Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

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

Community
Wiki Posts
Search
Old Apr 10, 2017, 8:42 pm
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: WineCountryUA
WELCOME, THREAD GUIDELINES and SUMMARY PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

If you are new to us, welcome to FlyerTalk! Who we are: FlyerTalk features discussions and chat boards that cover the most up-to-date traveler information; an interactive community dedicated to the topic of travel (not politics or arguments about politics or religion, etc. – those discussion are best in the OMNI forum)

The incident discussed in this thread has touched a nerve for many, and many posters are passionate about their opinions and concerns. However we should still have a civil and respectful discussion of this topic. This is because FlyerTalk is meant to be a friendly, helpful, and collegial community. (Rule 12.)

1. The normal FlyerTalk Rules apply. (Including not discussing moderation actions in thread). Please be particularly attentive to "discussing the idea and not the poster" when you have a disagreement. Civility and mutual respect are still expected and are what we owe each other as a community.

2. You are expected to respect the FlyerTalk community's diversity, and therefore refrain from posting inflammatory comments about race, religion, culture, politics, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. Do not cite, copy, or report on such.

3. While you can disagree with an opinion, the holder of that opinion has the same right to their opinion as you have to yours. We request all to respect that and disagree or discuss their point of views without getting overly personal and without attacking the other poster(s). This is expected as a requirement in FT Rule 12.

4. Overly exaggerative posts as well as posts with information that has been posted several times previously may be summarily deleted.

5. In addition, those who repeatedly fail to comply with FlyerTalk Rules, may be subjected to FlyerTalk disciplinary actions and, e.g., have membership privileges suspended, or masked from this forum.

If you have questions about the Rules or concerns about what another has posted in this or other threads in this forum, please do not post about that. Rather, notify the moderators by using the alert symbol within each post or email or send a private message to us moderators.

Let’s have this discussion in a way that, when we look back on it, we can be proud of how we handled ourselves as a community.

The United Moderator team:
J.Edward
l'etoile
Ocn Vw 1K
Pat89339
WineCountryUA

N.B. PLEASE do not alter the contents of this moderator note
Statement from United Airlines Regarding Resolution with Dr. David Dao - released 27 April 2017
CHICAGO, April 27, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- We are pleased to report that United and Dr. Dao have reached an amicable resolution of the unfortunate incident that occurred aboard flight 3411. We look forward to implementing the improvements we have announced, which will put our customers at the center of everything we do.
DOT findings related to the UA3411 9 April 2017 IDB incident 12 May 2017

What facts do we know?
  • UA3411, operated by Republic Airways, ORD-SDF on Sunday, April 9, 2017. UA3411 was the second to last flight to SDF for United. AA3509 and UA4771 were the two remaining departures for the day. Also, AA and DL had connecting options providing for same-day arrival in SDF.
  • After the flight was fully boarded, United determined four seats were needed to accommodate crew to SDF for a flight on Monday.
  • United solicited volunteers for VDB. (BUT stopped at $800 in UA$s, not cash). Chose not to go to the levels such as 1350 that airlines have been known to go even in case of weather impacted disruption)
  • After receiving no volunteers for $800 vouchers, a passenger volunteered for $1,600 and was "laughed at" and refused, United determined four passengers to be removed from the flight.
  • One passenger refused and Chicago Aviation Security Officers were called to forcibly remove the passenger.
  • The passenger hit the armrest in the aisle and received a concussion, a broken nose, a bloodied lip, and the loss of two teeth.
  • After being removed from the plane, the passenger re-boarded saying "I need to go home" repeatedly, before being removed again.
  • United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said the flight was sold out — but not oversold. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines – the unit that operated Flight 3411 – decided they had to remove four passengers from the flight to accommodate crewmembers who were needed in Louisville the next day for a “downline connection.”

United Express Flight 3411 Review and Action Report - released 27 April 2017

Videos

Internal Communication by Oscar Munoz
Oscar Munoz sent an internal communication to UA employees (sources: View From The Wing, Chicago Tribune):
Dear Team,

Like you, I was upset to see and hear about what happened last night aboard United Express Flight 3411 headed from Chicago to Louisville. While the facts and circumstances are still evolving, especially with respect to why this customer defied Chicago Aviation Security Officers the way he did, to give you a clearer picture of what transpired, I've included below a recap from the preliminary reports filed by our employees.

