exunited wrote:

The flight was by Republic Airlines, not United mainline but then nobody would take the click bait if the headlines said Republic now would they?

No it wasn't. It was marketed as a United flight. It was sold as a United flight, the darn aircraft was in UA's colors. Saying it was by Republic Airlines is ridiculous.

I don't understand why people are having a hard time unpacking this.

1) UA has blame for how they directly handled the denied boarding situation. As others pointed out above, the situation should have been resolved at the gate and they should have offered higher compensation.

2) The airport police are the ones to blame for escalating the situation to as far as it went in the video there. It's important to separate and distinguish the fact that UA did not order the passenger beaten. The blame for the violent treatment rests solely with the airport police.

joeljack wrote:

I back United 100% in this situation. Those two cops should be fired on the spot - administrative leave to investigate..waste of time. Watch video, investigation complete. You're fired.

Proper procedure:
Cops to the passenger: "If you don't get up and get off the plane everybody will be asked to deplane the aircraft and you will be forcibly removed from the plane"

If passenger doesn't comply, empty the plane, deal with the passenger that won't move, then re-board aircraft. It is 100% unprofessional of the cops to deal with a passenger in front of other passengers like this when he wasn't an immediate threat.

Now could United have been pro-active and first evacuated the plane to deal with him, yes but in United's defense, how in the world would they have known the cops were going to act like that.

I will try my hardest to send 100% of my business this year to United, I feel bad for them right now. The media is making it out to be United's fault which is totally the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

By this comment, I would have to say there is always one in every crowd... You remind me of those SCIFI books or movies whose plots deal with alien invasions. While all of humanity are dying from fighting the invaders, there is also one human who cozies up to the aliens in the hope of getting a good deal. Karma is always a big bad bitch, though...

Cubsrule wrote:

phlswaflyer wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Unless UA violated the contract of carriage -which does not appear to be the case based on the limited information available - this is no gaffe.

Airlines cannot and should not be in the business of picking IDBs based on whose time is most valuable. If this man's arrival in Louisville were truly as important as it evidently is in his head he should have (1) checked in sooner, (2) bought a more expensive ticket, (3) booked a flight that returned him to Louisville with more time to spare or (4) not traveled in the first place.

Like most people who travel a lot for business, I play the "take the last flight out" game from time to time. It is not without risk.

So, he should have thought ".....maybe I am in danger of getting violently pulled off my plane because I didn't but a more expensive ticket". One thing has NOTHING to do with another. Maybe the guy is not a savvy traveler OR maybe he didn't stop to think that he would be attacked for buying a cheap ticket or for that matter maybe he should have been born rich so he could have a private jet? Perhaps with your logic he should have..hmmm....planned his itinerary around the the thought that maybe he could get beat up. Wait...you must be in his head since you have the answers to things he should have done but have no idea what he could actually do. Why attack the fact that he is a doctor?

Sorry, but this gets the award for the dumbest most moronic and insensitive response ever.

It's not really an attack or a commentary on the specific situation. Stuff happens while flying. You either protect yourself to the extent that you can or you deal with the consequences of not having done so. All of us who fly a lot have seen crazy stuff mess up flights and understand this.

This in no way excuses the police response.

I'm going to stop you right there. First of all if you were the one who was allowed to board the plane you paid for, and then after you stow away your carry-on luggage and get comfortable, you are approached out of nowhere by a crew member who demands you have to leave the aircraft, and the best they can offer you for your "volunteering of your seat" is 800 in VOUCHERS and they will rebook you for a flight the NEXT afternoon. And not to mention missing invaluable amount of time and money. And considering he is a doctor, he could have been using that time to save dozens of patients lives. Then adding on to that you are ripped out of your seat and have your head bashed against an armrest, and are dragged off the plane bleeding from your head while unconscious. I guarantee to you wouldn't walk up to the airport staff and calmly say, "STUFF HAPPENS WHILE FLYING," I mean are you kidding me this person has been humiliated by being videotaped and watched by millions of people around the world, this person could have head trauma that leads to brain damage for the rest of his life, and you have the nerve to say "stuff happens while flying." United is completely in the wrong in this situation, and you say "STUFF HAPPENS WHILE FLYING." MY GOD, I pray for you if that is your mindset. Stand up for what is right. 90 % of the people in this forum fly regularly including me, so you aren't special. I can personally say that through all my years of flying every us carrier (low-cost and legacy) I have never experienced anything even near the magnitude of what happened here. But I really hope if you saw something like this happening while you were flying, you didn't just sit and watch, I hope you would have had the common sense to speak up for the passenger who was in the right.

juliuswong wrote:

You got to be dead serious!!! I can't believe there are actually so many people here defending UA/security action. Good God! Something is wrong somewhere, I just can't pinpoint it!

They are either UA employees or some airline folks who are under the misguided world view that airlines can do no wrong. I see it from time to time and it never fails to amaze me.

I love how some people are defending United by saying "But.. but... the other's do the same..."

I think everyone here is pretty much on the same page saying NO AIRLINE should ever handle a customer issue this way, nor should ANY CUSTOMER be removed from his assigned seat after being allowed to board, because the airline oversold his seat and decided he should just accept it.

You guys are really fighting for the airline's profit over the wellbeing of the paying passengers. UNBELIEVABLE!

goCOgo wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

You seem to be defining denied boarding as simply getting on the plane. Denied boarding is not a defined term in the contract of carriage and is used more broadly than your suggestion. You can get on the plane, and be asked to leave and that considered denied boarding. It actually happens all the time due to weight restrictions. Sometimes a flight will board, but weather conditions will change and force the crew to take fewer passengers after the boarding is completed. Those passengers are thus "denied boarding" because they were not allowed to complete the flight.

You're reading too tightly to the language and not the intent of the language.

Your wrote, "It actually happens all the time due to weight restrictions." And thank you for pointing that out. Between my flights (flights I worked), commuting flights, deadheading flights and just regular travel flights, I can't count the number of times where I've seen Denied Boarding become necessary after boarding had begun or was even completed. As much as you don't want it to happen, it does. I've been denied boarding after taking my seat several times.

Please understand that I'm not defending UAL, just stating what should be an obvious point; something that many here apparently aren't aware of or chose to ignore.

I hope to hear/see a statement from the Chicago Aviation Police on what happened.

I've never seen it happen on a 50+ seat jet. But in any case, this was not a weight issue. They knew they needed to keep 4 empty seats and chose to board everyone anyway, when they computer should have made ID'd the 4 IDB candidates in seconds.

And, as I said, they need to define it in the CoC better if we are going to say it can also happen after boarding. I mean, honestly, even if your definition is true, how is a layman to know being denied boarding can occur after being allowed to board? To any reasonable person, they are mutually exclusive.

Did UA or Republic know in advance that a crew of 4* needed to deadhead on that flight? It may have been a late - after boarding - necessary change; I've seen that happen before, though it's rare.

*4 would be the number of a EMB-170 or 175 crew (two pilots, two flight attendants).

I had the experience of flying UA once. After that I decided that I would pay significantly more to fly with alternative airlines. Unfortunately this incident suggests that they have not improved. I am also absolutely shocked to see so many people actually defending the airline/police.
To those who said it is Republic not UA-It is like Boeing say 787 was delayed due to subcontractors therefore its no our fault-it makes no sense
The response by Munoz was also pitifully inadequate. Apologizing for "re-accommodating"? How about apologizing for creating the situation in the first place? Essentially what happened was the airline decided to say money, elected to utilize the police and hide behind the "it is my plane I have absolute control"doctrine and unnecessary harm was done to a passenger who did nothing to deserve being bumped off the flight.

Oscar letter this evening:


April 10, 2017

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.

=

joeljack wrote:

I back United 100% in this situation. Those two cops should be fired on the spot - administrative leave to investigate..waste of time. Watch video, investigation complete. You're fired.

Proper procedure:
Cops to the passenger: "If you don't get up and get off the plane everybody will be asked to deplane the aircraft and you will be forcibly removed from the plane"

If passenger doesn't comply, empty the plane, deal with the passenger that won't move, then re-board aircraft. It is 100% unprofessional of the cops to deal with a passenger in front of other passengers like this when he wasn't an immediate threat.

Now could United have been pro-active and first evacuated the plane to deal with him, yes but in United's defense, how in the world would they have known the cops were going to act like that.

I will try my hardest to send 100% of my business this year to United, I feel bad for them right now. The media is making it out to be United's fault which is totally the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

If you back United 100%, why would the board a passenger when they had already made an announcement pre-boarding that it was overbooked? Why would they allow that poor guy to board, knowing fully well they would not have room for him + the crew? Whose fault is it?

exunited wrote:

The process for law enforcement is 1. ASK, 2. TELL, 3. MAKE - it's your choice at point 1 or 2 but should you get to step 3, you will be leaving with plenty of assistance. If you are a Doctor or a brick layer, it makes no difference. As some have said, it's the airplane operator's decision as to who gets on and who gets off, they owe you a refund if they don't get you to point B and that's all.

It's a pretty safe bet you never worked customer service, let alone public relations. Your attitude is typical mindless 'law and order' BS. This is a headache of epic proportions for UA. Having worked airline customer service, the very first rule is: NEVER ESCALATE A SITUATION.

1. The Federal limits for denied boarding compensation were not close to being met. They stopped at $800 when the Fed Limit is $1300.
2. The decision to board pax BEFORE obtaining volunteers was yet another poor decision. It's far easier to get volunteers before anyone boards.
3. Airport police broke a shitload of procedure guidelines
4. UA crew should have stepped in to regain control of the situation.

Gate agent, CSD and Captain are going to have letters in their files which will probably block any future advancement.
Duty sergeant and officers at ORD will probably have a change of careers.

LAXintl wrote:

Oscar letter this evening:


April 10, 2017

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.

=

Tone deaf.

Tugg

I was starting to have respect for Oscar Munoz. But his response that brushed this issue off by apologizing only for having to 're-accommodate these customers' shows that there is still a lot wrong with the corporate culture at UA and that it starts from the top. He just doesn't get it.

I fully understand that the airlines have the 'legal' right to do IDB's but they also have an 'ethical' responsibility to do it fairly. They had already boarded the plane. The reason would not seem legitimate in the eyes of their passengers that four of them would have to give up their seats and wait for 24 hours because they wanted four employees to take those seats instead.

You can try and blame it on the police, and certainly responsibility for their specific response will fall on them, but it was the airline employees that called the police in the first place and they are also responsible for the outcome. They should have continued to increase the amount offered until they had four volunteers. Period.

Holy crap. That poor man.

LAXintl wrote:

Oscar letter this evening:


April 10, 2017

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.

=

No info about the pre-boarding? How convenient.

LAXintl wrote:

Oscar letter this evening:


April 10, 2017

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.

=

Oscar Munoz shows he is unfit for the job. Just an absolutely ridiculous response. It is the #1 shared article in the local newspaper here in Singapore and the article starts with "NEW YORK (REUTERS) - A doctor trying to return home to his patients was dragged by his hands from an overbooked United Airlines flight". And you are defending your company without any real remorse while there is a PR nightmare of epic proportions? Unbelievable.

LAXintl wrote:

Oscar letter this evening:


[i]April 10, 2017

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

OMG. I didn't see this until after I posted. It just gets worse. He would be better off saying nothing more.

PEOPLE, PLEASE ! ! ! A little perspective from yours truly, a former Ticket Agent & Gate Agent for Comair at CVG. That was before 9-11, but proper procedures have not changed. First, the UA/RC Gate Agent(s) at ORD should have stopped boarding the flight the moment that the number of fannies aboard the aircraft equaled the number of available seats onboard. That way, the IDBs would have been dealt with in the departure lounge, which is WAY preferable than dealing with them aboard the aircraft. But, stuff happens and even the most fastidious, detail-oriented CSA will sometimes let more passengers down the jetway than they should. (Been there, done that!) When that happens, then the CSA must go onboard the aircraft & solicit volunteers, assisted by the flight attendant(s). It appears that they did that. But, before IDBs are selected and the constabulary is called, either the Captain or the First Officer must be appraised of the situation and asked to intervene. Why? Because (most) passengers will comply with the requests of a uniformed member of the flight deck crew that happens to be standing in front of them!

So, where were the flight's Captain & First Officer? My intuition tells me that no one from the main cabin contacted them, and they were probably told by dispatch that their flight was being delayed by an uncooperative passenger & they were never asked to intervene.

Finally, let me add that the doctor & his attorneys will seriously sue UA/RC/ORD, but everyone's lawyers will work out a settlement, and you & I will never know the details.

Excellent memo from Munoz. It is time for United to defend itself strongly. The criminal was removed so the lawful passengers could continue.

The story is an utterly routine day at the airport. Other than the fact that a licensed doctor was an irate passenger and needed to be helped off the aircraft. Any injuries sustained were his responsibility. Emphatically.

UAL will settle because as another poster said, they do not want to risk changing longstanding process has evolved for 50+ years and works well.

SkyVoice wrote:

PEOPLE, PLEASE ! ! ! A little perspective from yours truly, a former Ticket Agent & Gate Agent for Comair at CVG. That was before 9-11, but proper procedures have not changed. First, the UA/RC Gate Agent(s) at ORD should have stopped boarding the flight the moment that the number of fannies aboard the aircraft equaled the number of available seats onboard. That way, the IDBs would have been dealt with in the departure lounge, which is WAY preferable than dealing with them aboard the aircraft. But, stuff happens and even the most fastidious, detail-oriented CSA will sometimes let more passengers down the jetway than they should. (Been there, done that!) When that happens, then the CSA must go onboard the aircraft & solicit volunteers, assisted by the flight attendant(s). It appears that they did that. But, before IDBs are selected and the constabulary is called, either the Captain or the First Officer must be appraised of the situation and asked to intervene. Why? Because (most) passengers will comply with the requests of a uniformed member of the flight deck crew that happens to be standing in front of them!

So, where were the flight's Captain & First Officer? My intuition tells me that no one from the main cabin contacted them, and they were probably told by dispatch that their flight was being delayed by an uncooperative passenger & they were never asked to intervene.

Finally, let me add that the doctor & his attorneys will seriously sue UA/RC/ORD, but everyone's lawyers will work out a settlement, and you & I will never know the details.

I truly hope the Dr. pulls one of these and does not sign that ND just for the money. But that's wishful thinking.

"United Airlines Almost Killed My Greyhound"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFfEngL2fj4

After the ridiculous defenses of DL in the thunderstorm thread and the ridiculous defenses of UA/Aviation PD in this thread, I think I need an A-net break. There is never an excuse for treating customers like crap when they simply want to receive the services they paid for...

Added: Wow, I just saw Oscar Munoz's response. That was terrible! I just lost all respect for that man. UA's PR Team needs a complete overhaul...

Flighty wrote:

Excellent memo from Munoz. It is time for United to defend itself strongly. The criminal was removed so the lawful passengers could continue. It is a crime issue.

Honest question, do you think it was Ok for the plane to be boarded in the first place? Do you honestly think United has 0 fault in how it all played out?

Flighty wrote:

Excellent memo from Munoz. It is time for United to defend itself strongly. The criminal was removed so the lawful passengers could continue. It is a crime issue.

History will prove you wrong. Big time.

Flighty wrote:

Excellent memo from Munoz. It is time for United to defend itself strongly. The criminal was removed so the lawful passengers could continue. It is a crime issue.

No, it is not.

United created the "crime" and then applied blame against someone who had no fault in the matter. That person then reacted.

Tugg

goCOgo wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Unless UA violated the contract of carriage -which does not appear to be the case based on the limited information available - this is no gaffe..

It's called Involuntary DENIED BOARDING. He was not denied boarding. He was allowed to board, by all accounts. No one has claimed he rushed the gate agent. When your butt is in a seat, it's yours. With him is his seat, we have left Rule 25 of the CoC and are now in Rule 21: Refusal of Transport. That is the only clause that covers removing a passenger from the aircraft. And not a single enumerated reason in Rule 21 applies to this customer.

$400 was a pitiful offer for this situation. The compensation by law for a delay of this length is 400% of the fare up to $1,350 IN CASH. They could have offered way more. And that's what they should have done when they screwed up and let the bumped passengers board.

You airline employees defend even the most egregious actions, and it is frankly ludicrous. Call a spade a spade. They screwed up. Stop trying to blame the CoC, or pass the buck to the regional carrier or airport security. United is the one that chose to outsource. This passenger booked with United, not on rjet.com. And United's screw up is the one that put them in the situation. Security has their own blame, but that does not alleviate United of responsibility.

This is a mistake that will lead to a 6, or even 7 or 8 figure settlement, plus a ton of bad press. Offering $2,000 in vouchers (or even cash) times 4 passengers probably would have saved them all this trouble.

I completely agree with your post. The situation is appalling and I cannot believe that some posters on here are suggesting that the doctor should've paid more for his ticket or not have taken the last flight out. Furthermore, if I am not mistaken, United Express airport ops at ORD are handled by United Airlines mainline employees, not RJet people...

goCOgo wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Unless UA violated the contract of carriage -which does not appear to be the case based on the limited information available - this is no gaffe..

It's called Involuntary DENIED BOARDING. He was not denied boarding. He was allowed to board, by all accounts. No one has claimed he rushed the gate agent. When your butt is in a seat, it's yours. With him is his seat, we have left Rule 25 of the CoC and are now in Rule 21: Refusal of Transport. That is the only clause that covers removing a passenger from the aircraft. And not a single enumerated reason in Rule 21 applies to this customer.

One outcome of the fuss being made here is our current "business friendly" administration is sure to "fix" this.

sw733 wrote:

A.net really amazes me way often than it should, and not in a good way. The number of people here who rush to the defense of an airline that wouldn't give a damn about them is awe-inspiring.

Yep. Just see how much they charge for last-minute fares compared to how much they pay when they overbook.

LAXintl wrote:

Oscar letter this evening:

He is losing the PR battle. He may be losing customers. And, this is all he's got.

All smoke and mirrors... Tick-tock, tick-tock...

LAXintl wrote:

Oscar letter this evening:


April 10, 2017

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.

=

Clueless CEO. Next!

LAXintl wrote:

Oscar letter this evening:


April 10, 2017

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.

