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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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 May 1, 17, 8:32 am
  #6691  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton ♦ , Hyatt Carbonado, Wyndham ♦, Marriott PE, "Stinking Bum" elsewhere.
Posts: 3,233
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
I am well aware of that section of federal law being a felony generator. That said, UA's false statements to Congress and the US DOT have mainly not run afoul of that section of federal law. Absence the involvement of mens rea when making a false statement, that law is not applicable. The false statement must meet both of the following conditions, in order to meet the legal condition of being a crime under that section of federal law: taken place under covered circumstances; and met the mens rea aspect.

Any history of federal prosecution and of small, administrative slaps on the wrist aimed at UA speak volumes about UA's ability to make false statements and not end up with a felony conviction.

UA's made statements in public and otherwise about this incident that are false and I doubt there is any federal prosecution of UA upcoming over making false statements unless and until there is a demonstrably false statement where it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that UA knowingly and willfully made a false statement during covered circumstances. Corporations have a way of misleading in their statements -- even to Congress and the US DOT -- without facing material risk of a felony conviction under that section of federal law.
The whole point of the article that I cited is that mens rea, in practice, is not a necessary element for charges and convictions under this one law-and this interpretation has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The article also asserts that this law is inherently unconstitutional. Note that this only applies in the federal system. State prosecutions still include mens rea protections for false statements to authorities in practice.

Would any lawyer, worth their salt, let a client make on the record statements in federal jurisdiction without advising them of this risk? I think not. Therefore, I believe that the statements made by the GAs/FAs and other involved UA personnel in this case were made knowing the great risk from lying.

The fact that you believe UA is a dishonest and corrupt business has no bearing on the statements of employees represented by a union lawyer.

Last edited by zombietooth; May 1, 17 at 8:46 am
zombietooth is offline  
Old May 1, 17, 8:41 am
  #6692  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: RIC
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA Gold MM, Marriott LTT, Hyatt Globalist, HH Silver
Posts: 2,791
Originally Posted by FWAAA View Post
Checked baggage screening was non-existent until mandated by the Transportation Security Act, which required screening of checked bags by 12/31/02.
Originally Posted by fastair View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comput...reening_System

"CAPPS I was first implemented in the late 1990s, in response to the perceived threat of U.S. domestic and international terrorism. CAPPS I was administered by the FBI and FAA. CAPPS screening selected passengers for additional screening of their checked baggage for explosives."

Late 1990's was pre 2002. While it didn't impact every passenger, it was in place prior to both the TSA and 9/11. And prior to CAPPS, don't you remember there was a manual process? Look at post #2 on this thread (posted by yourself) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/pract...uspicious.html While you posted it in 2004, that was going on since the 90's, pre CAPPS. And even prior to that, all intl bags were xrayed before acceptance by the airlines.
History is important. Checked bag screening issue has been recognized to be a problem since Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland December, 1988, long before 9/11/01.
CIT85 is offline  
Old May 1, 17, 8:49 am
  #6693  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike...
Programs: CO, NW & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 28,346
Originally Posted by worldtrav View Post
I'm curious if the City of Chicago will also be paying out.
They will nt. UA has agreed to settle the entire matter and Dao agreed to drop all claims -- including any against Chicago.
Xyzzy is offline  
Old May 1, 17, 8:57 am
  #6694  
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: 88,564
UA indeed did pay up to cover any Dao claims against Chicago. The Chicago employees involved in the forcible Dao removal were acting as agents of UA when removing Dao, so it makes sense for UA to not keep itself exposed on that flank.

Originally Posted by zombietooth View Post

The fact that you believe UA is a dishonest and corrupt business has no bearing on the statements of employees represented by a union lawyer.
I'm not going to discuss here an article that declares something as unconstitutional when the courts don't see it that way.

Whether or not I believe what you believe about me, the fact is that not all false statements are equal under the law. Even when the statements are made by UA employees represented by a lawyer -- union lawyer or otherwise.
GUWonder is online now  
Old May 1, 17, 9:11 am
  #6695  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton ♦ , Hyatt Carbonado, Wyndham ♦, Marriott PE, "Stinking Bum" elsewhere.
Posts: 3,233
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
UA indeed did pay up to cover the city of Chicago which was acting as an agent of UA when removing Dao.



I'm not going to discuss here an article that declares something as unconstitutional when the courts don't see it that way.

Whether or not I believe what you believe about me, the fact is that not all false statements are equal under the law. Even when the statements are made by UA employees represented by a lawyer -- union lawyer or otherwise.
Perhaps you are missing my point.

The Supreme Court ruled only on the narrow interpretation of the mens rea exclusions for the specific intent and materiality elements. They found that mens rea was not necessary to be in violation of the law. They did not rule on the constitutionality of the law itself. The dissenting justices pointed-out the potential unconstitutionality of the law in their opinions.

The article's assertion of unconstitutionality is structural; i.e. how can any law that effectively removes the mens rea protections be constitutional?

