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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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 11, 2017, 11:51 am
#3016
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: SFO/CDG
Programs: UA 1k
Posts: 211
Several years ago. DUT-AKB. Waited 3 days for the weather to fly and we were on the plane when the airline decided to switch the flight to a scheduled charter also to AKB. Kicked us off the plane and we waited another 4 days for clear weather to fly. It sucks but it never occurred to me to refuse to get off the plane. I am completely sympathetic to the passenger but somehow 3 others understood and complied with the IDB instructions. All parties involved had a responsibility to deescalate the situation.
How many of you in this thread have ever been involuntarily unloaded from a plane? If you have, like I have, then you probably share my empathy for this guy's situation.
I spent a few days stuck in Lukla, Nepal trying to get a seat on one of the few flights heading back to Kathmandu, and was lucky enough to get the last seat on one of those planes. The pilot started the engines up, and just when it seemed like we were going to start taxiing off, the back door opened up and the gate agent told me I had to get off because the plane was overweight.
I can appreciate there are some differences in opinion about the meaning of 'Involuntary Denial of Boarding', but to me there is a very clear difference between getting told no at the gate versus being asked to leave your seat. Perhaps if United's PR department had that level of empathy, then they would realize what a nightmare this is.
One more thing. The word belligerent has many synonyms ranging in weight from hostile and combative to contentious and argumentative. I think we can all agree that it would be disingenuous to call someone 'belligerent' for saying something like 'No, I would prefer not to leave my seat'. As for those seeking to discredit the character of this victim, I personally find this man's background to give more cause for empathy. Then again, I believe in redemption, and the idea that people can learn from their mistakes. Hopefully United can pick up this simple lesson.
I spent a few days stuck in Lukla, Nepal trying to get a seat on one of the few flights heading back to Kathmandu, and was lucky enough to get the last seat on one of those planes. The pilot started the engines up, and just when it seemed like we were going to start taxiing off, the back door opened up and the gate agent told me I had to get off because the plane was overweight.
I can appreciate there are some differences in opinion about the meaning of 'Involuntary Denial of Boarding', but to me there is a very clear difference between getting told no at the gate versus being asked to leave your seat. Perhaps if United's PR department had that level of empathy, then they would realize what a nightmare this is.
One more thing. The word belligerent has many synonyms ranging in weight from hostile and combative to contentious and argumentative. I think we can all agree that it would be disingenuous to call someone 'belligerent' for saying something like 'No, I would prefer not to leave my seat'. As for those seeking to discredit the character of this victim, I personally find this man's background to give more cause for empathy. Then again, I believe in redemption, and the idea that people can learn from their mistakes. Hopefully United can pick up this simple lesson.
Apr 11, 2017, 11:51 am
#3017
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,875
I mean just that--officially. When the flight is closed, the passenger manifest is final, the door is closed, and everyone is officially boarded. Scanning your ticket is not when you've boarded a flight. And even after the door is closed you may be bumped for many reasons, such as a mechanical issue leading to a plane change, weight and balance issue, safety issue, etc. Your personal belief of what boarded means would create passenger rights that don't exist, break other laws, and are impractical.
Or are you saying it can only be determined after a fact, like the plane has landed at its destination? Because that wouldn't make sense then in the way airlines use it.
Apr 11, 2017, 11:53 am
#3018
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SEA
Programs: Million Miles achieved | 2017 Delta Platinum, United NADA, Global Entry, PreCheck, NEXUS
Posts: 1,295
At least I learned somerpthing new today.
Apr 11, 2017, 11:54 am
#3019
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: BDL/NYC/BOS
Programs: UA/*A Gold, Global Entry, Marriott Plat, Hilton+IHG Gold, Hertz PC, DL
Posts: 1,751
spicer was just asked about it in the daily briefing. WH calls it an "unfortunate incident."
followup question: "has POTUS seen the video?" spicer: "he probably has."
followup question: "has POTUS seen the video?" spicer: "he probably has."
Apr 11, 2017, 11:54 am
#3020
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Gila, NM, USA
Posts: 1,044
They who can give up essential liberty...
A passenger who has already boarded a plane cannot logically be "denied boarding" of that same plane that he has already boarded. When a term is not given a particular definition, its common usage is adopted. The CoC similarly discuss the removal of an already-boarded passenger in other contexts and utilizing different language--but not in regards to an oversell situation.
Nor was the plane oversold, which a number of people have pointed out. UA simply decided they wanted to send crew in this flight, but nothing in the CoC appears to give them a right to remove passengers involuntarily to accomplish that.
And it wasn't even the last flight of the night so UA could have easily chosen to use the IDB procedure to deny boarding to 4 passengers on the later flight (assuming there was any need for this-perhaps there would have been seats available on the 9PM flight, I don't know).
All of the people going to great lengths to justify the airline and the security violently removing this passenger rather than follow their own CoC is frightening. But I have to wonder how many would actually feel the same way if this was done to you or your family?
Do you think Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin or other founding fathers of the US (or their equally brave wives) would have quietly disembarked if a gate agent asked them to with no basis in contract or in law? I doubt it. I give thanks for the brave men and women who stood up to tyranny and proclaimed the innate rights of human beings. These brave individuals risked their lives to oppose a modest increase in the price of their tea. Now we have people saying you should let the airline do virtually anything it wants to your fellow travelers any time, "because 9/11".
But how many would feel this way if it was done to you or your family? Many of this group probably think "oh, this would never happen to me for XYZ reasons." But as Ben Franklin famously said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Those defending the airline sound very much like the Tories in the 13 Colonies who sided with King George and preferred tyranny to freedom.
I applaud this man who stood up for his rights, I hope he comes out of this well, and I encourage us all to think carefully before we surrender essential liberty in the hopes of obtaining temporary safety. When we find out the abused traveler's name I think frequent travelers everywhere should declare April 9 to be annually observed in his honor as a day on which we stand up and advocate for the rights of travelers, not just the privileged and elite ones such as most of us here.
Apr 11, 2017, 11:55 am
#3021
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SEA
Programs: Million Miles achieved | 2017 Delta Platinum, United NADA, Global Entry, PreCheck, NEXUS
Posts: 1,295
A question about this incident was just asked at the Whitehouse Daily Breifing.
Sean Spicer didn't give UA rave review.
Apr 11, 2017, 11:55 am
#3022
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2010
Programs: AA
Posts: 14,724
Why did not UA get a limo / bus for their staff if they needed to be in Louisville next day - about 300 miles - should not be more than 5 hours ?
Now, that doesn't mean someone at UA couldn't have been smart and thought, "instead of only offering a flight 24 hours later, maybe we could offer to pay for someone's shuttle/rental car/uber and then we might get someone to volunteer without having to IDBing anyone."
Apr 11, 2017, 11:56 am
#3023
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Washington DC
Programs: Former 1k, Lifetime UA Gold, Starwood Gold; Avis Preferred; Hertz Gold
Posts: 1,731
Apr 11, 2017, 11:57 am
#3024
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: London (LCY)
Programs: BA bronze, Hilton gold, Marriott gold, IHG plat, Meliá gold, Radisson gold, Hyatt disc, AmexPlat
Posts: 977
Apr 11, 2017, 11:57 am
#3025
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Programs: Continental OnePass Platinum
Posts: 416
Once police officers make a decision to intervene with a case, based upon the facts presented and obvious, and their knowledge of law and experience, the following occur:
A. Issue verbal request to comply
B. Issue verbal command to comply
C. Use that amount of physical force necessary to ensure compliance.
This was never a case of the LEOs using excessive force. It is unfortunate when someone gets injured during the course of an arrest, but that happens when the perpetrator refuses to comply with lawful orders and physical force is necessary.
Too bad that the Chicago Airport Police are not standing by their LEOs. Apparently, they have better PR advice than UA.
A. Issue verbal request to comply
B. Issue verbal command to comply
C. Use that amount of physical force necessary to ensure compliance.
This was never a case of the LEOs using excessive force. It is unfortunate when someone gets injured during the course of an arrest, but that happens when the perpetrator refuses to comply with lawful orders and physical force is necessary.
Too bad that the Chicago Airport Police are not standing by their LEOs. Apparently, they have better PR advice than UA.
The correct action would have been to they everything possible to get the passenger to leave the plane voluntarily, without regard to time. Only when that appeared impossible should they have used force. And then they should have first had the plane emptied for the safety of all of the other passengers, before taking the passenger into custody.
LEOs are generally trained to de-escalate, to enable a situation to resolve itself, right? Why demand immediate compliance and escalate, when the situation appeared calm? True, nobody knows what exactly was said (perhaps the passenger threatened the officers, in which case immediate action was required), but on the surface it appears that the officers unilaterally escalated the situation, presumably with the goal of getting the plane out on time. If that's the case, it's indefensible. Even the people on the plane, who were directly inconvenienced by the passenger's behavior, seemed shocked at the LEOs apparent eagerness to manhandle a passenger.
I'd like to think that the airport police don't work at the direction of UA and its agents. But maybe that's the world we live in.
Apr 11, 2017, 11:57 am
#3026
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Providence RI
Programs: American Exec Plat, Hyatt Refugeeist, Marriot Gold, Air Canada Cattle Class, Korean Air Morning Plat
Posts: 988
Lets see if President Trump tweets about this. It could go three ways.
@UNITED. - Companies have the right to treat customers anyway they want
@china - See what happens when you don't trade fair?
@america - I am going to enact laws that make it illegal for BS companies like United to treat people in this manner and hide behind regulations
Lets hope it is number 3.
...................and I wish United would stop saying the flight was Overbooked. It was not. It was full, everyone boarded the plane, then they said they wanted some room for employees
@UNITED. - Companies have the right to treat customers anyway they want
@china - See what happens when you don't trade fair?
@america - I am going to enact laws that make it illegal for BS companies like United to treat people in this manner and hide behind regulations
Lets hope it is number 3.
...................and I wish United would stop saying the flight was Overbooked. It was not. It was full, everyone boarded the plane, then they said they wanted some room for employees
Apr 11, 2017, 11:58 am
#3027
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: Southwest A-List; Alaska MVPG; Hilton Diamond; Avis PreferredPlus; Marriott Bonvoy Platinum Elite
Posts: 914
Delta Air Lines paid THREE people $11,000, over the course of 3 attempts, not to fly last weekend. Compensation was around $1300 per person, per flight attempt. Here's the actual first-hand account: https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurabe.../#3b59276d4de1
It's unfortunate that a news outlet summarized that article and gave it the headline that they did.
Apr 11, 2017, 11:59 am
#3029
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: CLT
Programs: FT Member #8119 F & J Free Agent
Posts: 6,550
Apr 11, 2017, 12:00 pm
#3030
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA
Programs: Delta
Posts: 43
A few silly questions from someone who mostly takes AMTRAK now and travels rarely
Why can't the voluntary or involuntary bumping process take place OFF the plane in the gate area before a single passenger is permitted into the cabin of the plane?
That's how things used to be done when I was a far more frequent flyer from the 1970s to a bit after 2001 and the implementation of the 'scope or grope' policies of the TSA. I have been bumped (willingly and not so) and I never recall any boarding being allowed to take place until a count of bodies present and seats was done and if there were more bodies than seats, the VDB / IVDB protocol took place BEFORE boarding anyone.
Why didn't a gate agent fib and say there was a mechanical issue or something to get *everyone* off the plane, then discuss the need for voluntary or involuntary denial of boarding? A meltdown at the gate could be handled not only by Chicago Aviation but also regular old Chicago PD.
Failing that why didn't the 3 Chicago Aviation LEOs opt to force everyone off the plane then go through the VDB / IVDB process again OFF the plane at the gate (through a fib or otherwise)?
I worry for a 69 year old man getting a concussion / head injury. That's something that can bring on or exacerbate dementia (which this passenger may have had given some of his odd behaviors).
My Dad in one of his 2 tours of duty of Vietnam got a head injury concussion in 1967. Dad got fronto-temporal dementia later on in life and died November of 2015 (at only age 75).
Perhaps this passenger is in the early stages of dementia and what happened on 3411 has only made things worse for him (and his family and patients assuming the man is still not too far gone and practicing medicine and not acting under the delusion that he is still actively practicing medicine...in dementia time travel and misremembering happens a lot).
Anyway I'm just wondering what happened to that old protocol for boarding process VDB/IVDB and whether going back to it would have prevented a senior citizen from getting his head slammed into an armrest, etc.?
Thanks!
Why can't the voluntary or involuntary bumping process take place OFF the plane in the gate area before a single passenger is permitted into the cabin of the plane?
That's how things used to be done when I was a far more frequent flyer from the 1970s to a bit after 2001 and the implementation of the 'scope or grope' policies of the TSA. I have been bumped (willingly and not so) and I never recall any boarding being allowed to take place until a count of bodies present and seats was done and if there were more bodies than seats, the VDB / IVDB protocol took place BEFORE boarding anyone.
Why didn't a gate agent fib and say there was a mechanical issue or something to get *everyone* off the plane, then discuss the need for voluntary or involuntary denial of boarding? A meltdown at the gate could be handled not only by Chicago Aviation but also regular old Chicago PD.
Failing that why didn't the 3 Chicago Aviation LEOs opt to force everyone off the plane then go through the VDB / IVDB process again OFF the plane at the gate (through a fib or otherwise)?
I worry for a 69 year old man getting a concussion / head injury. That's something that can bring on or exacerbate dementia (which this passenger may have had given some of his odd behaviors).
My Dad in one of his 2 tours of duty of Vietnam got a head injury concussion in 1967. Dad got fronto-temporal dementia later on in life and died November of 2015 (at only age 75).
Perhaps this passenger is in the early stages of dementia and what happened on 3411 has only made things worse for him (and his family and patients assuming the man is still not too far gone and practicing medicine and not acting under the delusion that he is still actively practicing medicine...in dementia time travel and misremembering happens a lot).
Anyway I'm just wondering what happened to that old protocol for boarding process VDB/IVDB and whether going back to it would have prevented a senior citizen from getting his head slammed into an armrest, etc.?
Thanks!
Last edited by NotSoOftenFlyer; Apr 11, 2017 at 12:03 pm Reason: left off part of a sentence