=

Okay is it just me or is UNITED conspiring to lose customers

Okay this is where I draw the line I'm never flying UNITED again. Why won't this guy shut up, if he would have actually apologized in the first place this wouldn't have spiraled as far as it has, but yet he wants to keep fanning the flame. I feel as if no one is proof-reading his statements, has he not sat down and talked with anyone involved in marketing for the company. Just suck it up and take responsibility, you have nothing to gain by deflecting blame away from your airline, except angry passengers. United just needs to lay low for the next week, I don't want to hear a peep from ignorant Oscar.

gatibosgru wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Excellent memo from Munoz. It is time for United to defend itself strongly. The criminal was removed so the lawful passengers could continue. It is a crime issue.

Honest question, do you think it was Ok for the plane to be boarded in the first place? Do you honestly think United has 0 fault in how it all played out?

United has wide discretion in how they board, deboard and reboard the aircraft. There are a few limitations - no more than x hours on the tarmac.

Airlines are complex systems far beyond most passengers understanding. My guess is these 4 seats were required due to an operational change. That is up to United, as always. Weather patterns change. Planes break. Stuff happens.

So they boarded passengers and then realized they needed the seats a bit late. While this was a poor move from a customer service perspective, as certain food & drink choices might be, it is still United's call. First is logistics, second is revenue pax, third is nonrevs. As a nonrev you bet I was pulled off aircraft more than once.

I understand passengers can't understand this but they should just have some basic respect for the process. It is a fair and civilized process. =

To answer your question, from a pure human psychology perspective, United should have made everybody get off, and be re-seated. It is slower to do that, delays everybody, but evidently, some people are adult babies and can't do it the easy way. So now we will have to empty the airplane. That is the change that I expect United to make.

Airlines want less regulation and prefer market forces right? Then let them also use those same market forces in situations like this. Bid up the incentive being offered until it is accepted. And if they can't deal with natural market forces then maybe a regulation should be added. One requiring them to do so for any and all DB situations.

Actually that is a very simple and elegant solution, the free market (as opposed to the "we can force you off by declaring you uncooperative" market).

How dense (Stupid? Dumb?) do you have to be to understand that in situations like this, where there is no need for force (life and safety are not at risk), simple market incentives are safe and effective. Why even have the forced rule at all for things like this?

Tugg

Who they have done this if it was a woman?

77H wrote:

UA personnel solicited 4 passengers to volunteer to be re-booked with compensation and hotel accommodations.
4) No passengers volunteered after multiple attempts, each time at increasing amounts of compensation.
5) United was then forced to implement IDB. 3 of 4 passengers left the airplane without incident. 1 passenger, the passenger in question made a fuss.

Would it not have been vastly better to just keep increasing the amount offered? There was not danger to the flight. NONE.

Tugg

Flighty wrote:

they should just have some basic respect for the process. It is a fair and civilized process.

No, it's not. You keep trying to pretend it is but it is not. It is arbitrary and capricious. How is it not?

It is right and proper for the public to resist and put an end to stupid things like this. There is/was no reason for it. None. Just increase the offered amount until accepted (or change how your get your employees to their needed location). '

There was no danger to the flight, none. United created the situation.

It is so simple.

Tugg

77H wrote:

Samrnpage wrote:

The people on this thread defending UA are the type of people who would be the first to sue the company if it had been them knocked out by security. Not only did you get assaulted, injured and dragged out of a plan against your will, you are now being watched by millions all over the world who are watching the video! but thats fine because he didnt want to leave the plane that he paid for. Some people in this age enrage me!!!!!!

I reckon the security individuals might get a knock on the door by police soon and UA will probably give a settlement to the man, who probably missed work as well and his patients were probably miffed as well if any of them were serious.

I'm a little confused at how you feel United is at fault here? We'll walk through this together so you can understand.

1) United had a fully booked flight.
2) Crew members for (Republic) a United Express contract carrier reported for the flight as a "Must Ride" due to operational needs of the company. They needed to be in SDF to operate an outbound flight the following day.
3) At that point, UA personnel solicited 4 passengers to volunteer to be re-booked with compensation and hotel accommodations.
4) No passengers volunteered after multiple attempts, each time at increasing amounts of compensation.
5) United was then forced to implement IDB. 3 of 4 passengers left the airplane without incident. 1 passenger, the passenger in question made a fuss.
6) After multiple attempts to de-board the passenger in a civil way, the customer got increasingly combative and belligerent.
7) At that point United called in Chicago Department of Aviation Law Enforcement to assist in the removal of the passenger.
8) Passenger was combative with Law Enforcement and was forcibly removed.

Is this the first time you have seen police be handsy with civilians? If so, I encourage you to turn on the news. Police assaulting civilians in the US is a daily issue. Is it because he is supposedly a doctor that people are up in arms? To me, a doctor should conduct themselves in a far better manner than this guy.