As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose, I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.

I do, however, believe there are lessons we can learn from this experience, and we are taking a close look at the circumstances surrounding this incident. Treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are, and we must always remember this no matter how challenging the situation.

Oscar

Summary of Flight 3411
  • On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded, United's gate agents were approached by crewmembers that were told they needed to board the flight.
  • We sought volunteers and then followed our involuntary denial of boarding process (including offering up to $1,000 in compensation) and when we approached one of these passengers to explain apologetically that he was being denied boarding, he raised his voice and refused to comply with crew member instructions.
  • He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent.
  • Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave.
  • Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his cooperation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
Email sent to all employees at 2:08PM on Tuesday, April 11.
Dear Team,

The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all: my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way.

I want you to know that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.

It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again. This will include a thorough review of crew movement, our policies for incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement. We’ll communicate the results of our review by April 30th.

I promise you we will do better.

Sincerely,

Oscar
Statement to customers - 27 April 2017
Each flight you take with us represents an important promise we make to you, our customer. It's not simply that we make sure you reach your destination safely and on time, but also that you will be treated with the highest level of service and the deepest sense of dignity and respect.

Earlier this month, we broke that trust when a passenger was forcibly removed from one of our planes. We can never say we are sorry enough for what occurred, but we also know meaningful actions will speak louder than words.

For the past several weeks, we have been urgently working to answer two questions: How did this happen, and how can we do our best to ensure this never happens again?

It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right.

Fixing that problem starts now with changing how we fly, serve and respect our customers. This is a turning point for all of us here at United – and as CEO, it's my responsibility to make sure that we learn from this experience and redouble our efforts to put our customers at the center of everything we do.

That’s why we announced that we will no longer ask law enforcement to remove customers from a flight and customers will not be required to give up their seat once on board – except in matters of safety or security.

We also know that despite our best efforts, when things don’t go the way they should, we need to be there for you to make things right. There are several new ways we’re going to do just that.

We will increase incentives for voluntary rebooking up to $10,000 and will be eliminating the red tape on permanently lost bags with a new "no-questions-asked" $1,500 reimbursement policy. We will also be rolling out a new app for our employees that will enable them to provide on-the-spot goodwill gestures in the form of miles, travel credit and other amenities when your experience with us misses the mark. You can learn more about these commitments and many other changes at hub.united.com.

While these actions are important, I have found myself reflecting more broadly on the role we play and the responsibilities we have to you and the communities we serve.

I believe we must go further in redefining what United's corporate citizenship looks like in our society. If our chief good as a company is only getting you to and from your destination, that would show a lack of moral imagination on our part. You can and ought to expect more from us, and we intend to live up to those higher expectations in the way we embody social responsibility and civic leadership everywhere we operate. I hope you will see that pledge express itself in our actions going forward, of which these initial, though important, changes are merely a first step.

Our goal should be nothing less than to make you truly proud to say, "I fly United."

Ultimately, the measure of our success is your satisfaction and the past several weeks have moved us to go further than ever before in elevating your experience with us. I know our 87,000 employees have taken this message to heart, and they are as energized as ever to fulfill our promise to serve you better with each flight and earn the trust you’ve given us.

We are working harder than ever for the privilege to serve you and I know we will be stronger, better and the customer-focused airline you expect and deserve.

With Great Gratitude,

Oscar Munoz
CEO
United Airlines
Aftermath
Poll: Your Opinion of United Airlines Reference Material

UA's Customer Commitment says:
Occasionally we may not be able to provide you with a seat on a specific flight, even if you hold a ticket, have checked in, are present to board on time, and comply with other requirements. This is called an oversale, and occurs when restrictions apply to operating a particular flight safely (such as aircraft weight limits); when we have to substitute a smaller aircraft in place of a larger aircraft that was originally scheduled; or if more customers have checked in and are prepared to board than we have available seats.

