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}

Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}

    Hide Wikipost
Old Apr 13, 18, 1:33 pm   -   Wikipost
Please read: This is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread. You may edit the Wiki once you have been on FT for 90 days and have made 90 posts.
 
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
Wiki Link
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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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
Poll link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KP68GYG
Results link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
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

Old Apr 21, 17, 9:09 am
  #6406  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 23,250
Originally Posted by fastair View Post
Oh, if only airline IT was so advanced as to the point where things such as a booking being made makes something pop onto your screen. I'm gonna guess that the employees who KNOW what actually happened are not talking, either by pure intelligence, or by a corporate gag order/NDA. I work in the airport, on that shift (not worried about my employer knowing who I am here, they know, we've had loooooong discussions about where "the line" is) and I would never ask any of the employees involved to speak about it, until after everything has been resolved, maybe a year down the line. Information received from listening to flight attendants is likely as reliable as the myriad people who think that he flew in from Asia, it's speculation with no basis in fact. <snip>
Isn't it entirely possible that word about the flight crew booking snafu had already "leaked" out before the situation with the security guards even happened? The cat was already out of the bag, so to speak? E.g., a couple of agents who were not directly involved did know about the mess-up in how the employees were entered into the system, and were already talking about it before things got ugly on board. Not like they're blabbing to the press, but there's no reason they wouldn't share their observations with some colleagues, is there?
ijgordon is offline  
Old Apr 21, 17, 9:34 am
  #6407  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 42,029
I think the worst thing about this might have been UA's official first response. The complete ignoring of the elephant in the room, the forcible ejection, and the apology for -"re-accommodating" showed a staggering lack of comprehension of the problem in my opinion.
GadgetFreak is online now  
Old Apr 21, 17, 10:08 am
  #6408  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tampa, FL
Programs: Hyatt Diamond, Hilton Diamond, Hertz Presidents Circle, AA Platinum
Posts: 74
I've avoided this thread to let the dust settle and to see how I would feel about things. I decided that I still feel the same way and took the following action:
- I cancelled my United Chase Visa and transferred the credit limit to my Chase Sapphire Preferred.
- I have avoided booking travel with United for April/May, United has lost 8 flight segments from my travel itinerary so far.
-June/July are my heaviest travel months and I expect they will lose 3x that amount of segments. We'll see.
NewAgeTraveler is offline  
Old Apr 21, 17, 10:24 am
  #6409  
 
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 Carl Johnson View Post
In addition to the points you make, I'd like to point out that the sentence (from the article) quoted above is nothing but "when a mugger demands your wallet, hand it over - just do whatever it takes to get out of there uninjured." That's just practical advice, it doesn't set a legal standard, and Dr. Dao isn't at fault for failing to hand over his wallet to a mugger that happened to be wearing a t-shirt screen-printed with the word "police."
I'm reasonably sure that Dao thought the "cops" were bluffing, and he couldn't imagine that they would actually physically assault him to remove him from the plane in that set of circumstances.

Were I him, and with the benefit of having thought about it, I believe I would have asked the "cops" if I was under arrest. That would have brought their intentions into focus right then and there. Clearly (in hindsight), their intentions were to remove him from the plane, given that they had no arrest authority in the first place, but they were threatening him with jail (an empty threat, as it turned out). Had they said that they intended to arrest me, I would ask on what charge, which I believe would have put them in a tough spot.

Had they denied any intention to arrest me, I would have said, "I'm sorry, but I don't think there is anything further to discuss."

This comes up among photographers, amateur and professional, who are sometimes challenged by police or security guards for taking pictures in public. In the USA, any photography from a public place is legal, with very few exceptions. But some building owners will send their security people to run photographers off, and they don't actually consult the law beforehand. The above dialogue is one that has been passed around among photographers for precisely the scenario of being ordered unlawfully to do something (or stop doing something that is lawful).

I said early on that United had the option to impose a sanction on the passenger that is within their authority. They could have told Dao that if he remained uncooperative, that they had no authority to remove him, but that they would take civil action, which may have ranged from suing him to refusing his future custom. I believe that would have been a public-relations nightmare, but at least it would have been legal.