Second, if everyone else on board was so outraged by what was happening why did no one offer at that time to give up their seats? What enrages me is a punch of people sitting behind their camera phones and computers spouting off their misinformed opinions yet doing nothing to solve the situation. That day, every person on that plane thought only of themselves and thought they were the most important person on the plane. Which is unfortunately the norm these days. Self-entitlement.

You be sure to let me know if you need any other clarification on the flow through of events.
77H

You are right actually it is pretty simple, you see if UNITED would have boarded the crew first none of this would have happened, why would they have boarded those 4 passengers before the crew, if the crew was considered to be "MUST RIDE," its not like they didn't know the plane was full. Why board them if they would have to get off anyway. Not saying I agree with this by the way, but if they wanted to they could have boarded the crew first and then told the passengers there was no room on the plane before boarding. It would have killed two birds with one stone, the passenger would not have been assaulted and they could have handled the situation in the terminal (much easier and plane get depart on time). United is completely to blame with how they handled the situation, and of course this would have never happened if they wouldn't have placed crew members on a full flight.

77H wrote:

Samrnpage wrote:

The people on this thread defending UA are the type of people who would be the first to sue the company if it had been them knocked out by security. Not only did you get assaulted, injured and dragged out of a plan against your will, you are now being watched by millions all over the world who are watching the video! but thats fine because he didnt want to leave the plane that he paid for. Some people in this age enrage me!!!!!!

I reckon the security individuals might get a knock on the door by police soon and UA will probably give a settlement to the man, who probably missed work as well and his patients were probably miffed as well if any of them were serious.

I'm a little confused at how you feel United is at fault here? We'll walk through this together so you can understand.

1) United had a fully booked flight.
2) Crew members for (Republic) a United Express contract carrier reported for the flight as a "Must Ride" due to operational needs of the company. They needed to be in SDF to operate an outbound flight the following day.
3) At that point, UA personnel solicited 4 passengers to volunteer to be re-booked with compensation and hotel accommodations.
4) No passengers volunteered after multiple attempts, each time at increasing amounts of compensation.
5) United was then forced to implement IDB. 3 of 4 passengers left the airplane without incident. 1 passenger, the passenger in question made a fuss.
6) After multiple attempts to de-board the passenger in a civil way, the customer got increasingly combative and belligerent.
7) At that point United called in Chicago Department of Aviation Law Enforcement to assist in the removal of the passenger.
8) Passenger was combative with Law Enforcement and was forcibly removed.

Is this the first time you have seen police be handsy with civilians? If so, I encourage you to turn on the news. Police assaulting civilians in the US is a daily issue. Is it because he is supposedly a doctor that people are up in arms? To me, a doctor should conduct themselves in a far better manner than this guy.

Second, if everyone else on board was so outraged by what was happening why did no one offer at that time to give up their seats? What enrages me is a punch of people sitting behind their camera phones and computers spouting off their misinformed opinions yet doing nothing to solve the situation. That day, every person on that plane thought only of themselves and thought they were the most important person on the plane. Which is unfortunately the norm these days. Self-entitlement.

You be sure to let me know if you need any other clarification on the flow through of events.
77H

You do raise an interesting point about the passenger being non-compliant (making a fuss, as you put it), but you beg the question as to what exactly constitutes unjustified non-compliance on an airplane. Is one required when instructed by a crew member for whatever reason to leave an airplane? What if the instruction was preceded with a blatant racial epithet or other obviously illegal motive (speaking hypothetically, of course), or one might reasonably perceive an illegal motive? What if the instruction places the passenger or others at harm, but the crew doesn't take that into account or care? Isn't there a limiting principle such as all "reasonable and lawful" instructions of the crew? I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you think.

Flighty wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Excellent memo from Munoz. It is time for United to defend itself strongly. The criminal was removed so the lawful passengers could continue. It is a crime issue.

Honest question, do you think it was Ok for the plane to be boarded in the first place? Do you honestly think United has 0 fault in how it all played out?

United has wide discretion in how they board, deboard and reboard the aircraft. There are a few limitations - no more than x hours on the tarmac.

Airlines are complex systems far beyond most passengers understanding. My guess is these 4 seats were required due to an operational change. That is up to United, as always. Weather patterns change. Planes break. Stuff happens.

So they boarded passengers and then realized they needed the seats a bit late. While this was a poor move from a customer service perspective, as certain food & drink choices might be, it is still United's call who rides on the aircraft. Higher priority beats lower priority. First is logistics, second is revenue pax, third is nonrevs. As a nonrev you bet I was pulled off aircraft more than once.

I understand passengers can't understand this but they should just have some basic respect for the process. It is a fair and civilized process. But people have to comply as part of participating in an airline trip. He failed.

Then UA needs to re-evaluate the boarding process and use this as a learning lesson to implement change. Because one thing is the current norm does not mean it is the best way to be handled. Just my 2 cents.

Tone deaf.

I had high hopes for Oscar, but he's starting to make Tony Hayward look responsible and empathetic!

Tugger wrote:

Airlines want less regulation and prefer market forces right? Then let them also use those same market forces in situations like this. Bid up the incentive being offered until it is accepted. And if they can't deal with natural market forces then maybe a regulation should be added. One requiring them to do so for any and all DB situations.

Actually that is a very simple and elegant solution, the free market (as opposed to the "we can force you off by declaring you uncooperative" market).

How dense (Stupid? Dumb?) do you have to be to understand that in situations like this, where there is no need for force (life and safety are not at risk), simple market incentives are safe and effective. Why even have the forced rule at all for things like this?

Tugg

Absolutely! It goes both ways.

I have not posted in a very long time. But this is just an outrage. I worked for an airline for 23 years, from the bottom up, including customer service, and operations, including upper management.

You have a fully paid passenger with a reservation that arrived at the gate on time, was boarded and sitting in the aircraft when he was told to get off the airplane. And the reason was for no other purpose than the airline's convenience, so they could move a crew. As noted, the airline could have provided higher compensation for volunteers. But they had other options as well, They could have arranged for other transportation for their crew. We did that a number of times at my airline when we needed to move a crew. If there were no other flights, we would charter an air taxi, or arrange ground transportation if that was feasible. Louisville is not very far. We NEVER would remove paying customers from an aircraft after they already boarded for a crew movement. There are alternatives.

No passenger should EVER be treated this way.

Those here who are blindly defending United should be ashamed of themselves. The statement they have issued is even worse.

"Oscar" needs to be booted right now. I will never fly on United until this is made right.

glbltrvlr wrote:

goCOgo wrote:

"Failure to follow flight crew instructions" - you mean the instructions to leave in violation of the Contract of Carriage? Rule 21 spells out the only reasons United can remove someone from an aircraft, none of which applied to this customer. By boarding him, they threw Rule 25 out the window.

Doesn't sound like you have a good backing in aviation law. I'm referring to:

Interference With Flight Crew Members Or Flight Attendants -- 49 U.S.C. 46504

One who assaults, threatens, or intimidates a flight crew member or attendant while aboard an aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States, and thereby interferes with the performance of that crew member's duties...

goCOgo wrote:

You sound like one of those cops that thinks they can arrest someone on the sole charge of resisting arrest.

You may not like it, but the police were acting within their lawful authority. An no, I'm not a cop or a United employee.

goCOgo wrote:

This guy isn't going to Cook County Jail. He is instead going to split a few fat checks with his lawyer from United, Republic, and the O'Hare PD.

Sorry - O'Hare airport is owned and operated by the City of Chicago. The police at O'Hare are Chicago police.

No, I haven't read through all of the posts on this thread, or watched the phone video numerous times, like it was the Zapruder film, or something...

But I do want to try and clear up who, specifically was called to remove the passenger.

New reports, like the Chicago Tribune, said that they were "Aviation Security Officers" that worked for the Chicago Department of Aviation.

So, inquiring minds want to know. Were these Aviation Security Officers, commissioned "police" officers with all of the powers that a police officer has? Or, do they have lessor powers that traditionally fall under "security officers," commissioned or not?

LA Times opinion: United finds a new way to make itself look awful, and then its CEO shows how to make things worse

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik ... story.html

Here's a pretty thorough account by someone on that flight, as posted on Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comment ... a/dg3hshx/

Before the flight started they were offering 150 bucks in vouchers to anyone who would get bumped but the next flight wasn't until the next day at about 3 in the afternoon.
After we got on the plane, I was zone 3, they raised it to four hundred dollars. About ten minutes later they raised it to 800. At this point the plane was completely boarded. Then the stewardess came on and basically told us this plane was not moving until four people got off, they said they needed it for four United employees (who I later noticed were two stewardesses and two pilots).
About ten minutes later (30 minutes after we should have left) the manager came on with a clipboard and told this gentleman in the video that he payed the lowest and had to get off the flight. He said absolutely not, he wasn't screaming but I could hear him as it was a small flight.
She shuffled around for a bit then talked to him again, this was the point when someone offered her 1600 and she laughed at him, then she told the asian guy that he was going to get physically removed.
She called security, then one guy showed up who didn't look like police to me. He talked to him (much more calmly than the manager) but with no luck. The guy wasn't budging, said he was a doctor and had to go to work early in the morning. The guys backup came, a cop and a plainclothes, and then the video starts. They knock him around and drag him out.
At this point I think everything is over, but about ten minutes later he comes running back in with a bloody mouth saying that he had to get back home over and over, I think he was concussed.
The employees asked us all to get off the plane so they could handle the situation. We went back into the terminal. They somehow get him into a wheelchair and put him in an ambulance. They cleaned the blood out of the plane and put us back on about an hour after we got off. Then they sent us on our way, friendly skies huh

This is real "keystone cops" material.
A) From United for the sheer incompetence at managing bookings, and how the manager decides that she will not offer any more. (And apparently they only offered vouchers, not cash!)
B) Security/police - Not only do they not handle the situation properly, they then lose a bleeding guy in the terminal, and he manages to run back on the plane. (Did all United personnel at the gate go on a break?) Geez.

It sounds like the deadheading crew showed up after boarding. I've heard it both ways, though, including that the UA gate agent knew that they were coming but chose to board anyhow for whatever reason. Regardless, everyone was on when the 4 crew arrived.

The first mistake was in not offering more for volunteers. Why they would stop and just go to IDB is odd, but that might be the norm at carriers.

From the moment they decided to go to IDB, it was all put into the hands of the passengers. Unless four people agreed to deplane, everyone was stuck, and it set up everyone for a showdown. Had a fourth person volunteered, we'd never have heard about this (or any of the many others just like it) that happen all the time.

However, the fourth person didn't like it. He refused to leave. The airline refused to offer more or to find another solution. It was a standoff.

At this point, had they done what one person suggested and just deplaned everyone, it probably would have been unpleasant and they would have taken a delay, but it would have solved the issue of getting "him" off the plane.

Instead, they chose to call the police. At that point, it was out of the hands of UA, so anything that they could have done to fix it was now moot. They were solely responsible for everything that happened up to this point.

Once the police went on board, everything that happened after that was between them and the passenger. Nobody from the airline was going to interject at that point as they were the ones who invited the police into it in the first place. The passengers didn't know what was going to happen or perhaps someone might have volunteered to leave. It would have been ugly on Twitter, and it shouldn't have been necessary anyhow, but it would have averted the incident.

That didn't happen. Instead, the man refused to deplane at the direction of the police. At that point, it's hard to see how a rational person would think it was going to turn out well. That's not to blame him for standing his ground, but there's a time and a place, and at that moment it would seem the place would be at the podium rather than at 17F. I would tend to hold him accountable for any consequences of refusing to follow the direction of the police.

The moment they decided to turn it into a Jack Reacher scene, though, the police went from being an authority to a brutal enforcer. They could have de-escalated this even if the UA folks wouldn't. They could have suggested to the crew to deplane everyone, for example. However, they chose to get very physical with him, to the point of slamming his head into an armrest, then drug him out of the plane. The battle was lost at that point.

From a PR standpoint, it doesn't matter that the officer's actions were their own, in everyone's mind this was "United Airlines". They did this. All of it. Hard to argue with that as they could have solved it by offering more compensation or even just transporting the deadheading crew separately to SGF.

To me:

1. UA should have offered more - period.
2. UA could have figured out a Plan B to transport the deadheading crew, though I don't know what those options were.
3. The man should have handled the police request at the podium rather than refusing their instructions to deplane.
4. The police took it way too far.
5. UA is praying for storms in ATL this week.

The argument that this was either correctly or incorrectly handled is at this point moot. The name of the company vs. the name on the tail is, at this point, moot. Really, even the name on the tail is, at this point, moot.

This is a PR disaster for the industry. This incident is going to frame public debate over a new "passenger bill of rights." Look to this being used to describe the "inhumane" way that we are treated on-board, and watch as this becomes support for (in my view misguided) new regulation as to seat pitch.

United's tone-deaf handling of this event will have implications for the industry nation-wide.

This is not a UFC fight! I know many people nowadays have become desensitized to violence, but this is really too much by all the parties be it the Police, United, and Oscar. This is about flying, going home. This is a human being, we don't know his story or what was going on. Hell I have been in situations on a plane where if someone had offered me a $$$millions I would not have left, just because I really had to be somewhere, and urgently. This is why we are flying, because we are going somewhere, and sometimes its not a vacation it's a situation so urgent that lives depend on it....... It breaks my heart to hear fellow A.net's act like this behavior is somehow normal, where has humanity gone????

Am I the only one who sees the woman in near-hysterics, screaming, "OH MY GOD!! OH MY GOD!!" and wondering, "Well, why didn't you volunteer to give up YOUR seat, then?"

Mr. Munoz will not be the first person to fall on his sword screaming, "But I am RIGHT. "

Give it up Oscar, you are beat on this. You are incompetent and unfit to lead. Today's CEOs need to know how to prevent and put out fires. .