If your flight is in an oversale situation, you will not be denied a seat until we first ask for volunteers willing to give up their confirmed seats. If there are not enough volunteers, we will deny boarding to passengers in accordance with our written policy on boarding priority. If you are involuntarily denied boarding and have complied with our check-in and other applicable rules, we will give you a written statement that describes your rights and explains how we determine boarding priority for an oversold flight. You will generally be entitled to compensation and transportation on an alternate flight.

We make complete rules for the payment of compensation, as well as our policy about boarding priorities, available at airports we serve. We will follow these rules to ensure you are treated fairly. Please be aware that you may be denied boarding without compensation if you do not check in on time or do not meet certain other requirements, or if we offer you alternative transportation that is planned to arrive at your destination or first stopover no later than one hour after the planned arrival time of your original flight.
CoC is here: https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...-carriage.aspx
Print Wikipost

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

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:02 am
  #256  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: AA, DL, WN
Posts: 21
You guys can blame pax as much as you want, claiming FAA rules or whatever rules you have on the book.

This will not end up well for united. Rules of regulation are written by lobbyist and they don't have best favorability rating among pax. Rules can be changed by a new law or regulation, morality cannot, and sorry to say, united is suffering from a moral collapse among pax here.
chrislevin is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:03 am
  #257  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: iad/dca
Programs: UA Million Mile Gold, Club, AA, Delta, Marriott, Hertz G, A/Club
Posts: 1,106
https://mobile.twitter.com/Tyler_Bri...663552/video/1
iquitos is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:04 am
  #258  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 154
Originally Posted by demkr
The passenger was screeching and (likely) injured himself in the struggle.
Yeah his face might even have damaged the plane when he hit the plane with it.

I imagine the decision to forcibly remove was made by the officers, not United. The GA did let him back on
If the GA decided to let him back on, it shows that it wasn't a situation that required calling law enforcement, let alone dragging him out.

If I call my thugs in to drag you out, and the thugs through stupidity and over inflated opinions of their own authority and how much you should be respecting it, bash your head in by accident, I am not blameless. Both me, and the thugs, share blame for your head getting bashed in.

The whole knee jerk "need to comply with orders or else they deserve it when their heads get bashed in" is silly.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 10, 2017 at 10:42 am Reason: Quote updated to reflect Moderator edit;OMNI content removed
chromo is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:04 am
  #259  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Near Chicago and Under the MDW and ORD Flight Paths, IL, USA
Programs: UA recovering Premier
Posts: 946
For the record, the "police" involved in the incident were likely not the Chicago Police Department. They are the Chicago Department of Aviation Police (based on the one uniformed officer with the ball cap). They are trained law enforcement officers under Illinois law, but do not carry weapons (although technically certified to do so). The DOA Police have a... reputation... that is somewhat less than stellar. They are only found in the airside areas of the airport and are of the "run and hide" school of terrorist response. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/chi...tion-officers/

Any negative interaction with pax has the potential to become a viral PR disaster these days, regardless of who is responsible or what the facts of the matter are. I don't know if the root cause is the general lack of civility these days (which over-escalates situations), busybodies concerning themselves with matters that they neither understand nor have any facts to understand, disgruntled and overworked employees, or all of these things working together. I don't have a good solution to that, other than pax-facing employees being reminded to stay ahead of potential problems. And that also means that the airline has to do its best to not create problems that only get resolved in an ugly way at the boarding gate or on the aircraft.
p1cunnin is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:04 am
  #260  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: ORD / MDW / FLL
Programs: DL DM/1MM, AA EXP, SPG Platinum, Hyatt Platinum, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 2,295
Originally Posted by demkr
I support United on this and it's not even a close call. [Conforming moderator edit to quoted text], why is no one talking about the passenger's refusal to get off the plane and obey the orders of the crew? Is it your position that a passenger can act beligirent, scream like an animal, and not be removed from the plane?

Yes, offering higher compensation should've probably been done. But most passengers would cooperate when security/police is called - the man obviously behaved beligirently and was being defiant.

I wish people would take time to think of the context instead of siding with a social media outrage mob every time
Are you kidding me with this? [Moderator edit to off topic response] He has every right to speak up and demand a more acceptable solution than what UA was offering. We are not living in a communist society where we are not afforded the right to speak and for peaceful protest. This man's rights were violated. I'm sure that's not an issue for you, until someone is violating your rights.

