Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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
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.
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
- Passenger one row behind and on the aisle footage BEFORE man was dragged off https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=655_1492004707
- Videos of man being removed https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4b7_1491983214 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nAZEk6nsNE
- Video of man re-entering plane https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNEQDWpYbZA (link dead)
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
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.
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
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
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
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
- Chicago Aviation Department said on the Monday afternoon after the incident that the officer who had dragged the passenger off the plane had been placed on leave pending an investigation. Spokesperson Karen Pride said in an email that "The incident on United flight 3411 was not in accordance with our standard operating procedure and the actions of the aviation security officer are obviously not condoned by the Department."
- 4/12/17: Two more Chicago Aviation officers involved are suspended
- Muñoz does ABC interview, announcing United will no longer use law enforcement to remove passengers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90jSUe_vdhM
- United announces policy change that crews traveling on their aircraft must be booked at least 60 minutes prior to departure.
- United releases multiple changes in overbooking / denied boarding policies "We are making changes to ensure that we always put customers first" (http://newsroom.united.com/2017-04-2...mer-Experience) released 27 April 2017
- Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
- Response to Senate Commerce Committee questions - 1 May 2017
- United Airlines PR Boss to Step Down
- James Long, one of several officers involved in removing David Dao from the April 9, 2017, flight to make room for airline employees, filed suit on Tuesday against United, Chicago’s Department of Aviation and its commissioner, Ginger Evans. The lawsuit, filed in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois, alleges he was not properly trained on how to use force.
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines
Poll link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KP68GYG
Results link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
Reference MaterialResults link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results...Q6B2B/instant/
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.aspxIf 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.
Man pulled off of overbooked flight UA3411 (ORD-SDF) 9 Apr 2017 {Settlement reached}
Apr 10, 2017, 7:22 am
#46
Join Date: Jul 2011
Programs: AA Plat, UA 1K>Plat>moving to Silver
Posts: 2,090
Mishandled by UA which should have better prepared to get its crew where it needed to go before boarding occurred, and should have offered more compensation.
That said, I would never argue with law enforcement. It rarely ends well, whether you are in the right or not. And, parenthetically, I have seen enough things go wrong (admittedly usually maintenance or weather delays) that I try to always have alternative options to get where I am going if I need to be there. Someone who flies only rarely may think that buying a ticket means you will get there at the promised time, but someone who flies frequently should know that is not always the case. It is also another reason I will try to buy domestic first or upgrade with a certificate or miles if it is a crucial flight due to a meeting. Those are the last people to get IDB'd and the first to get taken care of in the event of IRROPs.
So not the guy's fault, but it is possible to avoid getting in that situation.
That said, I would never argue with law enforcement. It rarely ends well, whether you are in the right or not. And, parenthetically, I have seen enough things go wrong (admittedly usually maintenance or weather delays) that I try to always have alternative options to get where I am going if I need to be there. Someone who flies only rarely may think that buying a ticket means you will get there at the promised time, but someone who flies frequently should know that is not always the case. It is also another reason I will try to buy domestic first or upgrade with a certificate or miles if it is a crucial flight due to a meeting. Those are the last people to get IDB'd and the first to get taken care of in the event of IRROPs.
So not the guy's fault, but it is possible to avoid getting in that situation.
Apr 10, 2017, 7:24 am
#47
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: SoCal to the rest of the world...
Programs: AA EXP with lots of BA. UA 2MM Lifetime Plat - No longer chase hotel loyalty
Posts: 6,699
Was UA operating the boarding for this flight or one of the affiliates? This is pretty poor behavior of the gate agents to BOARD the plane and then look for volunteers. Sorry, 1500+ United Flights in my lifetime and only ever seen them ask for ONE volunteer once (and that was for a pax overbooking who had a family emergency - and in that case a bunch of us volunteered).
Not a good PR position for UA and to be honest the $400 comp is a bit insulting to then force people off, why didn't the comp go up instead of forced removal.
UA Insider or similar: These actions are why I stopped flying or suggesting UA to people.
