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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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
- Muńoz 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, 11:14 am
#316
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: 100,368
In the case of deadheading crew scheduled to work the following day, after rest, are they contractually entitled or required to be given seats versus either FA or pilot jumpseats? Crew are qualified to fly in jumpseats.
Apr 10, 2017, 11:14 am
#317
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
I'm not convinced even $1,500 would have got someone off the flight.
The risk of missing a day of work (this is a Sunday night) and with a group of 75 folks I can see a situation where none want that gamble. Yes it's a 4 hour drive, but how many once a year fliers think it's easy to get a rental car at the last minute, and drive at night after a day of travel and connections. You're probably looking at $200+ for the car rental, and north of $50 for the gas.
UA owns the outcome even though there are no innocent parties here, including the passenger who has yet to be identified. They should have given the agent more leeway. And who knows what is going on at the regional partner level that created the crew situation.
Delta has its worst week for operations in years and UA ends up with the bad press over one incident! You can't script it better.
The risk of missing a day of work (this is a Sunday night) and with a group of 75 folks I can see a situation where none want that gamble. Yes it's a 4 hour drive, but how many once a year fliers think it's easy to get a rental car at the last minute, and drive at night after a day of travel and connections. You're probably looking at $200+ for the car rental, and north of $50 for the gas.
UA owns the outcome even though there are no innocent parties here, including the passenger who has yet to be identified. They should have given the agent more leeway. And who knows what is going on at the regional partner level that created the crew situation.
Delta has its worst week for operations in years and UA ends up with the bad press over one incident! You can't script it better.
Apr 10, 2017, 11:15 am
#318
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: YVR TLS
Programs: Air France Flying Blue, Altitude SE-100k, AAdvantage, United Mileage Plus, WS rewards, BonVoy Titan
Posts: 912
BS! This guy was a paid/confirmed pax who had taken his seat. United had no business getting law enforcement involved in a matter THEY created by overbooking and not having + space for a deadheading crew. They were negligent because they could have raised the VDB amount until four people bit. I'll bet $1,300/pp+ hotel+ rental vouchers would have gotten a family of four to make the drive. The whole "not following crewmembers instruction" line will fall flat on its face in front of a jury given the video evidence and a few of those outraged passengers testifying.
Apr 10, 2017, 11:16 am
#319
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 197
I don't know if this was posted yet, but here's the statement from the CEO:
http://newsroom.united.com/news-releases?item=124753
If this is really from Munoz, then he's part of the problem. Apologizing for "re-accomodat[ing]" the customers, not for physical harm and the borderline blackmail the entire cabin was subjected to prior to the assault.
http://newsroom.united.com/news-releases?item=124753
This is an upsetting event to all of us here at United. I apologize for having to re-accommodate these customers. Our team is moving with a sense of urgency to work with the authorities and conduct our own detailed review of what happened. We are also reaching out to this passenger to talk directly to him and further address and resolve this situation.
Apr 10, 2017, 11:18 am
#320
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 2,881
BS! This guy was a paid/confirmed pax who had taken his seat. United had no business getting law enforcement involved in a matter THEY created by overbooking and not having + space for a deadheading crew. They were negligent because they could have raised the VDB amount until four people bit. I'll bet $1,300/pp+ hotel+ rental vouchers would have gotten a family of four to make the drive. The whole "not following crewmembers instruction" line will fall flat on its face in front of a jury given the video evidence and a few of those outraged passengers testifying.
Apr 10, 2017, 11:18 am
#321
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Programs: Amex Platinum, DL Diamond 2MM, PriorityPass, Hilton Honors Silver
Posts: 469
That's true, that's so true. He could have been the Archbishop of Canterbury traveling in disguise, and until somebody proves that isn't true, that's what I'll believe. And the issue of whether or not he is really a physician is absolutely the most important aspect of deciding how this incident reflects on United's status as an airline that lives up to their obligations by transporting passengers to their destinations without smashing their guitars.
POTUS lesson
Apr 10, 2017, 11:18 am
#322
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SEA
Programs: Million Miles achieved | 2017 Delta Platinum, United NADA, Global Entry, PreCheck, NEXUS
Posts: 1,295
Did they offer to put up a J passenger overnight and a seat in J the next day or some such? Seems common sense.
Apr 10, 2017, 11:19 am
#323
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: BART Platinum, AA Plat Pro
Posts: 1,157
If the cap were set at, for example, 1,000%/$10,000, then UA processes would surely have had the GA happily continue raising the amount until she received 4 volunteers. Ironically, in this case not only did the low cap diminish passenger welfare, but it also diminished UA's welfare, since in retrospect they clearly would have preferred to just pay volunteers to get off the plane.
