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 Do not cite, copy, or report on such.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 13, 2017, 10:39 am
  #4741  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by mmdough
Not much has been mentioned about the GA. Why is the GA not being fired yet...didn't he/she wrote a false report?
The report that was posted several hundred comments ago appeared to be an internal UA report, not the report that was submitted to a government authority. I don't doubt that the airline's internal rules provide for employee discipline in such cases, disciplinary action likely would be subject to a lengthy internal adjudication process and confidentiality requirements.

Last edited by Summa Cum Laude Touro Law Center; Apr 13, 2017 at 11:07 am
Summa Cum Laude Touro Law Center is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 10:39 am
  #4742  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 60,168
Originally Posted by Wexflyer
This just got way, way worse for United.
- The injuries to the victim are significant..
Just read that. Yeow

i regret wondering if he was milking his hospital stay earlier. This is legit/severe (assuming it will be documented medical records).

it puts Munoz and UA's first 48 hour response in far worse light.

i think this puts UA regime change squarely on the table. At least Munoz got us better coffee.
uastarflyer is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 10:39 am
  #4743  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Diego, CA
Programs: AA ex-EXP, 2MM (ex DL, ex TWA)
Posts: 1,427
Originally Posted by nmenaker
they would probably be wise to pay a settlement in the amount up to 5M to NOT go to trial.
That is true only in the context of an individual case. What I think is at work here is that this particular incident is being viewed by the victims lawyers as potentially just a headline case, in a **much** larger class action suit. That raises the stakes...
[Edit - note comment by other poster that lawyers denied wanting to make this a class action. Difficult to credit, but apparently they said it...]
Wexflyer is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 10:40 am
  #4744  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Plat, Avis First, Hertz PC
Posts: 575
Originally Posted by richarddd
Buying an airline ticket entitles you to a seat and a flight, as set forth in the contract of carriage and relevant law and regulation. In effect, you own that seat under those terms. The airline does not have the total right to remove you, it can only do so in accordance with the CoC and law.
Thanks for your point of view. I'm totally onboard with the contract issues. However I still believe any private business can have you removed from their property at any time for any reason (landlord/tenant and other exceptions apply). The contract may protect a person from prosecution for trespassing, allow them recourse in civil court, etc. I don't believe the contract in any way prevents a business from asking law enforcement to remove an uncooperative customer, either before or after payment, it only provides recourse for the customer after they are removed from the property.

In turn, we have other laws that give law enforcement the power to enforce compliance with their instructions, completely separate from the contract issues. So once law enforcement is involved, their commands carry the weight of the laws in their jurisdiction (and the remedies allowed if they misuse those powers). Nothing I know of allows a customer to disobey a LEO, their arrest powers are usually very broad. Maybe a good lawyer can get compensation for a wrongful arrest, but our laws still require the person to obey and comply. I don't like these laws either, but they have little to do with United.

Last edited by johnden; Apr 13, 2017 at 10:46 am
johnden is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 10:40 am
  #4745  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 3,657
Originally Posted by George Purcell
Well, he explicitly said this wasn't going to be class action, so we'll see.

But I absolutely agree with you that this is going to trial. No way United or any of the plaintiffs is going to buy this off for essentially any amount of money. A $10 million dollar check, right now, won't stop it. And hopefully, through discovery, all of us will learn exactly what airlines are doing and how they systematically break laws, rules, and regulations to harm passengers when it is in their economic interest to do so.
And that's exactly why, in my opinion, this will never go to trial.

United obviously has a substantial interest in settling out of court.

Frankly, so does the passenger; a settlement means less money spent on lawyer fees, and less time having irrelevant details of his personal life (real or imagined) being debated in public. Plus, juries are notoriously fickle; you never know what can happen if you get a couple of "anything for security" folks on the jury that swing the jury's attitude against the passenger.

I didn't see the press conference. But all of the posturing about "this is going to trial" is exactly what one does in order to set up a strong negotiating position before a settlement.
jkhuggins is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 10:42 am
  #4746  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,430
Originally Posted by Wexflyer
This just got way, way worse for United.
- The injuries to the victim are significant.
- Untruthful UA claims. e.g. reaching out to victim or reps did not happen.

But the even bigger story here is that the lawyers are very clearly aiming to make this a class action suit. They will gather scores to hundreds of incidences of United improperly treating passengers.

Final thoughts: this is going to trial.
A class action requires commonality, essentially, the claims have to be sufficiently similar that there's no real need for separate trials. Here, Dr Dao has unusual claims. No doubt there is someone in this thread with expertise in class certification.

United would have to be insane to let this go to trial. The discovery process would be terrible. Just having this in the news would be terrible, even if they ultimately won.

These lawyers are trying to do the best for their client and themselves. The higher the plausible threat to UA, the higher the payout.
richarddd is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 10:42 am
  #4747  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
Originally Posted by GadgetFreak
I didn't fully comprehend until today the possible impact of additional lawsuits. The discovery process and resulting additional suits could be devastating to United.
Are you kidding? This is a crystallizing moment. Dao's legal team wants it to be. Many more who have been yanked off United planes, threatened or lied to by United employees, had United renege on promises, etc. are going to emerge from the woodwork.

Then consider the testimony of right-thinking, probably former UA people who have nothing to lose by describing the toxic culture they observed.

It's pile-on time. The next few months could be catastrophic. From a karma standpoint, boy, does United Airlines have it coming. And there's no real way out; attacking customers in court instead of in the cabin only makes things worse.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 10:42 am
  #4748  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Programs: AAdvantage Executive Platinum, Delta Silver Medallion, Marriott Bonvoy Ambassador
Posts: 14,099
Originally Posted by jkhuggins
I'm not the person to whom you asked the question ... but as I recall, the GA's report (a photo of which has appeared a few times in this thread) states that:

a) ... the passenger was belligerent, which lead to calling the airport authority officers. Videos of the passenger's interaction with the officers prior to the physical encounter seem to show the passenger acting calmly.

b) ... the passenger struck the officers who were removing him. That account seems to have been refuted by eyewitness testimony and the various video accounts.
Thanks. I have seen pretty much all the videos (I think), but have not seen the GA's report (I think I have "seen" it, but have not been able to make it large enough to view, if that makes sense). In any event, yet another wow to add to my list of wows in this event. Wow. I initially thought Dao was going to eat their lunch. Now I think he's going to own a UA jet when all is said and done.
ysolde is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 10:44 am
  #4749  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,203
Why do these airlines (and politicians including the Flexident) insist that overbooking valid business practice?

Sure, empty seat is irreversible lost revenur but so is empty room in hotel and seats in baseball games.

Do they "re-accomodate" fans?
Even when hotel walks you, you do get room and it is free.

If airlines somehow ensures that you do reach your destination within couple of hours of scheduled time and while doing so they fully refund the money then can overbook.

Overbooking should be allowed but IDB should involve
a) Every effort by airline (at any cost) to make pax reach destination within 2 hours fo scheduled time including buying walkin-fare at competition (and ticket needs to be refunded in full plus some compensation for stress/inconvenience)
b) If they indeed cant arrange for that ,they need to make a signed statement stating that they have indeed tried their best and now will pay ten times the total fare (including tax) subject to some minimum for doing IDB
c) Remove any limits on what airlines can pay for VDB
d) All compensation has to be in CASh (no vouchers)

Airlines can still have their overbooking ability but at huge cost if they get it wrong
desi is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 10:47 am
  #4750  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
Originally Posted by richarddd
A class action requires commonality, essentially, the claims have to be sufficiently similar that there's no real need for separate trials. Here, Dr Dao has unusual claims. No doubt there is someone in this thread with expertise in class certification.
The attorney specifically said he did not see basis for a class action. But a trial built around the Dao incident can do broad public good by driving regulatory changes.

United will no doubt offer a massive sum to make this go away. The question is whether the aim here is to make Dao + lawyers rich, or change United forcibly.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 10:48 am
  #4751  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,430
Originally Posted by johnden
Thanks for your point of view. I'm totally onboard with the contract issues. However I still believe any private business can have you removed from their property at any time for any reason (landlord/tenant and other exceptions apply). The contract may protect a person from prosecution for trespassing, allow them recourse in civil court, etc. I don't believe the contract in any way prevents a business from asking law enforcement to remove an uncooperative customer, either before or after payment, it only provides recourse for the customer after they are removed from the property.

In turn, we have other laws that give law enforcement the power to enforce compliance with their instructions, completely separate from the contract issues. So once law enforcement is involved, their commands carry the weight of the laws in their jurisdiction (and the remedies allowed).
Nothing prevents a business from asking law enforcement from doing anything. That doesn't mean the request is legitimate.

You are not obligated to follow illegitimate instructions from law enforcement. If you disagree, please cite a specific relevant law or controlling case. Or read back through this thread, where the point has been discussed numerous times.

EDIT: A recent highly publicized scenario of not having to follow LEO instructions is video of LEO actions. Many officers tell people to stop, or even arrest them for filming, yet courts do not back up the LEO. If you were right that "their commands carry the weight of the laws in their jurisdiction", this could not happen.

Last edited by richarddd; Apr 13, 2017 at 10:54 am
richarddd is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 10:49 am
  #4752  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
Originally Posted by desi
Why do these airlines (and politicians including the Flexident) insist that overbooking valid business practice?
Overbooking is standard in many businesses where success depends on a customer showing up: hotels, hair salons, medical practices, etc.
BearX220 is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 10:50 am
  #4753  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 107
If United was willing to pay $2.2M fine on the Chairmans Flight and keep Jeff out of jail (plus Jeff got his approx $8M bonus) this is going to be at least a $5M settlement.
Flyer1M is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 10:53 am
  #4754  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 197
Originally Posted by BearX220
The question is whether the aim here is to make Dao + lawyers rich, or change United forcibly.
Why not both?
photaco is offline  
Old Apr 13, 2017, 10:54 am
  #4755  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: ORD/MDW
Programs: BA/AA/AS/B6/WN/ UA/HH/MR and more like 'em but most felicitously & importantly MUCCI
Posts: 19,719
Originally Posted by photaco
Why not both?
Indeed.
BearX220 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.