Not a good PR position for UA and to be honest the $400 comp is a bit insulting to then force people off, why didn't the comp go up instead of forced removal.
UA Insider or similar: These actions are why I stopped flying or suggesting UA to people.
Apr 10, 2017, 7:28 am
#48
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Houston/DC
Programs: UA 1K, 1MM
Posts: 564
Sorry, I don't understand all the people on this thread that think that force was excessive to remove the man from his seat. Once HE let the situation escalate by failing to follow instructions and get off the plane when a 1st, 2nd & finally 3rd LEO/Security person had to come on the plane, what did he think was going to happen.
He was going to be removed if he didn't voluntarily get up & it appears that is was explained to him multiple times. The only "rough" part in the video seemed to be having to pull him over the seat rest and it looked reasonable to me once the decision to use force was made. After that he went limp like you see protesters do on TV all the time when they are taken into custody. How is this "abusive" behavior?
He was definitely a "victim" of the Contract of Carriage and the need for the IDB situation, but he was not a "victim" of Security. Highly doubt any Legal action on his part will result in judgement in his favor. Sure, they might pay a settlement before it goes to trial (to make it go away), but highly doubt a judge would rule in the plaintiff's favor in a court of law when all the facts are accounted for. Thank God our Court system isn't Twitter. There would be daily executions
He was going to be removed if he didn't voluntarily get up & it appears that is was explained to him multiple times. The only "rough" part in the video seemed to be having to pull him over the seat rest and it looked reasonable to me once the decision to use force was made. After that he went limp like you see protesters do on TV all the time when they are taken into custody. How is this "abusive" behavior?
He was definitely a "victim" of the Contract of Carriage and the need for the IDB situation, but he was not a "victim" of Security. Highly doubt any Legal action on his part will result in judgement in his favor. Sure, they might pay a settlement before it goes to trial (to make it go away), but highly doubt a judge would rule in the plaintiff's favor in a court of law when all the facts are accounted for. Thank God our Court system isn't Twitter. There would be daily executions
Apr 10, 2017, 7:31 am
#49
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: HK
Programs: Qantas (Lifetime Gold), PAL (Elite), British Airways (now sadly blue), Cathay MPO DM
Posts: 647
Mishandled by UA which should have better prepared to get its crew where it needed to go before boarding occurred, and should have offered more compensation.
That said, I would never argue with law enforcement. It rarely ends well, whether you are in the right or not. And, parenthetically, I have seen enough things go wrong (admittedly usually maintenance or weather delays) that I try to always have alternative options to get where I am going if I need to be there. Someone who flies only rarely may think that buying a ticket means you will get there at the promised time, but someone who flies frequently should know that is not always the case. It is also another reason I will try to buy domestic first or upgrade with a certificate or miles if it is a crucial flight due to a meeting. Those are the last people to get IDB'd and the first to get taken care of in the event of IRROPs.
So not the guy's fault, but it is possible to avoid getting in that situation.
That said, I would never argue with law enforcement. It rarely ends well, whether you are in the right or not. And, parenthetically, I have seen enough things go wrong (admittedly usually maintenance or weather delays) that I try to always have alternative options to get where I am going if I need to be there. Someone who flies only rarely may think that buying a ticket means you will get there at the promised time, but someone who flies frequently should know that is not always the case. It is also another reason I will try to buy domestic first or upgrade with a certificate or miles if it is a crucial flight due to a meeting. Those are the last people to get IDB'd and the first to get taken care of in the event of IRROPs.
So not the guy's fault, but it is possible to avoid getting in that situation.
Apr 10, 2017, 7:31 am
#50
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Greensboro, NC, USA
Posts: 100
What happened was a civil and criminal assault and battery, though there is 0 chance that the officers will be prosecuted. The customer had committed no crime, and at least at the beginning, threatened no one (the "failure comply with instructions" issue can be sorted out later, but did not support the physical removal of the customer). Local law enforcement should have declined to be involved, as no crime was committed, and told UA that it was their problem to sort out. UA was in a pickle when the customer refused to leave, but it was a pickle of their own making. In the end, they could have further upped the offer, or chartered a jet to take their crew to the destination, if that was what they really needed. Appalling decisonmaking, an example of why some people should not be put in a position of authority, and a great example of why law enforcement should decline to be involved in an airlines screw-ups, when there is no threat to anyone. It's hard to tell from the videos, but the person who actually removed the customer may not have been law enforcement at all, and if he was private security he definitely committed a crime.
Apr 10, 2017, 7:31 am
#51
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2014
Programs: Top Tier with all 3 alliances
Posts: 11,669
Sounds like the passenger was in shock/traumatized, especially the running back into the aircraft part repeating "I need to go home".
Disturbing and dehumanizing incident.
Disturbing and dehumanizing incident.
Apr 10, 2017, 7:33 am
#52
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Midwest
Programs: Marriott Titanium, IHG Plat, Hyatt Globalist, HHonors Diamond, AA Plat Pro, UA Silver
Posts: 571
Rather than a random computer selection they should have picked the last 4 to check in. I thought somewhere in the Code of Carriage (back in the paper ticket days) that this was the process in place. Or maybe with online checkin those policies have gone by the wayside.
Also while not a united employee the security guards was way out of line.
Has anyone heard why the MD was allowed back on the plane? Wasn't there another airline with flights that could have interlined either the same day or first thing this am?
Also while not a united employee the security guards was way out of line.
Has anyone heard why the MD was allowed back on the plane? Wasn't there another airline with flights that could have interlined either the same day or first thing this am?
Apr 10, 2017, 7:37 am
#53
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
Who knows what the whole story is. But if someone denies the denies boarding when already on the airplane, eventually this is the outcome. There's no choice but to physically remove the passenger. Seeing the last video, it appears this man has mental issues. Maybe that was not apparent before they pulled him off. I wonder if he's even doctor, and if that wasn't made-up to stay on the plane.
UA Mainline has no scheduled flights from SDF, and I can't find one for today either. Also, they say 4 crew members. Every mainline crew is a minimum of five. For how massively unreliable the media is, they probably have it also wrong that it was a UA crew that needed to board. Could have been another Republic crew. If this is how Republic conducts operations with crew deadheads, this could have happened to any airline they work, including AA and DL.
UA Mainline has no scheduled flights from SDF, and I can't find one for today either. Also, they say 4 crew members. Every mainline crew is a minimum of five. For how massively unreliable the media is, they probably have it also wrong that it was a UA crew that needed to board. Could have been another Republic crew. If this is how Republic conducts operations with crew deadheads, this could have happened to any airline they work, including AA and DL.
Apr 10, 2017, 7:37 am
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2014
Programs: Top Tier with all 3 alliances
Posts: 11,669
Rather than a random computer selection they should have picked the last 4 to check in. I thought somewhere in the Code of Carriage (back in the paper ticket days) that this was the process in place. Or maybe with online checkin those policies have gone by the wayside.
Also while not a united employee the security guards was way out of line.
Has anyone heard why the MD was allowed back on the plane? Wasn't there another airline with flights that could have interlined either the same day or first thing this am?
Also while not a united employee the security guards was way out of line.
Has anyone heard why the MD was allowed back on the plane? Wasn't there another airline with flights that could have interlined either the same day or first thing this am?
Apr 10, 2017, 7:37 am
#55
Join Date: May 2010
Location: TPA
Programs: All The Programs
Posts: 2,207
I supposed you could say that the passenger was trespassing on the plane, and so that was the criminal act.
But I have to say I'm on the passenger's side here. United crossed the line in asking someone to be forcibly removed from an aircraft following their own mistake. I trust this man has referred the case to civil court.
But I have to say I'm on the passenger's side here. United crossed the line in asking someone to be forcibly removed from an aircraft following their own mistake. I trust this man has referred the case to civil court.
Apr 10, 2017, 7:40 am
#56
Join Date: Apr 2006
Programs: DL Plat, Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 218
I can't see how United can be in the right here. Yes they have certain rights to remove passengers for cause, but that cause should be limited to those passengers that are disruptive, cause a threat, or are otherwise not behaving properly.
