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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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 11, 2017, 2:35 pm
  #3346  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: LH SEN; BA Gold
Posts: 8,405
Originally Posted by trk1
This was a police action problem--not an employee problem.
It is in the sense that they call cops when LEO were uncalled for.

Originally Posted by trk1
The passenger could have ended the problem quickly by getting off the plane and dealing with it at the airport.
The same could be said about UA. "We are very generously offering 1,000$ in cash for whoever leaves now and settles with a guaranteed seat on the very next flight even if that happens to be an AA/DL/... flight!".
WorldLux is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 2:36 pm
  #3347  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,664
Originally Posted by Peterpack
I can vouch for that and i'm sure it has a lot to do with the fact that because the US has so many guns in society, US cops are always wary of who is armed with a firearm
I once asked a Japanese cop if he was ever worried out about being attacked, he basically just laughed.

I asked the same to a city cop where I live and he also laughed, but not in a funny way. He basically said that nearly every time he gets called for a domestic one of the people involved pulls a weapon or goes after him.
ROCAT is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 2:36 pm
  #3348  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,107
Originally Posted by Ber2dca

75% of the selected pax accepted the verdict and left the plane *and* will receive cash compensation as mandated by the Department of Transport.
How do you know they'll receive cash compensation? When they departed the plane they were told they were getting $800 in travel vouchers.

Passengers on the plane who were on the news shows yesterday said that UA wasn't offering cash, but "United $$". They also questioned why UA didn't offer more if they really wanted folk to accept the offer. One person said they'd do it for $1,600 in vouchers & was scoffed at.

Cheers.
SkiAdcock is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 2:37 pm
  #3349  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Greensboro, NC, USA
Posts: 100
It seems that the three "tipping points" were when UA called the airport cops, when the airport cops agreed to be involved, and when they chose to use force. UA was definitely responsible for #1 , maybe not so much for #2 & #3 , though that depends on Illinois law.

Setting aside the whole question of whether this was "involuntary denied boarding," or something else (which is mostly a contract issue with maybe a DOT fine if UA blew it), UA asked the passenger to leave (they can ask) and he refused. He was an invitee to the plane so not a trespasser (and I question whether Illinois law even recognizes a trespass to personal property). He has committed no crime, the "interfere with flight crew" analysis does not fit because he neither assaulted nor threatened a member of the flight crew, simply ignored a gate agent and maybe a flight attendant. (49 USC 46504). If he disregarded a flight attendant without an assault or threat then it's a regulatory offense, not a crime and not arrestable. (14 CFR 121.580).

When the airport cops were called they should have told UA there is no crime, let us know if he threatens anyone or becomes disruptive, otherwise sayonara. (I note that several years ago in Munich, Germany when US Airways passengers refused to deplane the German police told US Airways that it was their problem, not a police matter, which is the right answer). But the security / airport police chose to get involved (bad decision, and ultimately will be an expensive one). They told the passenger to leave. Contrary to the belief of a hundred million or so people in this country, disregarding a police order is not a crime. It may be dumb, poor judgment, might get you shot, and a lot of things but in most states, mine included, it is not a crime. So at this point there is no (legitimate) arrest because no crime has been committed. Absent an arrest, the airport cops (assuming they even have power of arrest), can only use force to protect themselves or others from harm. Nothing suggests the passenger threatened anyone. The right answer for the cops is walk away (I'm not giving the passenger a free pass, either, as a practical matter his decision making was not the best).

So then UAL has to smart their way through it. Pay more money. Cancel the flight and reboard who you want. Tell the passengers that until one more person gets off the plane goes nowhere and wait for a little social pressure. Lots of possibilities here.

It has become disturbingly common that some airline employees try to resolve customer disputes, often created by them, by calling law enforcement. Munoz's post suggest this is SOP for "noncompliance," which if it is, needs to change. Law enforcement (or whoever they are) also needs better training on "when to say no." As I see it so far, the airport police are guilty of civil and criminal batteries and probably kidnapping, (though I'm not holding my breath for the charge, after all, this is illinois where even shooting unarmed fleeing persons is OK with the State's Attorney). UAL may be civilly liable for false imprisonment, and possibly the battery, as well (depending on Illinois law of vicarious liability for intentional torts). And most of all, it will forever be a business school case of what not to do.

Last edited by carolinaflyr; Apr 11, 2017 at 2:43 pm
carolinaflyr is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 2:37 pm
  #3350  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
Originally Posted by sincx
You wish.

A state appellate court in a deep-red state owned by a few large corporations? Maybe. But not in federal court (or Illinois state court).
Federal courts are owned by the corporations. The post-9/11 law is on the airlines' and airport cops' sides.
mre5765 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 2:39 pm
  #3351  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: where lions are led by donkeys...
Programs: Lifetime Gold, Global Entry, Hertz PC, and my wallet
Posts: 20,340
I love how all the other passengers bravely protesting while bravely videoing remained bravely sat down doing absolutely nothing to actively help the guy being picked on.
Silver Fox is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 2:40 pm
  #3352  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada, USA, Europe
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 31,452
Has this been reported yet?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...t-gay-sex.html

Seems the person in question had anger management issues and traded drugs for sex, with his license revoked at least once. Maybe there is another side to this story?

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 13, 2017 at 10:34 pm
LondonElite is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 2:40 pm
  #3353  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SJC, SFO, YYC
Programs: AA-EXP, AA-0.41MM, UA-Gold, Ex UA-1K (2006 thru 2015), PMUA-0.95MM, COUA-1.5MM-lite, AF-Silver
Posts: 13,437
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock
How do you know they'll receive cash compensation? When they departed the plane they were told they were getting $800 in travel vouchers.

Passengers on the plane who were on the news shows yesterday said that UA wasn't offering cash, but "United $$". They also questioned why UA didn't offer more if they really wanted folk to accept the offer. One person said they'd do it for $1,600 in vouchers & was scoffed at.

Cheers.
Correct Sharon. They should get 4X of the airfare they paid in cash, but most likely were conned into taking $800 vouchers. This is SOP for UA. Technically legal because the pax is told to sign away his IDB rights without knowing the law.
mre5765 is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 2:40 pm
  #3354  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,639
Originally Posted by mre5765
No doubt. And on appeal reduced to 4 figures.
And 6~8 figures in legal fees. Still a lot more than the 2K in compensation they could have paid so that this never happened in the first place.
stupidhead is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 2:40 pm
  #3355  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 413
I have a question

The man was pulled off the plane. How did he get back on board ? surely there would have been someone guarding the door to prevent that ?

And then how did they get him off again ?
Peterpack is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 2:40 pm
  #3356  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 71,107
Originally Posted by carolinaflyr
It seems that the three "tipping points" were when UA called the airport cops, when the airport cops agreed to be involved, and when they chose to use force. UA was definitely responsible for #1 , maybe not so much for #2 & #3 , though that depends on Illinois law. Setting aside the whole question of whether this was "involuntary denied boarding," or something else (which is mostly a contract issue with maybe a DOT fine if UA blew it), UA asked the passenger to leave (they can ask) and he refused. He was an invitee to the plane so not a trespasser (and I question whether Illinois law even recognizes a trespass to personal property). He has committed no crime, the "interfere with flight crew" analysis does not fit because he neither assaulted nor threatened a member of the flight crew, simply ignored a gate agent and maybe a flight attendant. (49 USC 46504). If he disregarded a flight attendant without an assault or threat then it's a regulatory offense, not a crime and not arrestable. (14 CFR 121.580). When the airport cops were called they should have told UA there is no crime, let us know if he threatens anyone or becomes disruptive, otherwise sayonara. (I note that several years ago in Munich, Germany when US Airways passengers refused to deplane the German police told US Airways that it was their problem, not a police matter, which is the right answer). But the security / airport police chose to get involved (bad decision, and ultimately will be an expensive one). They told the passenger to leave. Contrary to the belief of a hundred million or so people in this country, disregarding a police order is not a crime. It may be dumb, poor judgment, might get you shot, and a lot of things but in most states, mine included, it is not a crime. So at this point there is no (legitimate) arrest because no crime has been committed. Absent an arrest, the airport cops (assuming they even have power of arrest), can only use force to protect themselves or others from harm. Nothing suggests the passenger threatened anyone. The right answer for the cops is walk away (I'm not giving the passenger a free pass, either, as a practical matter his decision making was not the best). So then UAL has to smart their way through it. Pay more money. Cancel the flight and reboard who you want. Tell the passengers that until one more person gets off the plane goes nowhere and wait for a little social pressure. Lots of possibilities here. It has become disturbingly common that some airline employees try to resolve customer disputes, often created by them, by calling law enforcement. Munoz's post suggest this is SOP for "noncompliance," which if it is, needs to change. Law enforcement (or whoever they are) also needs better training on "when to say no." As I see it so far, the airport police are guilty of civil and criminal batteries and probably kidnapping, (though I'm not holding my breath for the charge, after all, this is illinois where even shooting unarmed fleeing persons is OK with the State's Attorney). UAL may be civilly liable for false imprisonment, and possibly the battery, as well (depending on Illinois law of vicarious liability for intentional torts). And most of all, it will forever be a business school case of what not to do.
Could you break the above into paragraphs? Too hard to read as is.

Cheers.
SkiAdcock is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 2:41 pm
  #3357  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NY Metro Area
Programs: AA 2MM Yay!, UA MM, Costco General Member
Posts: 49,038
Originally Posted by trk1
This was a police action problem--not an employee problem.
The passenger could have ended the problem quickly by getting
off the plane and dealing with it at the airport.

Social media should spend time on real world problems
This was an airline problem and United could have solved it by offering more for the bumps. I had the exact opposite reaction re social media as well, something social media is good for.
GadgetFreak is online now  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 2:41 pm
  #3358  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 413
Originally Posted by Silver Fox
I love how all the other passengers bravely protesting while bravely videoing remained bravely sat down doing absolutely nothing to actively help the guy being picked on.
Because it's so easy to take on three burley cops who have already demonstrated a love for violence !

They did the right thing (and as if happened the most effective thing),they recorded it and posted it for the world to see
Peterpack is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 2:42 pm
  #3359  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 2,808
Originally Posted by The smallest state
and......................the person buying the product is not allowed to resell it. So UA can sell 105% of the seats on the flights, but I cannot sell my ticket to another party.
In fact it is worse than that. Once an airline has your money, for any non-refundable fare, you have a 100% perishable, non-transferable, commodity that becomes worthless the minute that plane hits its block time unless the GA keys your BP into the system as boarded or you fork over the extortion $ to change the ticket to a later time/date or there are SDC/irrops changes. AND if UA changes its plans for deadheads it appears that the burden of balance is also on this perishable commodity (I mean no one expects UA to pay a change fee for their employees tickets, even though they are angling for the same perishable commodity), diminishing its value further considering you can be bumped at will and or thrown off the plane with force if necessary.

It wouldn't surprise me it they canx the guys ticket because the GA didn't board him.

What if this evolves to the point that if the GA doesn't like your seat assignment...is LEO getting involved the next time you inqire?

I foresee this ending up with rule changes like when they stranded all those pax on the tarmac for hours with overflowing toilets in the snowstorms and couldn't get them into the terminals, because 'rules'.
prestonh is offline  
Old Apr 11, 2017, 2:43 pm
  #3360  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Programs: United: 1K
Posts: 390
Originally Posted by trk1
This was a police action problem--not an employee problem.
The passenger could have ended the problem quickly by getting
off the plane and dealing with it at the airport.

Social media should spend time on real world problems
It appears to me that social media has done an outstanding job of forcing United to reviews their policies for how to incentivize volunteers, how to handle oversold situations and how they partner with law enforcement.

Far more effectively that the feeble protections offered up by FAA regulations that can be dismantled at the whim of whoever is in charge of the Whitehouse and Congress.

To your point, social media doesn't have to only address the single most important issue in the world and neglect anything else. Social media is capable of multitasking. It is fully empowered to address issues that affect billions and an issue that only affects one person. As it should be.
dweick 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.