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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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, 4:40 pm
  #901  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Philippines
Programs: CebGo 5J, Hilton Diamond, IHG Platinum, Alaska 100K
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by GrayAnderson
On the sue-the-pax option:
(1) The optics on that would be somewhat less awful, but still bad.
(2) I'm not sure if United would have won (I suspect there's a decent chance that the court hearing the case might well have found such a demand under a CoC to be "unconscionable" and/or found that United was a negligent party in allowing themselves to be caught over this barrel), but the pleadings on that would be fascinating to be sure.
I would love to be a gecko on the wall in that court room.
davistev is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 4:40 pm
  #902  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: LHR, HKG
Programs: gate lice
Posts: 315
UA was in the wrong. They could've upped the incentives to voluntary deboard, beyond the FAA requirement of $1350, like any reasonable airline would do.

The fact that UA failed to plan for their employees deadheading was their own fault.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 10, 2017 at 5:01 pm Reason: Quoted deleted material and response removed
leungy18 is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 4:40 pm
  #903  
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Houston
Programs: UA 1K and Million Miler, *A Gold, Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium, Hertz Five Star,
Posts: 1,301
Originally Posted by saltydog75
A few thoughts:

- This really illustrates the utter selfishness of humanity. We can debate all we want about what the best practice is for handling this situation, but the process they used was what it was at that time. There had to be one person who didn't urgently need to be on the flight. It's unfortunate none of them stood up and said, I'll leave instead of the guy who's protesting so desperately that he refuses to leave the plan. That's how this should have been handled. A good samaritan should have stepped in. I would have.

- The stated reason for the gentleman not leaving the plane was that he was a doctor and had to see patients in the morning. It appears his wife was on the plane. This begs the question: why didn't she give her seat up for his? That would have been another reasonable solution to the problem. It gets him back as scheduled. Yes, they have to be temporarily separated. They're adults. They should be able to handle it.

- I just cannot believe this is the hill you want to die on. I can understand resisting up until they put hands on you. At that point, when you know you're going to be forcefully removed, isn't it time to give in and leave versus being dragged out? I mean, is this guy a doctor or a five year old? Going boneless and forcing them to drag you out is ridiculous. Whatever led up to that point, when you know you're going to be removed with force, how about you leave and sort out the rest later? As a man, I can think of little that's more embarrassing than being carried off a plane.

- Social media is utterly manipulative. Think about all incidents like this. Do you ever see what leads up to the person being removed? Never. All you see is the end result. If you saw the 30 minutes of negotiating with the passenger to leave, it would set the appropriate context. It's really completely misleading to cut right to the guy being dragged out. It gives everyone the impression he didn't do anything, and it doesn't matter what anyone writes because no one reads. They just click and watch, and that's their truth.

In the end, I blame the passengers more than United. Could the process be improved? Surely, but when we think about this singular incident, that's not relevant. The crew's working within the rules they've been given. Someone should have given up their seat, or his wife should have given up her seat, or he should have gotten off the plane and followed up afterward. There were multiple opportunities for this to be avoided. United's going to take a beating because of the misleading video (again, completely omits the context leading up to him being dragged out), and perhaps that's going to help improve their processes in this area, but the ultimate resolution to problems is to act like an adult and never get into this situation. This could have easily been solved by any adult (another passenger, his wife) giving up their seat despite this man throwing a tantrum or by him not acting like a five year old and leaving voluntarily.

My two cents.
Well said. It is time to move on.
Collierkr is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 4:40 pm
  #904  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 575
Originally Posted by Artpen100
Plenty of blame both for UA getting in this situation (or allowing its subcontractor to get in this situation) and for the passenger refusing to obey the order of the law enforcement officer.

So maybe next time they will just hold the flight until they get enough volunteers at 800 or whatever they deem a reasonable amount, and if they don't, cancel the flight (I'm sure the captain can do that because of a recalcitrant passenger) and de-board everyone. Then reschedule it and put on whoever they want, and if it is within 3 hours, no compensation except to the unlucky few whose boarding passes no longer work. Terrific.
That's what the public is going to push the airlines to. Great, now we're all screwed. They don't get enough VDB so we just sit there because the airline is afraid to remove a passenger for fear of videos circulating.

Originally Posted by venkol
I never understood the white knighting poster on FT tend to do for the airlines out there, ready to defend them for the most grievous of actions. There is no way this was the correct way to handle the situation. If your paying customer ends up bloody, you are F'ing doing it wrong.

They should have upped the price of the voucher instead of going onto this stupid lottery system. No doubt they would have eventually had volunteers. They're gonna end up paying a lot more in lawsuits and lost PR.
Why should they go up and up and up? They went to 800. Is this situation unique because the guy wouldn't comply? This situation happens many times per day. It's what the contract/rules state when we buy the ticket. They offer a VDB then they IDB. Should they really go higher because people don't comply? If that's the case, next time my flight is oversold, I'll tell the person on the IDB list to just resist. And don't follow the rules. And then you will get more money.
flyerbaby19 is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 4:40 pm
  #905  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Northern California
Programs: I want to be free! Free!
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by Ber2dca
He wasn't asked to tell the Nazis where his kids are hiding, he was asked to get off a plane. A plane flying a route that's a 4-5 hour drive. 9 out of 10 people in his shoes would be pissed but do it. Heck, 3 out of 4 people on that plane decided to get off the plane. They weren't happy either, I imagine, but they figured, you know what, let's do what is asked and then worry about it after the fact.

Unless your life or others' are threatened, you do the common sense thing and comply with the requests made by the business and police and then worry about the legality in the calm atmosphere of a lawyer's office.
The deadheaders could've driven 4-5 hours too. Violent force wasn't required to resolve this situation.
aCavalierInCoach is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 4:41 pm
  #906  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Programs: Continental OnePass Platinum
Posts: 416
It's the behavior of the Chicago Aviation Department police officer that is the most troubling thing to me. Since when does the police department work as UA's hired enforcement? Aren't they supposed to keep everyone safe as the number one priority?

In close quarters, with 70+ people trapped in a tube, they never should have escalated the situation like this. And even if at some point they felt that force was the only possible way to resolve the situation, shouldn't they have cleared the plane for safety first? I get that it would have inconvenienced a lot of people, but isn't every other concern a distant second to the safety of the flying public? Since when is helping UA to maintain an on-time schedule any concern of theirs at all?
cjermain is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 4:42 pm
  #907  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: SFO
Programs: WFBF
Posts: 963
Originally Posted by BuBu4
United being such a big company, im sure they could have found another set of staffing somewhere else...
Or offered enough to get another passenger to take the officer. Or been smart in the first place and not boarded until they knew how many seats they'd need for deadheads. Or found a different way to get the crew to Louisville in time.

But nope, people keep saying their hands were tied. Nothing they could've done other than this.
ubernostrum is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 4:42 pm
  #908  
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
Originally Posted by lkar
The only other basis I could see for United's actions would its rules regarding oversold flights and involuntary denying boarding. And maybe this is overly picky, but this pax was not denied boarding. He was removed. There is a specific rule about that. (Noted above, 21.) He was allowed to board. He could have been removed at that point for a number of reasons, including safety or weather or force majur, but not for any of the reasons set forth in the rule to deny a passenger from boarding.
The public may think "boarded" means "sitting in a seat", but that's not how it works in legal terms. This passenger was never boarded in a legal sense. Until that passenger manifest is in/the boarding door is closed, the flight isn't boarded--it's still boarding. Only then do the limits apply to who can be pulled off the flight.
minnyfly is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 4:42 pm
  #909  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
Originally Posted by leungy18
Not all doctors are lawyers and vice versa.

He had every right to be on a plane in which he paid a ticket for. It's disappointing how many Americans accept such tactics from mindless brutes.

I quite frankly don't care whether UA followed the law and the contract of carriage. It shows horrible service. Fact is, the public is now aware that UA can rough you up and deny you a seat that you paid for, and that UA's fault.

So today I spent $5k on one of UA's competitors, and I'm probably not the only one. Heard great things about Polaris, but not quite willing to risk having my face smashed into an armrest.
1. The entire problem with your argument is the assumption that he had the right to be on the plane because he had a ticket. No, he didn't (if UA was following policy). The ticket isn't a magic item - it is a right subject to a set of terms and conditions that said he DIDN'T have the right to be there.

2. I think your decision to refund the Polaris ticket is very smart. Because this incident should make any reasonable person believe that since 1 customer out of about 200,000,000 had this happen, it is likely to happen to them also.
sbrower is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 4:43 pm
  #910  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,631
Originally Posted by ShutteLag
There is no excuse for not complying with lawful commands of law enforcement officers.
That's a direct quote from Mahatma Gandhi, am I right?
SeeBuyFly is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 4:43 pm
  #911  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,092
Originally Posted by lkar
Sorry if already covered in this fast moving thread, but there seems to be a prevailing view that removing this passenger was within United's CoC. I just read it, and many of these terms may be terms of art, but at least on a lay reading I'm skeptical whether this true.

Rule 21 discusses the circumstances in which a pax can be removed from a flight and none of them apply here. Well, one arguably does -- refusing an instruction. But if the instruction is to get off the plane under rule 21 and there is no basis under rule 21, I would think the reasonable interpretation of that rule would be you can't expand a specific rule with the general and be within the CoC.

The only other basis I could see for United's actions would its rules regarding oversold flights and involuntary denying boarding. And maybe this is overly picky, but this pax was not denied boarding. He was removed. There is a specific rule about that. (Noted above, 21.) He was allowed to board. He could have been removed at that point for a number of reasons, including safety or weather or force majur, but not for any of the reasons set forth in the rule to deny a passenger from boarding.

The IDB rule seems very clear that it does not apply once the pax have already boarded the plane. Indeed, it goes so far as to discuss specific boarding priorities and orders.

In short, though I may have missed it, a very clear reading of the rules taken as a whole is that they distinguish between removal of a boarded passenger and circumstances in which a pax can be denied boarding, and they are very different.

I have no doubt DOT would side with the airline here, but just on a quick reading, as a matter of contract, the prevailing wisdom that UA's CoC permits removal of an already boarded pax for overselling or nonrev positioning seems questionable to me.
United will/would argue that boarding has only taken place when the plane shuts its doors and is ready for departure. As this flight was still in the 'boarding process', his physical presence on board the plane would thus not equal his 'boarding' having been completed.

Given that is, admittedly, a pretty opaque argument (which however in aviation industry terms makes sense), UA is probably wise to settle if any lawsuit arises from this.
Ber2dca is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 4:44 pm
  #912  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Programs: AA EXP, Bonvoy Titanum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by BuBu4
United being such a big company, im sure they could have found another set of staffing somewhere else...
I morally/ethically supported United with the whole leggings dress code thing because a business has the right to enforce rules for its employees and family/friends' free passengers' dress code.

However, this incident is ridiculous.

This was 100% in United's control and they F'ed up. As many have already mentioned, United should've upped the offer and/or put their 4 employees on another flight or had them driven.

Delta had a company wide meltdown last week and look at how they handled it! According to recent articles, some made thousands of dollars and one even made $11,000 this past weekend for the inconvenience. At least Delta had the common sense to keep raising their offers. United can't even handle one freakin' plane full of customers.

You can not physically remove someone who is not breaking a law nor causing harm to others.

He's a paying customer who was asked to move and he denied the request.

Also, the police/security is a separate entity, and they should be held responsible just as much.

And United's response online was no help. Totally disconnected and containing zero remorse.

I hope this guy sues and gets a fat check. This man looks traumatized, not to mention his wife and the other passengers and kids.

And I hope United and the police/security get what they deserve. The officer who dragged the man should be facing criminal assault/battery charges. Can one of the other airlines just buy United already?

Last edited by d3vi0uz; Apr 10, 2017 at 4:50 pm
d3vi0uz is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 4:44 pm
  #913  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,405
Originally Posted by rockyb
Firstly, does the $800 cover the inconvenience of a later flight, the tiredness or business impact from the delay?
Not to mention, that a passenger may have paid a premium to be on that flight rather than the cheaper flight. Not everybody is flying on the super cheap fare.

I often book an earlier/later flight that costs more, but is more convenient. While being denied boarding may not cause much damage, I wouldn't have paid the more expensive fare in the first place if I had known, that they would deny me boarding.

Originally Posted by ShutteLag
according to the other website(red....),

... if he wore his "Make America Great Again" cap on that flight.
Rest assured, that it wouldn't make a difference. This is unacceptable behavior irrespective of who the passenger was. Let's keep this out of OMNI/PR.

Originally Posted by ShutteLag
United was not in the wrong.
You must live on another planet. United overbooked the flight. While it's a common occurrence, I expect the airline to do their best in avoiding inconvenience. Bad organization regarding staffing is certainly not an excuse to warrant so atrocious behavior.

Originally Posted by ShutteLag
The officers who dragged the man off should have tasered him, if he repeated refused to comply with lawful commands.
I question that it is a lawful command as this isn't a LE issue. But nice to see that you think, that more violence would've solved the problem much more easily.
WorldLux is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 4:44 pm
  #914  
Original Member
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
Originally Posted by leungy18
Does that change the fact that he was a paying customer? (And I'm as liberal as you can get.)

Yes, UA was in the wrong. They could've upped the incentives to voluntary deboard, beyond the FAA requirement of $1350, like any reasonable airline would do.

The fact that UA failed to plan for their employees deadheading was their own fault.
You say "any reasonable airline." But have you read the DOT statistics on how many thousand IDB's happen every year? What do you think was different about this passenger that should have alerted the gate agent not to take the usual steps?
sbrower is offline  
Old Apr 10, 2017, 4:45 pm
  #915  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: K+K
Programs: *G
Posts: 4,866

United was not in the wrong. What do you want them to do? Strand the 100+ passengers on the flight that the 4 crew member had to get to?
false dilemna. tell me, as a hypothetical representative of the airline, at that moment, you are unable to fathom absolutely any other alternative than the binary choice of: stranding 100+ or involving law enforcement?

The officers who dragged the man off should have tasered him, if he repeated refused to comply with lawful commands. Then remove him from the flight.
frankly, this line of thought scares me. as a gun-toting ex-texan with close friends in law enforcement.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 10, 2017 at 5:01 pm Reason: Quoted deleted material and response removed
deniah 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.