Security / law enforcement had no justification to use excessive force to remove a passenger because he was screaming. Maybe if they understood how to properly deescalate someone who is agitated this would have never happened.

You can blame the pax all you want but the root cause of this issue was UA deciding to kick paying passengers off to deadhead their crew. If getting their crew to SDF was so important they should have put their rear ends in an uber and had them driven to SDF. Since they were not on duty there would have been no harm, no foul. But, I guess the people at UA are not smart enough to find creative solutions that would keep everyone happy.

Last edited by Ocn Vw 1K; Apr 10, 2017 at 10:51 am Reason: To edit off-topic text as this is not OMNI.
SOBE ER DOC is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:04 am
  #261  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 10 months VLC, 2 months everywhere else
Programs: *A
Posts: 3,770
Originally Posted by NeedstoFly
Fair number of defences seem to be of the petty authoritarian sort, "u must comply with the man in unform." This is America of course, still not yet a banana republic though getting there.
Shameful. Absolutely shameful.

The optics are disgraceful, no matter how you look at it.


Last edited by J.Edward; Apr 10, 2017 at 10:35 am Reason: Remove off topic comment(s)
GuyverII is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:05 am
  #262  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 15,352
An airline supervisor walked onto the plane and brusquely announced: “We have United employees that need to fly to Louisville tonight. … This flight’s not leaving until four people get off.”
How precious. How about increasing the VDB offer until 4 people voluntarily deplane?

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 10, 2017 at 10:43 am Reason: Discuss the issues, not the posters
RichMSN is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:05 am
  #263  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 957
The passenger was in the wrong. That does not mean he wasn't wronged. All three parties here are wrong, some more than others.

UA screwed up, and was incredibly greedy. In this situation, where you are bumping pax for crew (even though it was the right thing to do), you need to continually increase your compensation until it becomes an easy decision for four people to comply. If you get to $1k-1500, sure as daylight you're getting people off that flight happily.

After UA's greed, the passenger that was selected to be removed needed to do so. This is not a choice. UA has the legal right to remove him- whether or not that is fair. He was asked to leave, he refused law enforcement. He was wrong.

Law enforcement certainly seems like they used uneccessary force. We don't see the whole thing. How many times did they warn him? Did they inform him that they were going to forcibly remove him if he did not comply immediately? If they warned him several times and also warned him he was about to be forcibly removed, they did no wrong. That's a tight spot to be gentle- it's almost impossible. That being said, if they escalated to force quickly....they were in the wrong.

UA should be ashamed of itself for not being aggressive enough in compensation and allowing corporate greed to result in this incident. The passenger should learn that, whether or not something is fair, it is NOT ok to refuse to listen to law enforcement. Then we have anarchy.
gold23 is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:05 am
  #264  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: New York
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott LTPP, Hertz Five Star
Posts: 1,079
Originally Posted by iquitos
.

They should be more careful about overselling seats. Hold back a few. It would not be the end of the of the world it they went out empty once in a while. The consolidation of the industry cries out for more regulation. It was a mistake to board him if they were not sure they could carry him. They obviously could in the end if it is true he got back on board. What is that all about? What changed?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the facts/circumstances are evolving/changing here. If he was able to re-board the flight and it wasn't just an issue of seats but perhaps weight (maybe some luggage was unloaded to make up for weight) then that's a different circumstance.

Originally Posted by RichMSN
From the WaPo article at the following link, it doesn't appear that the doctor made it to SDF:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...tered-and-limp
Yeah, if he didn't make it back on then it was probably # of seats, not W&B, Plus earlier posts saying the seatmap was full.