Last edited by Rdenney; Apr 21, 17 at 11:00 am
Rdenney is offline  
Old Apr 21, 17, 10:26 am
  #6410  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: London
Programs: US Gold
Posts: 583
It might be more germane to avoid Republic Airlines, the subcontractor that operated the "United" flight - because Republic also operates flights for American and Delta. Edward Hasbrouck, who's an expert on this sort of thing, writes about who's at fault here: https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002292.html#more

wg
wendyg is offline  
Old Apr 21, 17, 10:42 am
  #6411  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 15,819
Originally Posted by mauve View Post
ILETSB is the state agency responsible for certifying law enforcement officers.

This may get bounced as political or off topic, but the real problem is that there is generally no civilian oversight of police agencies. The officers would probably say, for example, that their boss has no authority to tell them what their uniforms say.

But if you think this is bad, you should read about the Swedish gangster who founded his own private police department in California and almost managed to get the DHS to help him walk after he crashed a stolen Ferrari at 199 mph.

Or the fact that Alabama is now allowing churches to create their own police departments.

It's probably also worth noting that railroads have private police departments of their own, but airlines don't.
Not to go off topic but private police/security is not a new concept. San Francisco has had similar since the 1800's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fr...Special_Police
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Apr 21, 17, 10:53 am
  #6412  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 88,306
Originally Posted by LondonElite View Post
I suggest read this excellent summary from The Travel Insider, along with this week's update to the original post.

http://blog.thetravelinsider.info/20...pril-2017.html

http://blog.thetravelinsider.info/20...pril-2017.html
Those two blog entries have items that make it clear to me that they are not excellent summaries of the situation. They are more akin to opinion pieces, but even there they are of the sort that mixes facts with fictional items better recognized as the author's wishful thinking on display. That's where they lose credibility like UA.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 21, 17 at 1:38 pm Reason: Quote updated to reflect Moderator edit
GUWonder is offline  
Old Apr 21, 17, 11:17 am
  #6413  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Plat Premier (+AMB); Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 7,356
Originally Posted by wendyg View Post
It might be more germane to avoid Republic Airlines, the subcontractor that operated the "United" flight - because Republic also operates flights for American and Delta. Edward Hasbrouck, who's an expert on this sort of thing, writes about who's at fault here: https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002292.html#more

wg
Republic Airlines had nothing to do with this incident. The Gate Agent / Ground staff were United Mainline employees and the security / police were employed by the City of Chicago Aviation Department.

I am by no means a fan of United Express, but they are not culpable here.
goodeats21 is offline  
Old Apr 21, 17, 11:42 am
  #6414  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 15,819
Originally Posted by goodeats21 View Post
Republic Airlines had nothing to do with this incident. The Gate Agent / Ground staff were United Mainline employees and the security / police were employed by the City of Chicago Aviation Department.

I am by no means a fan of United Express, but they are not culpable here.
The Captain of the airplane may have some liability. Only going to court will determine the matter.
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Apr 21, 17, 12:21 pm
  #6415  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, VX Gold, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,281
Originally Posted by wendyg View Post
It might be more germane to avoid Republic Airlines, the subcontractor that operated the "United" flight - because Republic also operates flights for American and Delta. Edward Hasbrouck, who's an expert on this sort of thing, writes about who's at fault here: https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002292.html#more

wg
The GA was employeed by United and was following a United proceedure. The manager with her was from United. United called the cops. The crew that needed to fly were being sent by United Operations. Republic had nothing to do with this event.

Originally Posted by goodeats21 View Post
Republic Airlines had nothing to do with this incident. The Gate Agent / Ground staff were United Mainline employees and the security / police were employed by the City of Chicago Aviation Department.

I am by no means a fan of United Express, but they are not culpable here.
+1

Originally Posted by Boggie Dog View Post
The Captain of the airplane may have some liability. Only going to court will determine the matter.
What liability? His employer is a subcontractor of United. United is in charge of the situation. What exactly is he supposed to say/do?
spin88 is offline  
Old Apr 21, 17, 12:47 pm
  #6416  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 15,819
Originally Posted by spin88 View Post
The GA was employeed by United and was following a United proceedure. The manager with her was from United. United called the cops. The crew that needed to fly were being sent by United Operations. Republic had nothing to do with this event.