Apr 10, 2017, 11:19 am
#324
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Manila, Philippines (MNL)
Programs: BAEC Gold [>20k Lifetime TPs] | Hilton Honors Lifetime Diamond [as is Mrs PtF] | Various Others
Posts: 6,156
What in God's name is happening here? This story is currently being covered extensively throughout the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region. Never mind what this does to the image of United Airlines - what does it do to the image of the United States?
Footage of a passenger being forcibly dragged down the aisle of an aircraft doesn't do much for the reputation overseas of the land of the free and the home of the brave (and, yes, I'm very much pro-USA) - a supposedly civilised society.
Footage of a passenger being forcibly dragged down the aisle of an aircraft doesn't do much for the reputation overseas of the land of the free and the home of the brave (and, yes, I'm very much pro-USA) - a supposedly civilised society.
Apr 10, 2017, 11:20 am
#325
Join Date: Jul 2005
Programs: UA Premier Gold
Posts: 502
I think that the airline industry as a whole, more than any other industries that are basically customer service industries, has criminalized customer service issues. There are some good reasons for this but I think it is way easier for any airline employee to invoke this than it should be. I've seen someone arguing with a ticket agent, at landside ticketing, get the cops called on them because the ticket agent didn't want to deal with them as far as I could tell. It was a couple, and they were agitated but near as I could tell not making threats or anything (I was at the next agent over).
Apr 10, 2017, 11:20 am
#326
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 337
So how does UA's rule about pictures/videos play a role in this?
"The use of small cameras or mobile devices for photography and video is permitted on board, provided you keep the purpose of your photography and video to capturing personal events. Photographing or recording other customers or airline personnel without their express consent is prohibited."
In today's age with all the social media and videos going viral within minutes, I'm surprised there have not been any lawsuits (at least none that I know of that made the news) against passengers filming these kinds of situations.
"The use of small cameras or mobile devices for photography and video is permitted on board, provided you keep the purpose of your photography and video to capturing personal events. Photographing or recording other customers or airline personnel without their express consent is prohibited."
In today's age with all the social media and videos going viral within minutes, I'm surprised there have not been any lawsuits (at least none that I know of that made the news) against passengers filming these kinds of situations.
Apr 10, 2017, 11:21 am
#327
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 2,881
So how does UA's rule about pictures/videos play a role in this?
"The use of small cameras or mobile devices for photography and video is permitted on board, provided you keep the purpose of your photography and video to capturing personal events. Photographing or recording other customers or airline personnel without their express consent is prohibited."
In today's age with all the social media and videos going viral within minutes, I'm surprised there have not been any lawsuits (at least none that I know of that made the news) against passengers filming these kinds of situations.
"The use of small cameras or mobile devices for photography and video is permitted on board, provided you keep the purpose of your photography and video to capturing personal events. Photographing or recording other customers or airline personnel without their express consent is prohibited."
In today's age with all the social media and videos going viral within minutes, I'm surprised there have not been any lawsuits (at least none that I know of that made the news) against passengers filming these kinds of situations.
Apr 10, 2017, 11:21 am
#328
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,718
C'mon, you know this statement is the result of eight hours of lawyering. They're not going to admit to anything at this point. And it's cheaper to issue vague ex post facto apologies than train the anti-passenger aggression out of UA service culture.
Apr 10, 2017, 11:22 am
#329
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
While we live in a world of sensational journalism which leads to bad press, that doesn't mean that this was necessarily handled wrong by UA if indeed the oversell did not become apparent unti after the aircraft was boarded.
There is also a lot of poor information here and a lack of understanding of who has what responsibility.
Presume that UA did not overbook the flight at all and boarded the aircraft to capacity and that, when boarded there became a need for "must fly" crew at SDF. This sometimes happens and when it does, the alternative is to cancel the inbound flight. In addition, while overbooking is common and is expressly authorized by US law (and the passenger in question would have agreed to this in the COC when he purchased his ticket), actual oversales are rare and when those occur, US law requires that the carrier seek volunteers before involuntarily denying boarding.
IDB is extremely rare. For all of the ranting in this thread, it would have been helpful to look at the DOT published statistics. They were published for 2016 just last month. UA only IDB's 0.40 per 10,000 passengers (0.004%) (a drop from 0.70 in 2015). This is a bit worse than DL and a bit better than AA. It is far better than WN.
When an IDB occurs, UA is obligated to follow a pre-determined order. It is not up to the GA or some supervisor to pluck people at random or based on some made up criteria. Those criteria are all listed in the COC and include status, fare basis, time of check-in, and the like. Better customers are less likely to be IDB. There are specified exceptions for the disabled and UM.
For whatever reason, the doc. hit the jackpot. This isn't negotiable for exactly the reasons he tried. When he did not offload as requested, the police were called. Once the police were called, it is out of UA's hands. The use and degree of force are determined by law enforcement. If the doc believes that excessive force was used, he can complain to the CPD and then file a lawsuit against CPD if he wishes.
If the doc had ultimately been IDB, he would have been due 400% of the fare paid up to a maximum of $1,350. A quick check of UA fares on that route, shows that the typical walk-up fare is approx $230. This would mean $920 to the doc. This is payable in cash (equivalent) such as a check. At ORD UA has the capacity to issue a check and will do so if someone wants to wait around a bit.
The rest of the speculation about overbooking and resulting oversales and whether it is appropriate is way in the past. Whether UA ought to have increased the offer is up to UA. For all we know, the doc. had a ticket that cost him $100 and this would have cost UA $400. How would UA know that the guy would go nuts, resist a simple direction to offload, and cause a mess? If UA routinely pays out VDB significantly above IDB on a regular basis, that simply contributes to higher fares.
There is also a lot of poor information here and a lack of understanding of who has what responsibility.
Presume that UA did not overbook the flight at all and boarded the aircraft to capacity and that, when boarded there became a need for "must fly" crew at SDF. This sometimes happens and when it does, the alternative is to cancel the inbound flight. In addition, while overbooking is common and is expressly authorized by US law (and the passenger in question would have agreed to this in the COC when he purchased his ticket), actual oversales are rare and when those occur, US law requires that the carrier seek volunteers before involuntarily denying boarding.
IDB is extremely rare. For all of the ranting in this thread, it would have been helpful to look at the DOT published statistics. They were published for 2016 just last month. UA only IDB's 0.40 per 10,000 passengers (0.004%) (a drop from 0.70 in 2015). This is a bit worse than DL and a bit better than AA. It is far better than WN.
When an IDB occurs, UA is obligated to follow a pre-determined order. It is not up to the GA or some supervisor to pluck people at random or based on some made up criteria. Those criteria are all listed in the COC and include status, fare basis, time of check-in, and the like. Better customers are less likely to be IDB. There are specified exceptions for the disabled and UM.
For whatever reason, the doc. hit the jackpot. This isn't negotiable for exactly the reasons he tried. When he did not offload as requested, the police were called. Once the police were called, it is out of UA's hands. The use and degree of force are determined by law enforcement. If the doc believes that excessive force was used, he can complain to the CPD and then file a lawsuit against CPD if he wishes.
If the doc had ultimately been IDB, he would have been due 400% of the fare paid up to a maximum of $1,350. A quick check of UA fares on that route, shows that the typical walk-up fare is approx $230. This would mean $920 to the doc. This is payable in cash (equivalent) such as a check. At ORD UA has the capacity to issue a check and will do so if someone wants to wait around a bit.
The rest of the speculation about overbooking and resulting oversales and whether it is appropriate is way in the past. Whether UA ought to have increased the offer is up to UA. For all we know, the doc. had a ticket that cost him $100 and this would have cost UA $400. How would UA know that the guy would go nuts, resist a simple direction to offload, and cause a mess? If UA routinely pays out VDB significantly above IDB on a regular basis, that simply contributes to higher fares.
Apr 10, 2017, 11:23 am
#330
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 18
Had an oversold situation on UA a few months ago. The gate agent offered some low amount ($200) when the next flight was literally 24 hours later.
When there were no takers, she threated that those with the "cheapest seats" would be denied boarding without compensation. She kept repeating this, getting more and more nasty (i.e., "If you don't take this, you'll get nothing"). Eventually someone took the offer. And it all did happen before anyone boarded.
One thing I learned is that regional jets (50 passengers or less) are exempt from the laws governing the overbooking compensation US airlines must offer. So they are not legally required to offer you anything, at least before you board.
That said, it's a PR issue. We all know that every single person has a price point at which he/she will give up a seat. Failure to raise the amount of compensation was the problem. Had UA done this -- whether or not folks had boarded -- problem solved. Penny wise . . . pound foolish.
When there were no takers, she threated that those with the "cheapest seats" would be denied boarding without compensation. She kept repeating this, getting more and more nasty (i.e., "If you don't take this, you'll get nothing"). Eventually someone took the offer. And it all did happen before anyone boarded.
One thing I learned is that regional jets (50 passengers or less) are exempt from the laws governing the overbooking compensation US airlines must offer. So they are not legally required to offer you anything, at least before you board.
That said, it's a PR issue. We all know that every single person has a price point at which he/she will give up a seat. Failure to raise the amount of compensation was the problem. Had UA done this -- whether or not folks had boarded -- problem solved. Penny wise . . . pound foolish.