To physically remove a boarded, revenue paying passenger sitting in his proper seat is unacceptable, especially when it is so the airline can board additional airline employees. The airline runs a buiness and as others have said, they should not have boarded if they were short on seats. Rather they should have made increasing offers until they got the 4 seats.
I am not an attorney, but that said: Once passengers boarded, the airline has redeemed their ticket for passage to their destination, and that passenger has every right to remain on the plane. Kicking someone off because the airline needs the seats should never be allowed, much less physically removing a passenger who isn't causing a threat to the crew or other passengers.
United clearly overstepped their bounds here and deserves not only the bad press, but also their behaviors should be reviewed by the FAA.
To physically remove a boarded, revenue paying passenger sitting in his proper seat is unacceptable, especially when it is so the airline can board additional airline employees. The airline runs a buiness and as others have said, they should not have boarded if they were short on seats. Rather they should have made increasing offers until they got the 4 seats.
I am not an attorney, but that said: Once passengers boarded, the airline has redeemed their ticket for passage to their destination, and that passenger has every right to remain on the plane. Kicking someone off because the airline needs the seats should never be allowed, much less physically removing a passenger who isn't causing a threat to the crew or other passengers.
United clearly overstepped their bounds here and deserves not only the bad press, but also their behaviors should be reviewed by the FAA.
Apr 10, 2017, 7:41 am
#57
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2014
Programs: Top Tier with all 3 alliances
Posts: 11,669
UA should add this to their Conditions of carriage, IDB can include dragging you out of the aircraft like a rag doll.
Apr 10, 2017, 7:41 am
#58
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, France
Programs: LH HON*****, AF/KL Gold; HHilton Diamond; Marriott Gold; IHG Platinium; Avis PresClub
Posts: 934
Apr 10, 2017, 7:42 am
#59
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA, France
Programs: LH HON*****, AF/KL Gold; HHilton Diamond; Marriott Gold; IHG Platinium; Avis PresClub
Posts: 934
I personally do not understand how somebody can support United or the law enforcement officer. There is a contract between the airline and the client to transport the client from A to B. Client got booking confirmation and paid for the specific flight. Client checked-in. Client boarded the aircraft. All in agreement with the airline.
Then suddenly the airline changes its mind and enforces the breach of contract with a law enforcement officer.
Does not sound too “civilized” here.
What would you say to this example: I sell my house to you. We sign the contract. You pay. You move in. And the moment you are installed and a your furniture is placed in your new home, I enforce with some law enforcement officers access to your new home and let you throw out, because my son needs the house now.
Would you accept it? Would you say: Yeah that’s OK. I paid for the house. We got a contract between both parties that the house is now mine. But if your son need the house now, I am fine.
Then suddenly the airline changes its mind and enforces the breach of contract with a law enforcement officer.
Does not sound too “civilized” here.
What would you say to this example: I sell my house to you. We sign the contract. You pay. You move in. And the moment you are installed and a your furniture is placed in your new home, I enforce with some law enforcement officers access to your new home and let you throw out, because my son needs the house now.
Would you accept it? Would you say: Yeah that’s OK. I paid for the house. We got a contract between both parties that the house is now mine. But if your son need the house now, I am fine.
Apr 10, 2017, 7:43 am
#60
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 184
I would actually put the least blame on the law enforcement officers; I'm sure they were just called & told an unruly passenger needed to be removed or something of the like. We all have seen enough videos of insane passengers who need to be forcefully removed for the protection of other flyers that police (unfortunately) believed united that this passengers removal was a necessity.
All the blame falls on United for their poor handling of the situation (from the seating of the passengers, to offering low compensation for volunteers, to threatening to not take off unless people volunteered & finally calling for the forceful removal of passengers)
All the blame falls on United for their poor handling of the situation (from the seating of the passengers, to offering low compensation for volunteers, to threatening to not take off unless people volunteered & finally calling for the forceful removal of passengers)