+1



What liability? His employer is a subcontractor of United. United is in charge of the situation. What exactly is he supposed to say/do?
Control what happens on his ship. The question is when does the Captain's responsibilities begin? When the Captain comes aboard, when the door is closed, on push back, or when the wheels are in the wells? That is why I said "may".
Boggie Dog is offline  
Old Apr 21, 17, 1:01 pm
  #6417  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Providence RI
Programs: American Exec Plat, Hyatt Refugeeist, Marriot Gold, Air Canada Cattle Class, Korean Air Morning Plat
Posts: 988
Originally Posted by GadgetFreak View Post
I think the worst thing about this might have been UA's official first response. The complete ignoring of the elephant in the room, the forcible ejection, and the apology for -"re-accommodating" showed a staggering lack of comprehension of the problem in my opinion.
I think you make a great point. The corporate-speak BS, the lack of empathy, the sorry-but-not-sorry ridiculous second apology and then days later, all of a sudden Munoz realizes this isn't going away. He might have the last guy in America (who saw the incident) who realized it wasn't going away.

An error is a mistake that hasn't been corrected. How this caught UA off guard is beyond me. Munoz either has no clue or has no advisors he listens too. Possibly both.

My biggest fear is this will give that tiny sliver of people who are arrogant morons justification to be a royal pain in the *%& on flights.

Last edited by The smallest state; Apr 21, 17 at 1:05 pm Reason: fixed some poor spelling
The smallest state is offline  
Old Apr 21, 17, 1:23 pm
  #6418  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 42,029
Originally Posted by wendyg View Post
It might be more germane to avoid Republic Airlines, the subcontractor that operated the "United" flight - because Republic also operates flights for American and Delta. Edward Hasbrouck, who's an expert on this sort of thing, writes about who's at fault here: https://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/002292.html#more

wg
Hearing on this forum that someone is an "expert" about flying reminds me of a joke.

A guy died and went to heaven. St. Peter met him and said welcome and told him that every new person gets to address everyone in heaven about an experience of theirs. The guy says great, I would like to tell everyone about my experience in the Johnstown flood.

So the guys big day comes and he's getting ready for his turn when St. Peter comes to the podium. St. Peter says, "Welcome to todays presenters. However, before we get to the normal agenda I want to announce we have a very special guest who doesn't always have time to join us but he's here tonight to speak to us about his experiences. Ladies and gentlemen, let's give it up for Noah!"
GadgetFreak is online now  
Old Apr 21, 17, 1:31 pm
  #6419  
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Programs: AAdvantage, Skymiles
Posts: 140
Originally Posted by spin88 View Post
What liability? His employer is a subcontractor of United. United is in charge of the situation. What exactly is he supposed to say/do?


The captain may liable. If aviation law really is pulled heavily from maritime law (which in turn pulls in a lot of military concepts), then the captain is responsible for everything on that happens onboard that vessel, and it really doesn't matter whether or not the captain knew specifically of this incident.


Note the terms "Captain" and "First Officer" and the military-like ranking bars they wear on their shoulders. The leadership argument would be that the captain sets the expectations with the flight crew (another borrowed military concept), including the flight attendants. It was therefore the captain's lack of leadership that prevented the flight attendants from intervening when the gate agent (a guest on the captain's vessel) went rogue and called the cops.


For the overwhelming amount of commercial air travel, the Captain is just the pilot, and the First Officer is just the co-pilot. They are executing the "job" of flying an airline and "job" of Captain and First Officer. But it really wouldn't be surprising of those military roots aren't buried in a whole lot of places in the legal realm and wouldn't creep right back up in a case like this.
mdkowals is offline  
Old Apr 21, 17, 4:11 pm
  #6420  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: FLL/LAX/YYZ/TPE
Programs: CO Platinum 1K, United 1K, SPG LT Platinum, National Executive Elite, Platinum TSA Hater
Posts: 33,537
"Let me say it was a disgrace. It shamed the airline industry as a whole."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/emirat...180349685.html

For Clark, however, United's handling of the incident raises serious questions. Nobody has been sacked and Munoz has received the board's support.

So what would Clark have done had it happened under his watch?

"Had it been me in that position I would've have had blue flashing lights on cars going right through the company to find out how this could've been allowed to happen in the first place," he said.

"That was probably the last thing I do before I resigned."
bocastephen is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread