in additional "goodwill" dollars above and beyond what the DOT regulation spells out, but those dollars would not be given out under the DOT regulations, but would be technically a separate transaction and outside the scope of the DOT regulations.
STS-134 is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2017, 9:26 pm
  #5683  
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: 100,413
Originally Posted by sw3
Well, if that's true, sure we can expect UA and other airlines' actuaries and statisticians to begin estimating the cost of that policy and see how much they have to hike fares and fees in order to compensate, because a policy like that will not come without economic consequences
If the TMZ quote is accurate, it's a crazy rule that could have unintended consequences. To say that the crew member must arrive "at least 60 minutes before the doors close" just creates a workaround/incentive to deliberately delay the flight by about an hour. Problem solved.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2017, 9:30 pm
  #5684  
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 JNelson113
You and I clearly have a different definition of the word "victim". Read about some of Dr. Dao's history and the patient he sexually preyed upon, leading to multiple felony convictions and the loss of his medical license, and you'll see my definition of the word "victim".
Jusf because an individual may have acted in a way that created one or more victims doesn't preclude the same individual from ever being a victim of a crime.

Being manhandled -- as this UA passenger was -- made a victim of this UA passenger.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Apr 14, 2017, 9:33 pm
  #5685  
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: 100,413
Originally Posted by milypan
I'm not certain if you're referring to a general price increase or this specific scenario. Just to clarify, there is no good economic argument one can make for any reasonable cap on IDB reimbursement. In other words, it is virtually impossible to construct a scenario in which uncapped VDB offers are not the economically efficient solution to an overbooking problem. Neither the consumer nor society will lose.

Edit: I should caveat the statements above by noting that they assume United is run by competent managers. In light of recent events, that assumption seems debatable at best. If it turns out United is run by idiots who act in nonsensical ways, then any policy change in any direction could potentially help or harm customers, and the effects are impossible to predict. In that scenario the best outcome for society is if the company just goes out of business.
I agree.
MSPeconomist 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.