Last edited by zombietooth; May 1, 17 at 11:50 am
zombietooth is offline  
Old May 1, 17, 9:30 am
  #6696  
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: 88,564
Originally Posted by zombietooth View Post
Perhaps you are missing my point.

The Supreme Court ruled only on the narrow interpretation of the mens rea exclusions for the specific intent and materiality elements. They found that mens rea was not necessary to be in violation of the law. They did not rule on the constitutionality of the law itself. The dissenting justices pointed-out the potential unconstitutionality of the law in their opinions.

The article's assertion of unconstitutionality is structural; i.e. how can any law that effectively removes the mens rea protections be constitutional.
We both know that discussing that further in detail here won't do much of anything with regard to the discussion of the Dao incident here. I have no doubt that various of the actors involved on UA's side against Dao haven't been all that complete and accurate in their statements. I include UA employees in that.
GUWonder is online now  
Old May 1, 17, 1:26 pm
  #6697  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SNA
Programs: AA gold, DL Gold, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Plat
Posts: 313
United responds to Senate Commerce Committee

not sure if this was posted but not following this MOAT very closely ...

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/publ...o-response.pdf
PilgrimsProgress is offline  
Old May 1, 17, 3:22 pm
  #6698  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: LHR/SFO
Programs: 1K (until 2021), *G for "life", Global Entry, Hertz PC, Cadbury's Rum and Raisin Emeritus
Posts: 15,818
Has he has been made a multi-millionaire now can we close it ?
Silver Fox is online now  
Old May 1, 17, 4:01 pm
  #6699  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SNA
Programs: AA gold, DL Gold, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt Explorist, IHG Plat
Posts: 313
Not before we find out the disposition of the other 70 lawsuits!
PilgrimsProgress is offline  
Old May 1, 17, 4:42 pm
  #6700  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: LHR/SFO
Programs: 1K (until 2021), *G for "life", Global Entry, Hertz PC, Cadbury's Rum and Raisin Emeritus
Posts: 15,818
Originally Posted by PilgrimsProgress View Post
Not before we find out the disposition of the other 70 lawsuits!
I shall hit the "unsubscribe" button again then!
Silver Fox is online now  
Old May 2, 17, 9:39 am
  #6701  
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: 84,581
Weather leading to stricter weight and balance constraints would be common for small planes but much less so for mainline. In fact, data about VDBs/IDBs by carrier tends to suggest that rates are generally higher on RJ commuter affiliate carriers.

Still, I'd also like to see UA's numbers supporting that statement.
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old May 2, 17, 9:47 am
  #6702  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: ORD
Programs: Once a somebody now a nobody
Posts: 317
I'd like someone on the panel ask how often the cargo gets bumped before a person does.
chicago747 is offline  
Old May 2, 17, 4:55 pm
  #6703  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 16,269
Originally Posted by GUWonder View Post
UA indeed did pay up to cover any Dao claims against Chicago. The Chicago employees involved in the forcible Dao removal were acting as agents of UA when removing Dao, so it makes sense for UA to not keep itself exposed on that flank......
further to your comment...

"United Settles With Dragging Victim, Gets Chicago Off The Hook

It's official, do not drag non-violent people off of planes."

By ELIE MYSTAL
May 1, 2017 at 11:38 AM

Quote:

"Remember all those people who turned into lawyers on Facebook and posted that United did nothing wrong because it was airport police who actually assaulted Dao? Remember all those people who said that the police did nothing wrong because Dao refused to follow their instructions? Let this settlement be a teachable moment on two points:

1. If your giant corporation wants the ability to call in the cops to settle its customer disputes, it best be prepared to indemnify the police when the cops go all “paramilitary jackboots.” In the future, perhaps airlines should only call the cops when they have a criminal, not when they have a lack of volunteers.

2. The cops are not supposed to respond to non-violent situations by beating your .... THAT IS NOT THE RULE. Refusal to comply with police is not an invitation for police brutality.

I hope United, Chicago police, and the defenders of those two organizations have all learned something from the Dr. David Dao situation. Don’t drag non-violent people out of their seats. It’s never worth it."


http://abovethelaw.com/2017/05/unite...the-hook/?rf=1
24left is offline  
Old May 2, 17, 5:02 pm
  #6704  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: ORD
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Titanium/LT Platinum, Hilton Gold, AA Platinum
Posts: 4,460
Originally Posted by 24left View Post

I hope United, Chicago police, and the defenders of those two organizations have all learned something from the Dr. David Dao situation. Don’t drag non-violent people out of their seats. It’s never worth it."
Lol, this quote made me laugh...I hope and believe UA learned it's lesson. But the Chicago police have been "learning" that lesson for longer than I've been alive.
JBord is offline  
Old May 2, 17, 5:30 pm
  #6705  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold and Silver Wings, AS MVPG75K, HH Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 9,225
Originally Posted by JBord View Post
Lol, this quote made me laugh...I hope and believe UA learned it's lesson. But the Chicago police have been "learning" that lesson for longer than I've been alive.
They did learn the he-bumped-his-face kind of explanation doesn't always work.
Fredd is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread