United Airlines

[JWags85]

Wait, is this true? All the reports I've seen said there wasn't a flight until the next day.

There was a 9PM flight out of ORD.  Not sure what the seat map looked like but someone mentioned they checked after seeing the story and it wasn't full.

[DegenerateDish]

All of this points out as well how outdated the airline business is altogether. I saw the CEO of AirBnB on Sunday Today talking to Willie Geist about how technology has zoomed past the airline industry and his company is working up a new model for air transportation. I don't know what it will be, but an Uber/AirBnB/Silicon Valley company will eventually in hopefully the next 20 years, radically change how we travel (it certainly won't be the current airlines). Maybe it's HyperLoop, or something else.

[Jockey]

It was airport police, not United employees.  And can we please stop with the "thug"nonsense in this case.

Like dgies, I'm a high mileage United flier and I'm more than willing to admit they f'd up here.  Both from a procedural and a PR standpoint.  However, the piety of social media and commentors of "this would never happen on Delta/American/etc" is absurd.  If this is enough to move your business completely to another airline, you must not fly much.  Air travel has its warts, you deal with it and hope the numbers are in your favor when it comes to abnormal events like the travel crew in this case.

I also find it rich that all these passengers were shocked, horrified, clutching their pearls...but nobody would give up their seat for this doctor to get home to whatever medical duties he was claiming.  "I CANT BELIEVE THEY FORCED HIM OFF THE PLANE, HES A DOCTOR!...oh no, I have to get back home, I couldn't be bothered to offer my seat, but I made sure I posted video".  There was a flight to Louisville something like 2 hours later with plenty of empty seats.

Wow!!!

You think someone's plans should be totally disrupted because United screwed up? NOBODY should have been forced to give up a seat.

And yes, the airport cops acted like thugs. Period.

[GGGG]

Wow!!!

You think someone's plans should be totally disrupted because United screwed up? NOBODY should have been forced to give up a seat.

No one should be forced to give up a seat.  The airlines should be forced to buy it back.

[Jockey]

Correct.  I would have gotten off if my name was called.

Why????

You are sitting in the seat that you paid for. Why should you be responsible for United's mistake?

[Tugg Speedman]

Munoz released this at 3PM CT ...


Statement from United Airlines CEO, Oscar Munoz, on United Express flight 3411
By Oscar Munoz, CEO, United Airlines
April 11, 2017
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

-----

But remember  this is this morning ...

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/united-ceo-passenger-disruptive-belligerent.html

According to the letter, which was obtained by CNBC, when crew members first approached the passenger to tell him to leave, he "raised his voice and refused to comply," and each time they asked again "he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent."

Crew members "were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight," Munoz wrote, and at one point the passenger "continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials."

Munoz acknowledged to employees that the company could learn lessons from the incident, but said: "I emphatically stand behind all of you."

----------------

All about profits and we will beat the tar out of you if you get in the way of our profits.

[rocket surgeon]

  hang on here-
        "Dr. David Dao, 69, who was captured in a now-viral video being forcibly dragged off the Louisville-bound flight at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on Sunday, was working as a doctor specializing in pulmonary disease..."

  but...
    "The board’s probe into the criminal charges found that Dao became sexually interested in a male patient, Brian Case, whom he gave a physical examination to, including a genital examination..."


    so how does this work?  take a deep breathe and cough eyyy'ner?

[Dr. Blackheart]

This article touches on, but doesn't directly address what I think is the biggest issue at play here - the jurisdiction and purpose of the Chicago Aviation Police. They are under the jurisdiction of the Chicago Department of Aviation, which I presume is a publicly funded department? If so, their use of force to uphold a contract for services between an individual and an airline strikes me as extremely problematic.  The law goes to tremendous lengths to ensure legal process before agents of any public entity can be called upon to enforce a private contract, and here we have a guy getting dragged out of an airplane and injury being caused to his person upon what could have been no more than an hour of notice to the officers.

Aviation law.  The (United) Captain called them in as he has the ultimate say. 

[StillAWarrior]

Munoz released this at 3PM CT ...


Statement from United Airlines CEO, Oscar Munoz, on United Express flight 3411
By Oscar Munoz, CEO, United Airlines
April 11, 2017
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

-----

But remember  this is this morning ...

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/10/united-ceo-passenger-disruptive-belligerent.html

According to the letter, which was obtained by CNBC, when crew members first approached the passenger to tell him to leave, he "raised his voice and refused to comply," and each time they asked again "he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent."

Crew members "were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight," Munoz wrote, and at one point the passenger "continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials."

Munoz acknowledged to employees that the company could learn lessons from the incident, but said: "I emphatically stand behind all of you."

----------------

All about profits and we will beat the tar out of you if you get in the way of our profits.

Without question, from both a human and a PR standpoint, this is what he should have said in his very first public comment on the subject.  While I agree with the sentence I highlighted as a general principle - even if you handle a situation horribly, you can and should do everything possible to fix it - I suspect that it might be "too late" for Munoz. 

[GGGG]

Why????

You are sitting in the seat that you paid for. Why should you be responsible for United's mistake?

Because that's the contract I legally agreed to.

[rocky_warrior]

No one should be forced to give up a seat.  The airlines should be forced to buy it back.

I'm really surprised United didn't go with the even easier option.  If you need 4 seats, 3 folks have already "agreed" to get off the plane, and the 4th person selected says "no" - Just press the magic selection button again to find your 4th. 

This shouldn't have been this hard.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Because that's the contract I legally agreed to.

The article I quoted debunks that.  The contract was good only in the waiting area, not once they entered the plane.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Without question, from both a human and a PR standpoint, this is what he should have said in his very first public comment on the subject.  While I agree with the sentence I highlighted as a general principle - even if you handle a situation horribly, you can and should do everything possible to fix it - I suspect that it might be "too late" for Munoz.

A day late a billion in market cap short, ai-na?

[Tugg Speedman]

Because that's the contract I legally agreed to.

Actually it is not as United appears to not have followed government rules on this.

[Tugg Speedman]

Without question, from both a human and a PR standpoint, this is what he should have said in his very first public comment on the subject.  While I agree with the sentence I highlighted as a general principle - even if you handle a situation horribly, you can and should do everything possible to fix it - I suspect that it might be "too late" for Munoz.

Agree but his first instinct was to protect the flawed and illegal procedures United employed.   It was only after social media blew up on him for 36 hours that he saw the light. So makes one wonder how genuine this was and whether or not he "gets it" and will behave this way in similar way the next time?

[StillAWarrior]

The article I quoted debunks that.  The contract was good only in the waiting area, not once they entered the plane.

I'm not sure that I'd concede it "debunks" it, but certainly calls it into question.  Fact is, "denied boarding" is never defined.  Common sense suggests that you're correct.  Lawyers wrote the agreement and will become further involved soon, so there is no compelling reason to think that common sense will prevail.  Some have suggested that once he took his seat, the "denied boarding" rules are out the window and the "refusal of transport" rules come into play.

[Jay Bee]

  hang on here-
        "Dr. David Dao, 69, who was captured in a now-viral video being forcibly dragged off the Louisville-bound flight at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on Sunday, was working as a doctor specializing in pulmonary disease..."

  but...
    "The board’s probe into the criminal charges found that Dao became sexually interested in a male patient, Brian Case, whom he gave a physical examination to, including a genital examination..."

Sounds like 4never.. "you opened up and said 'ahhh', so now I will do the same"
    so how does this work?  take a deep breathe and cough eyyy'ner?

[Dr. Blackheart]

I'm not sure that I'd concede it "debunks" it, but certainly calls it into question.  Fact is, "denied boarding" is never defined.  Common sense suggests that you're correct.  Lawyers wrote the agreement and will become further involved soon, so there is no compelling reason to think that common sense will prevail.  Some have suggested that once he took his seat, the "denied boarding" rules are out the window and the "refusal of transport" rules come into play.

Again...

There’s another wrinkle. Rule 25 deals almost entirely with passengers denied boarding—in other words, people who never get on a plane. But in the Chicago incident, the passenger had already boarded when United employees told him he had to get off. Again, unless United has an unpublished policy dealing with this scenario, it’s not addressed in the contract of carriage. So even if United followed its own procedures, it would have violated government rules.

[dgies9156]

All of this points out as well how outdated the airline business is altogether. I saw the CEO of AirBnB on Sunday Today talking to Willie Geist about how technology has zoomed past the airline industry and his company is working up a new model for air transportation. I don't know what it will be, but an Uber/AirBnB/Silicon Valley company will eventually in hopefully the next 20 years, radically change how we travel (it certainly won't be the current airlines). Maybe it's HyperLoop, or something else.

Dish, I'm no apologist for the airlines. God knows, I've been sh*t on enough by all of the major carriers to write a book. I travel a lot and I see the best and worst of them.

You have the airline system you want. Once upon a time, airlines provided customer service. Coach seats were more comfortable and had more leg room. Food was at least edible and it came with the ticket in both first class and coach. Flight attendants were, well, attentive and there was open seats more often than not so that incidents like Sunday's didn't happen.

But you want cheap airfare. You want the $99 round-trip from ORD to LGA. Your corporate travel department would strap you to a wing if they thought they could save $5.00. You get your airfare but with it comes the end of the personal service. You pay for baggage, bad food, preferable seats and God knows what else because it is a cat and mouse game to the bottom between the airline that has to serve shareholders and customers who think Spirit Airlines is the next great thing.

Amid all this comes margin squeeze. It means there are far fewer people who are equipped to make decisions. It means lines are long, people are short and training sucks. But the fact remains that the three legacy carriers move between 400,000 and 500,000 persons a day globally. And they have to do so on razor thin margins that are sensitive to everything from a small change in oil prices to slight upticks in interest rates. Oh, and don't forget some of the toughest and most important safety regulations in the world affect the airline industry. For despite it all, this is a pretty heavily regulated industry and with good reason. We've haven't had a serious airline accident in the United States in several years. The last one I recall was when a Korean Airlines jet missed the runway at SFO because of an inexperienced pilot.

I'm sure some dunderhead at Uber, Lyft or even Amtrak thinks they can do a better job. And I'm sure things will evolve in time. But the operation of a modern airline is a just a bit more sophisticated than putting a couple of cars driven by housewives on the streets of Monterrey, CA.

[StillAWarrior]

Again...

Yeah, I read it.  And the Yahoo writer may be correct, I really don't know.  It hinges on the definition of the phrase "denied boarding."  The Yahoo writer has assumed -- maybe correctly -- that "denied boarding" means "people who never get on a plane."  If he's right, then it seems there's a violation.  If he's wrong, then it's probably not.  He helpfully provides the "in other words, people who never get on a plan" but offers nothing in support of that definition.  To me, it reads like an assumption, but perhaps there is something somewhere that provides that "denied boarding" applies only to "people who never get on a plane."  I agree that this would be the common understanding of the term, but that doesn't mean it is right in this context.  I've read enough government regulations and contracts to know that common sense understanding of terms is not necessarily correct.  If the term "denied boarding" includes someone who actually makes his way onto the aircraft before being bumped, then I'm not sure he's right.

Unnecessary disclaimer:  I think United screwed this up terribly, and I'm not defending their actions.  I'm merely saying that I'm not necessarily convinced that this Yahoo! reporter is correct.  And I'm not convinced that he's not.

[StillAWarrior]

I think a more interesting question, when considering the "denied boarding" issue is whether that rule even applies.  The rule -- and the entire bumping process -- only applies on "oversold" flights.  Unlike "denied boarding," that is a defined term:  "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"  This wasn't an oversold flight.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure where that leaves us.  Whether it's the "refusal of transport" rule, or something else entirely. 

[Tugg Speedman]

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2017/04/11/united-denied-boarding-illegal/

The passenger wasn’t denied boarding — he had a confirmed seat, and was allowed to board and take that seat.

Later they come onboard and asked him to get off the plane. At that point that’s no longer being denied boarding, but rather being refused transport. United’s contract of carriage addresses both of these situations:

Here’s the contract of carriage regarding denied boarding compensation
Here’s the contract of carriage regarding refusal to transport

The contract of carriage lists a bunch of reasons that the airline can refuse transport to someone, though a flight being oversold after a passenger has boarded isn’t one of them. In looking at the Department of Transportation regulations, I don’t see anything that clarifies how they define “denied boarding.”

In light of that, it sure seems like this was a case of refusal to transport, rather than a case of denied boarding, since the passenger wasn’t denied boarding. If this was a refusal to transport case, then United had no legal grounds on which to refuse him transport, based on the contract of carriage.

If that’s the case, did United use police force to incorrectly enforce a contract?

When this story first emerged it sure seemed to me like United may have technically been within their rights to refuse this passenger transport, but even that isn’t looking likely at this point.

It would seem to me that once passengers have boarded, the only way to have them get off the plane is through a voluntary system, by offering compensation that they agree to. Without that, this isn’t a denied boarding case, but rather a refusal to transport case.

Did United Airlines Violate Its Own Contract By Forcing That Passenger Off The Plane?
A review of United's "Contract of Carriage" suggests that the airline carrier violated its own rules when it forcibly removed a passenger to make room for United employees.

https://thefederalist.com/2017/04/11/did-united-airlines-violate-its-own-contract-by-forcing-that-passenger-off-the-plane/

“On Sunday, April 9, after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded,” United CEO Oscar Munoz wrote, “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,” Munoz wrote.

That’s where the wheels start to come off the United bus. To understand why, you need only have a rudimentary understanding of the English language. In statement one, Munoz notes that the flight was fully boarded. In statement two, Munoz then declares that the man was only removed because United employees were following their “involuntary denial of boarding process.” How, exactly, does one follow a denial of boarding process after a flight is “fully boarded?”

Granted, I am only a common non-lawyer, non-airline employee, but I don’t understand how one can be denied boarding after a flight is fully boarded. It seems to me like the involuntary denial of boarding ship has probably sailed at that point, and the operation has instead advanced to the “forced disembarkation” stage of airline crisis management.

But that’s not all. United’s ticket contract also lists criteria for selecting passengers to whom boarding should be involuntarily denied:

The priority of all other confirmed passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment.

Were any of these criteria used on Monday’s flight? Not according to any news that has been reported thus far. Instead, individuals who were targeted for removal were randomly selected by the airline, even though “random selection” is not a criterion included in United’s contract terms. Judging by the clear language of United’s terms and policies, it appears as though the carrier actually violated its own rules in its attempt to remove a ticketed passenger from the plane to make room for a handful of United employees.

[DegenerateDish]

Dish, I'm no apologist for the airlines. God knows, I've been sh*t on enough by all of the major carriers to write a book. I travel a lot and I see the best and worst of them.

You have the airline system you want. Once upon a time, airlines provided customer service. Coach seats were more comfortable and had more leg room. Food was at least edible and it came with the ticket in both first class and coach. Flight attendants were, well, attentive and there was open seats more often than not so that incidents like Sunday's didn't happen.

But you want cheap airfare. You want the $99 round-trip from ORD to LGA. Your corporate travel department would strap you to a wing if they thought they could save $5.00. You get your airfare but with it comes the end of the personal service. You pay for baggage, bad food, preferable seats and God knows what else because it is a cat and mouse game to the bottom between the airline that has to serve shareholders and customers who think Spirit Airlines is the next great thing.

Amid all this comes margin squeeze. It means there are far fewer people who are equipped to make decisions. It means lines are long, people are short and training sucks. But the fact remains that the three legacy carriers move between 400,000 and 500,000 persons a day globally. And they have to do so on razor thin margins that are sensitive to everything from a small change in oil prices to slight upticks in interest rates. Oh, and don't forget some of the toughest and most important safety regulations in the world affect the airline industry. For despite it all, this is a pretty heavily regulated industry and with good reason. We've haven't had a serious airline accident in the United States in several years. The last one I recall was when a Korean Airlines jet missed the runway at SFO because of an inexperienced pilot.

I'm sure some dunderhead at Uber, Lyft or even Amtrak thinks they can do a better job. And I'm sure things will evolve in time. But the operation of a modern airline is a just a bit more sophisticated than putting a couple of cars driven by housewives on the streets of Monterrey, CA.

I hear ya, and I totally understand your point. As someone who's on a United flight every other week, all of what you said is 100% true. However, there's no industry more vulnerable to a massive upheaval than the airline industry. It'll take years to figure out, with safety/regulatory approval, but I believe something is coming. It may be HyperLoop, but the way we travel great distances in short time will change somehow.

[GGGG]

The only things that can change the airline industry are:

1. Reregulation

2. Customers willing to not pay the cheapest fare possible.

Neither will happen anytime soon.

[jesmu84]

I hear ya, and I totally understand your point. As someone who's on a United flight every other week, all of what you said is 100% true. However, there's no industry more vulnerable to a massive upheaval than the airline industry. It'll take years to figure out, with safety/regulatory approval, but I believe something is coming. It may be HyperLoop, but the way we travel great distances in short time will change somehow.

That will be EXTREMELY difficult to do. Changing an industry involves fighting the giants that already occupy the space. Almost always, those giants have significantly more lobbying power and legal power than the up-and-comers. And, almost always, those giants that occupy will do everything they can to fight off any change that threatens their bottom-line. We're a certainly a great society in that sense, passively allowing for stifling of advancement.