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

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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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:
Ocn Vw 1K

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


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.


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.


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
United Airlines
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

Old Apr 23, 17, 9:30 am
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Vancouver
Programs: Aeroplan, Mileage Plus, WestJet Gold, AMEX Plat
Posts: 1,841
Originally Posted by Sabai View Post
Well there's solidarity for you
Either that union is out of touch with the reality when it wants to participate in the discussion by.....

"..... introducing the reality that no United Flight Attendant or anyone from United was involved in the offending event."

Lets see how wrong this is:
- the customer had a contract with United to provide air transportation
- the regional was operating under the United brand
- the SOP governing the process were United
- the gate agent and supervisory staff were United
- the people who run the booking software that picked this person was united
- the security people were called and engaged by united
- the inflight crew and captain were working for a company contracted to provide a look and feel similar to united.

The CEO at least is taking responsibility....
Fiordland is offline  
Old Apr 23, 17, 10:21 am
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 80
Originally Posted by Sabai View Post
Well there's solidarity for you
That's fine. Employees and consumers are both in an economic position to squeeze the corporate beast now. Looks like the cost cutting cycle may be on its last legs and shareholders of airlines will have to start paying out of their earnings going forward.
erlich is offline  
Old Apr 23, 17, 10:35 am
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Proud Charter Member of the OUM
Posts: 23,185
Originally Posted by lotrbfme View Post
My mistake, I heard on tv he was fired but I guess they are referring to "removing him from duty". Which is still a very good PR thing to do.

Source: http://news.aa.com/crisis-alert/
Well, how about going back and editing your previous post then, so that you don't propogate fake news about the incident. @:-)
DenverBrian is offline  
Old Apr 23, 17, 3:13 pm
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: DSM
Programs: UA Platinum, Hilton Diamond, Hertz Pres. Circle
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by Fiordland View Post
They did not call the police. They called the security guards that work in the airport. The airport administrators have testified they were not allowed to wear the "police" branded jackets etc, but they did.

No different that that a store in the mall calling mall security. The store pays rent to the mall operator that includes covers this service. The airline pays rent to the airport operator and they provide some security guards.
FWIW In Ohare Friday I saw two real policeman in the airport. Wonder if there is a policy change to have real police now handle all security issues.
cornfedcowboy is offline  
Old Apr 23, 17, 3:39 pm
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 11,319
Originally Posted by cornfedcowboy View Post
FWIW In Ohare Friday I saw two real policeman in the airport. Wonder if there is a policy change to have real police now handle all security issues.
The presence of CPD is not a change; pre-incident it was already a mix of CPD and APD.
mduell is offline  
Old Apr 23, 17, 3:40 pm
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/WN/ex-UA elite
Posts: 7,743
The real police are not just at ORD. They're at every single airport in America with scheduled flights (at the small ones, only during departures). The difference is that UA didn't call the real police because they wanted a criminal to be arrested, they called "security" to be judge, jury and executioner for a civil "trial" where UA, the plaintiff, always wins -- because they say so.
Kevin AA is offline  
Old Apr 23, 17, 3:42 pm
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: DSM
Programs: UA Platinum, Hilton Diamond, Hertz Pres. Circle
Posts: 228
I learned something new. Apparently the Dr. was told the "captain" requested he leave the aircraft. Surprised this hasn't got as much discussion.
cornfedcowboy is offline  
Old Apr 23, 17, 3:52 pm
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 11,319
Originally Posted by JOSECONLSCREW28 View Post
Thanks for sharing, but this is popcorn worthy delusion.

"no United Flight Attendant or anyone from United was involved in the offending event." Guess they missed the memo on the gate staff and supervisors?

"First and foremost, Flight Attendants had no role in this event and never would. We are aviation’s first responders and last line of defense. We care for our passengers and each other." If you're not going to play any role in an event like this, you're not really first responders, last line of defense, or caring for the next Dr Dao.

"reinforcing for the public the critical role we play in keeping passengers safe." But you just said you wouldn't play any role in keeping the next Dr Dao safe...

Last edited by mduell; Apr 23, 17 at 3:57 pm
mduell is offline  
Old Apr 23, 17, 3:56 pm
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 5,281
Originally Posted by cornfedcowboy View Post
I learned something new. Apparently the Dr. was told the "captain" requested he leave the aircraft. Surprised this hasn't got as much discussion.
richarddd is offline  
Old Apr 23, 17, 3:59 pm
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/WN/ex-UA elite
Posts: 7,743
Originally Posted by JOSECONLSCREW28 View Post
Well, if that's the case, then let the FA's board last, and let them get off first, since they claim absolutely no responsibility.
Kevin AA is offline  
Old Apr 23, 17, 4:32 pm
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: DSM
Programs: UA Platinum, Hilton Diamond, Hertz Pres. Circle
Posts: 228
Originally Posted by richarddd View Post
It was mentioned at the Chicago City Council Meeting by one of the councilman.
cornfedcowboy is offline  
Old Apr 23, 17, 6:59 pm
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 10,582
Originally Posted by cornfedcowboy View Post
It was mentioned at the Chicago City Council Meeting by one of the councilman.
And that makes it a true statement? What was the context of the statement? Was it a question or a statement of fact. What is their source?
Baze is offline  
Old Apr 23, 17, 8:05 pm
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Somewhere I've Driven To
Programs: HiltonHonors, IHG Hotels, DL Skymiles
Posts: 2,064
Originally Posted by buckeyefanflyer View Post
This never should have happened. You can't drag a paying customer off an aircraft. What a complete joke and this incident was handled poorly by all. On the other hand the recent AA incident was handeled well. Did not call in the law and compensated the passenger involved and immediately offered a apology.
Does this mean the (AA) passenger will still not complain about the "trauma" she and her two young children had to go through once she got to her destination and consulted with a lawyer? Why should we assume AA is off the hook?
FlyingNone is offline  
Old Apr 23, 17, 11:31 pm
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: AC 50K, NZ Gold
Posts: 222
It was UA gate agent addressing on board that the plane is going nowhere until 4 people deplane. It was also UA staff calling security. So much for UA staff not being involved. UA employees seem to be in complete denial now. Classic! Trailer park caliber airline with matching staff attitudes!
Eugeniusz Bodo is offline  
Old Apr 23, 17, 11:51 pm
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SFO South Bay
Programs: UA 2MM, B6 Mosaic
Posts: 2,985
Originally Posted by FlyingNone View Post
Why should we assume AA is off the hook?
Look at the public reaction in each case. The legal settlement is not UA's biggest concern. The reputational damage is. UA got killed in terms of reputation. AA got hurt, but nothing like UA. In every single respect, AA handled this better after the incident than UA did. And AA is getting much less reputational damage than UA did. In that sense, AA is already of the hook, or perhaps better said, less on the hook that UA.
blueman2 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: