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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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 12, 2017, 2:18 pm
  #4306  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Programs: American Airlines
Posts: 1
UA Upgraded From Breaking Guitars To Breaking Passenger

Originally Posted by PilgrimsProgress
There was already a letter from the Senate commerce committee to United and the Chicago dept of aviation asking them to answer certain pointed questions by April 20.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/11/senator...ited-incident/
Originally Posted by Kacee
Well the abstract question is how would a court interpret that term as it's used in the CoC. Not how it was used in a UA press release. I think the CoC is going to be interpreted in light of industry usage.

Take a look at your BP next time you fly. It tells you when "boarding" starts and when it ends. That's the industry usage, and I would wager that most passengers are generally familiar with that usage.

Now it may be prudent to IDB pax before they've taken their seats, but the airline has a very good argument that "boarding" doesn't end until the GA closes the flight and/or the boarding door.
My friends and family have always stayed away from flying UA due to many horror stories of UA's poor treatment of musical instruments, but now it looks as though they have upgraded themselves to breaking passenger! A musician many years ago actually wrote a song about United Breaks Guitars,

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Apr 12, 2017 at 2:30 pm Reason: repaired post; read blog posting rules before posting links
WindermereSun is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 2:19 pm
  #4307  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 72
Originally Posted by LondonElite
Maybe it's just me but I don't get all the fuss here. Pilot decides that four people must come off the plane to make room for crew. No volunteers so four get chosen at random. Three go, one refuses. Captain's orders are to get the fourth one off the plane. He's had a chance to go peacefully, so then police take him off. Not in any way condoning the behaviour, but the affected passenger seems to have made life very difficult for himself when he didn't need to. I suspect the ensuing melee was partly the fault of both sides. A bunch of 'I'm sorry' should go around, but those talking of million dollar lawsuits need their heads examined. Take it up with the Chicago PD for 'brutality' if you want.
This will end up costing United millions to its bottom line and if Congress gets involved it might cost the whole industry. The airline industry in general and United in particular are very customer unfriendly. We can only hope this indecent is a wake up call for United and the industry. Human beings should be treated as valued customers and treated with respect. This industry treats human beings like cargo. I hope United pays out the nose for this.
moreofless is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 2:20 pm
  #4308  
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 Klimo
No. They should reimburse pax that have to witness a horrific event that seems to be 100% the fault of United. Delays happen for all sorts of reasons, IDB happen all the time and are dealt with properly and legally, encounters with LEOS happen for justifiable reasons.

None of that is this case in this situation.
So anytime there is blood shed on the plane, free travel, gotcha.
mre5765 is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 2:21 pm
  #4309  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 563
Originally Posted by Kacee
Well the abstract question is how would a court interpret that term as it's used in the CoC. Not how it was used in a UA press release. I think the CoC is going to be interpreted in light of industry usage.

Take a look at your BP next time you fly. It tells you when "boarding" starts and when it ends. That's the industry usage, and I would wager that most passengers are generally familiar with that usage.

Now it may be prudent to IDB pax before they've taken their seats, but the airline has a very good argument that "boarding" doesn't end until the GA closes the flight and/or the boarding door.
Not to quibble with you, but isn't the language of the CoC ambiguous enough in this regard it could be challenged successfully?
DrPSB is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 2:22 pm
  #4310  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,459
Originally Posted by richarddd
UA specifically said the flight was not overbooked or oversold. If the plane had a passenger in every seat and the deadheading employees were ticketed, how was the flight not oversold?

UA defines "Oversold Flight means a flight where there are more Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets that check-in for the flight within the prescribed check-in time than there are available seats."

That suggests that the employees were not "Passengers holding valid confirmed Tickets" (or that UA is being inaccurate in its public statements).

Why are you sure the employees were ticketed, as defined in the CoC? Why would you think internal policy or union contracts trump the CoC?
Would it have been possible for the employees to have boarded based simply on the "must fly" label without actually issuing them tickets for that particular flight? Because that's what it sounds like happened.
Kacee is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 2:22 pm
  #4311  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 125
Originally Posted by mre5765
So anytime there is blood shed on the plane, free travel, gotcha.
You're intentionally being dismissive of my comment. but ok.
Klimo is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 2:26 pm
  #4312  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by Kacee
Take a look at your BP next time you fly. It tells you when "boarding" starts and when it ends. That's the industry usage, and I would wager that most passengers are generally familiar with that usage.
This would be the same industry that sometimes insists "boarding" ceases five minutes before pushback when they refuse to let a late arriving passenger on a plane?
George Purcell is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 2:28 pm
  #4313  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,459
Originally Posted by DrPSB
Not to quibble with you, but doesn't the CoC refer to the passenger having boarded, as opposed to when boarding is complete?
Rule 25 refers to "boarding." For example:
"When UA is unable to provide previously confirmed space due to an Oversold flight, UA will provide transportation to such Passengers who have been denied boarding whether voluntarily or involuntarily in accordance with the provisions below."
UA CoC

If this were litigated, I would expect UA to argue that in industry usage, "boarding" is not complete until the flight and/or boarding door has closed, such that they can take away a seat up until that time. That has certainly been the airlines' consistent belief and approach.

But again, I think this is something of a red herring legally . . . you don't even get to arguing about "boarding" unless the flight was oversold, and UA has acknowledged it was not.
Kacee is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 2:29 pm
  #4314  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,459
Originally Posted by George Purcell
This would be the same industry that sometimes insists "boarding" ceases five minutes before pushback when they refuse to let a late arriving passenger on a plane?
Yes. They would say they have the right to define when "boarding" ends.
Kacee is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 2:31 pm
  #4315  
 
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 minnyfly
You have displayed little knowledge of airline operations, and your "solutions" exhibit that lack of expertise.

Deadheading employees are ticketed passengers with highest priority--"must-ride". In fact, these tickets are contractually controlled, there's even specific seat requirements. There are stipulations the airlines must follow, and they must be in accordance with federal law on work/rest rules. It's that way for a purpose. You would be violating the rights of the employee to say that have no right to be on that airplane. They have as much right to be there as any customer and even more rights contractually.

You have no idea what you're talking about the second paragraph. Those rights for employee travel are there for your benefit as a customer. Your "solution" would lead to more delayed and cancelled flights to due unavailable crew, inconveniencing far more people, leading to more chances of upset customers. You think these employees LIKE having to bump people? Of course not. But they and the company know it's for the better good of both customer and airline.
So the airlines don't have the foresight to block a few seats for positive space travel and instead the stated policy is to rely on a wholly one-sided CofC IDB which is eventually enforced by the local goons de jour.

In other businesses we have to plan this out ahead of time, can't rely on law enforcement to enforce contracts (unless their is a crime against property or persons being committed). And if I told a customer that I was taking their order/service out of their hands after delivering it to them 'for their benefit' they would rightly call the cops on me for theft. Positive space travel is a cost of doing business and should be treated without impact on revenue passengers. As UA promised the feds several years ago, every ticketed pax is guaranteed a seat on the plane.

UA failed to get their sh**t together, continues to run a horrible operation, and has to rely on bribing customers out of their seats in order to get employees in position to operate flights on a daily basis. What a shoestring operation this is that a single guy saying no can bring a massive transportation corporation to its knees. If I was a risk management consultant for this airline, huge red flags would have been up for all the vulnerabilities in place. This airline clearly has many more issues than the videos.
prestonh is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 2:33 pm
  #4316  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: SEA
Programs: DL DM, HH diamond
Posts: 330
Originally Posted by George Purcell
The internal accounting of the airline for placing crew on a manifest does not create a ticketed passenger under contract. And it is, frankly, offensive, that the way airlines code that travel explicitly places their own employees as more important than any passenger. But thanks for expressing the view that employees have more right to be on an airplane than passengers--because that is exactly the attitude that this "must fly" "help a buddy out" employee culture creates.

Passengers do not benefit because airlines retain insufficient latent capacity to place crews in their workplace locations without having passengers placed under threat of not being flown at the time and to the place they initially booked.
I think minnyfly demonstrated quite nicely (if unintentionally) your point about the attitude of entitlement - and frankly, disdain - with which many airline employees seem to view passengers these days. The airlines exist to serve their customers, not the other way around.

It's abundantly clear that UA forgot this a long time ago. The culture is rotten, and at this point UA needs a complete reboot, starting with showing Oscar the door and putting someone in who understands that the company needs a complete turnaround.
AK-business-traveler is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 2:36 pm
  #4317  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: YYZ/YTZ/YUL
Programs: BA Gold, TK Elite
Posts: 1,558
Originally Posted by sw3
Not absurd if caused by unforeseen circumstances. A similar case would be an outdoor wedding venue with 400 guests and an indoor hall for 300. If it rains, well, 100 guests must either get wet or leave; they could also get in the hall and put the venue in violation of the fire code, something the venue is likely to refuse and would instead declare the event over without reimbursement in case of non-compliance. And sure the 100 guests who would have to stay out wouldn't include the bride, groom and their closest relatives.
Except that the guests have paid big bucks to attend, which is what made the party possible in the first place. And then one of the guests says "hang on a minute, you can't just kick me out" and takes a seat. At which point, instead of discussing a refund or other compensation for the guest's inconvenience, you call in a bunch of strongmen who proceed to punch that guest, slam him to the ground and drag him out by his feet.
TravellingSalesman is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 2:43 pm
  #4318  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 4,002
Originally Posted by carl johnson
if it's -40 f, it's not so bad. -40 c, though...
-40f = -40c
c*1.8 + 32 = f
WillTravel is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 2:44 pm
  #4319  
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by Kacee
Yes. They would say they have the right to define when "boarding" ends.
Even accepting that industry-specific definition of "boarding" is the operative one--and I don't accept that--it cannot be the case that "boarding" can have any number of meanings the meaning of which changes depending on when it is to the advantage of the airline.

In this case all ticketed passengers with reserved seats were on the plane. The CEO of United even described this situation as "boarded." There are tens of thousands of examples when an airline, prior to pushback and with an open door, has told passengers that "boarding" is complete and thus they may not enter the plane.

In short, there is no industry-specific definition of "boarding" that United can point to that should be used instead of the commonly used definition of the term.

Honestly, I'd LOVE to see United try to argue that "boarding" means anything other than its common definition. I think any decent attorney would make a mockery of them.
George Purcell is offline  
Old Apr 12, 2017, 2:45 pm
  #4320  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC: UA 1K, DL Platinum, AAirpass, Avis PC
Posts: 4,599
Originally Posted by umustbjokim
True, but.... Many years ago I recommended some changes to quality procedures in the place I worked (part of my job). The VP of Operations sent back my (really brilliant, if you ask me) reco's with a kind of rude note that said "How can you justify this financially?" Fast forward a few months, company had a big recall that ultimately cost $250MM - would have been avoided if they had updated those procedures. I was gone, but still had that note. Wanted to send it back to VP with a note of my own that said "Any questions?"

Bottom line is bottom line can really implode when the disregard for customer, quality, experience gets too great...
It was a fair question on his part. You can't have 'quality at all costs.'

Too often though people don't push to factor the probability of something going wrong and being costly when making recommendations or dismissing them.

So if the changes you mentioned cost $25mn, and you said "there's about a 20% chance of a $250mn recall in a given year (or whatever all-in cost you want to use)" then there's an expected loss of $50mn for not doing it.

Which raises a lot more flags than a "we should do this because something could go wrong at some point," which tends to happen when functional roles that don't manage the P&L make recommendations.

It's on both sides to think it through better, but in many organizations you too often have a toxic standoffish attitude from both sides that prevents this.
cerealmarketer 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.