Originally Posted by lixiaojuventus
I think I am troubled by the fact that United did not raise their VDB bonus, but instead chosen to forcefully remove some pax. If I really wanted to get to my destination due to some reason, why can't I refuse to be removed? United could have raised the VDB bonus to an even higher value (like $2k, $3k, or even $5k, etc), and eventually, someone will take it. Is there a cap to the VDB bonus that a gate agent could offer?
In theory, no. In practice, there's no incentive to offer compensation beyond 4x the lowest fare class they can bump, since that's what the law requires them to pay after seeking volunteers. That might change due to videos like these causing a PR nightmare, but by cold hard numbers and what's allowed under the law, there *is* a practical limit.
phltraveler is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:05 am
  #265  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Las Vegas
Programs: DL Platinum, AA Lifetime Gold, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum, Radisson Premium
Posts: 6,638
The passenger clearly appears to be very erratic in this one
demkr is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:06 am
  #266  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,421
Originally Posted by nk15
First, they came for the Asian doctor...Well, I guess the rest of the UA fliers won't be too far off down the line...
UA should thank their lucky stars the pax wasn't black. They would obviously be racists.

Instead of just being idiots.
iahphx is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:06 am
  #267  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: K+K
Programs: *G
Posts: 4,867
Boarding Priorities - If a flight is Oversold, no one may be denied boarding against his/her will until UA or other carrier personnel first ask for volunteers who will give up their reservations willingly in exchange for compensation as determined by UA. If there are not enough volunteers, other Passengers may be denied boarding involuntarily in accordance with UA’s boarding priority:
  1. Passengers who are Qualified Individuals with Disabilities, unaccompanied minors under the age of 18 years, or minors between the ages of 5 to 15 years who use the unaccompanied minor service, will be the last to be involuntarily denied boarding if it is determined by UA that such denial would constitute a hardship.
  2. The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.

Originally Posted by iquitos
A contract they keep well concealed from the average traveller. If we want we can take your money and not fly you as agreed. Very fine print. What are the criteria for selecting the bumpee?
deniah is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:07 am
  #268  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton ♦ , Hyatt Carbonado, Wyndham ♦, Marriott PE, "Stinking Bum" elsewhere.
Posts: 4,998
Originally Posted by p1cunnin
For the record, the "police" involved in the incident were likely not the Chicago Police Department. They are the Chicago Department of Aviation Police (based on the one uniformed officer with the ball cap). They are trained law enforcement officers under Illinois law, but do not carry weapons (although technically certified to do so). The DOA Police have a... reputation... that is somewhat less than stellar. They are only found in the airside areas of the airport and are of the "run and hide" school of terrorist response. http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/chi...tion-officers/

Any negative interaction with pax has the potential to become a viral PR disaster these days, regardless of who is responsible or what the facts of the matter are. I don't know if the root cause is the general lack of civility these days (which over-escalates situations), busybodies concerning themselves with matters that they neither understand nor have any facts to understand, disgruntled and overworked employees, or all of these things working together. I don't have a good solution to that, other than pax-facing employees being reminded to stay ahead of potential problems. And that also means that the airline has to do its best to not create problems that only get resolved in an ugly way at the boarding gate or on the aircraft.
^Thanks for the good info.

I note that the passenger threw out the race card (from the WAPO article):

“He said, more or less, ‘I’m being selected because I’m Chinese.'”
zombietooth is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:07 am
  #269  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,421
Originally Posted by demkr
The passenger clearly appears to be very erratic in this one
He certainly does. Very weird. But these incidents are almost always very weird. Which is why they happen, and gain so much attention.
iahphx is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 10:08 am
  #270  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: iad/dca
Programs: UA Million Mile Gold, Club, AA, Delta, Marriott, Hertz G, A/Club
Posts: 1,106
Originally Posted by lixiaojuventus
I think I am troubled by the fact that United did not raise their VDB bonus, but instead chosen to forcefully remove some pax. If I really wanted to get to my destination due to some reason, why can't I refuse to be removed? United could have raised the VDB bonus to an even higher value (like $2k, $3k, or even $5k, etc), and eventually, someone will take it. Is there a cap to the VDB bonus that a gate agent could offer?
Everything is gamed to the bottom line. I doubt people at the gate are empowered to exceed $ limits imposed on high that have nothing to do with managing true costs in situations like this. They should be required to either hold some seats in reserve as standby and offer whatever they have to to get somebody to voluntarily give up a seat. They should never board a passenger they might end up having to remove. https://mobile.twitter.com/Tyler_Bri...663552/video/1
iquitos is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.