View from the Wing shares a note sent from United CEO Oscar Munoz to employees this evening concerning Flight 3411. In it, Munoz staunchly defends United but offers up a morsel of evidence previously not revealed.
Here’s the letter, in its entirety, courtesy of @jonostrower—
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.
Now We Know Why All the Passengers Had Boarded
Many have asked why would passengers be boarded in an oversell situation? How could United be so dumb as to load everyone, even potential involuntary bump candidates? Now we know why.
According to Munoz, crewmembers approached the podium “after United Express Flight 3411 was fully boarded” and informed the gate agent “they needed to board the flight.” Now it makes sense why the passengers had to be removed from the aircraft!
What is isn’t clear is whether the crew was late or whether the crew was booked on that flight at the very last minute. If this was a last-minute assignment, then it is understandable why the crew showed up after other passengers had boarded. If they were late, well…what happens when we are late for a flight? We’re generally out of luck. Perhaps those crewmembers should have been told to go rent a car and drive to Kentucky if they didn’t want to be truant for their Monday flight.
Why Munoz Had No Choice But to Defend His Employees
Gary’s absolutely right in noting the “lack of acknowledgment of the worst element of what happened — whitewashing, even — that a person was dragged off and bloodied by airport police is a failure of tremendous proportions.” There is no excuse for that omission.
But the tone of the letter is exactly what I would expect. Indeed, Munoz had no other viable choice. Had he not said, “I also emphatically stand behind all of you” he would viewed among his own “troops” as turning against them. Had he highlighted the physical abuse suffered by the removed passenger rather than verbal abuse hurled on United employees by the same passenger, he would have to contend with employees questioning his allegiance.
To his credit, Munoz stated, “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.” In a sense that addresses the bloodied man without addressing him by name.
He does have a name, though, and I assume in the coming days he may even become a household name.
CONCLUSION
Munoz is in an incredibly difficult position with this incident. Landmines lurk all around him. While every path down this road may lead to destruction, he could not but defend his employees for handling an oversell situation exactly as the manual prescribes. Now let us hope that he will also condemn the brutal tactics used to subdue this passenger, should the investigation verify that such manhandling was as totally unnecessary as it now appears.
Great post. I understand where you and he are coming from. I think the root of this problem is the method of securing seats for United Crew at the expense of paying customers. That needs to be fixed, somehow. No clue how, though.
Matthew –
Nope, sorry – he and you are missing the point.
The general public cares not one iota *why* this happened.
What they see and care about is a 69 year old Asian physician get beaten (literally) senseless by security because United wanted four of their employees to travel instead of customers, one of whom needed to be at the destination to take care of patients.
That’s the problem United is facing, and it can’t be isolated from the broader societal context of leggings, police brutality and 2017 racial politics, all of which are relevant in this incident.
If you’re explaining, you’re losing.
This story has managed to push Donald a Trump, North Korean nuclear weapons and chemical warfare against children off the public consciousness for an entire news cycle. Do you know how improbable that is?
This very well could bring Oscar down, and he needs to be thinking that way. It has nothing to do with whether UA was right or wrong, but how people perceive it, and personally, particularly 2 weeks after the leggings incident (which was totally bogus, but who cares, that wasn’t the narrative), he needs to blow some people out (like head of ORD operations) for the sole reason that he needs to be seen to care about the perception. Right now he’s losing this badly, and it’s about to roll into a second day.
I don’t necessarily disagree with anything you have written. Sadly, tomorrow may be even worse…like day two of the leggings incident. I certainly will be writing about it at least twice.
I started reading your blog when you wrote about getting kicked off a united flight for taking a picture of a headrest. I could never understand why you felt that somehow you deserved that, but now that I see you defending this despicable act by this historically despicable airline’s scumbag employees, I see that you have no morals, no common decency. Did you get paid off by them for that camera incident? Is that why you’re defending them now? You’re a real piece of crap dude.
I agree with Greg.
How do you know the gentleman is 69 y.o.?
As someone who flies a lot and has experienced people getting bumped off flights that cannot be driven easily, and have nothing to do with the airlines (as an employee), I can tell you how this looks to the general public:
1) Why didn’t they just drive. Sunday flight, Monday flight crew. So drive it. 4.5 hours by car and this is done.
2) Why stop at $800? $3200 was the max UA would spend to avoid what will probably amount to millions in losses? I’ve personally witnessed $1500 vouchers. Keep going up, eventually you will have volunteers.
3) Forcibly removing peaceful passengers should NEVER be an option. Until this happened, I had no idea that this was an option.
4) The fact that this happened due to needing to board UA employees, as opposed to an overweight aircraft situation, makes it that much worse. One is avoidable, one is not.
the “problem” steams from poor management. The flights staff where needed on could have been delayed. Alternate flights could have been used. Another airline could have been used. Staff @ Louisville, KY could have been offered overtime. Other flights could have flown ‘one staff short’. The man taken off, wasn’t been denied “boarding”, he was already boarded. The terminology used by United to describe there actions says a mouth full; :he refused, he got loud, he was belligerent, etc. on the flip side United, ask, offered, approach x amount of times, etc.
In my opinion, employee’s should NEVER be able to take precidence over paying customers PERIOD!! Paying customers who show up on time and do everything thwy are supposed to should NEVER be removed from a flight unless intoxicated, extreme BO or extreme visible illness(risking being contagious to other passengers)!!
The airline industry needs to go back to how they treated customers in the early days of aviation, they were ALL treated like first class passengers! Airlines need to stop treating people like they are nothing more than an inconvenience to be discarded like yesterdays fodder!
To many flight attendants now treating people rudely and if you say anything back they threaten to have you removed or barred from flying with them! Flight attendants are now on power trips and use it to do substandard jobs!
It’s been documented that the GAs solicited volunteers before boarding ($400 offered) before coming on board to up the offer to $800. So, not sure that jives with what you say above. Before they boarded, they knew they were oversold.
That’s a good point, yet I am merely relaying how United’s CEO has described the chain of events.
Matthew –
Your article was entitled “I’LL DEFEND OSCAR’S NOTE TO UNITED EMPLOYEES ON UNITED 3411”.
It’s indefensible.
@Greg: I applaud you for your comment. United’s CEO should be fired. He is not up for this job.
Matthew, I have to disagree with you. I believe this is a horrible memo that proves what I have argued from some time, that CEO Munoz is tone-deaf and insensitive towards his customers, the very ones that keep him in his job and keep United profitable. In fact, I have long complained ever since the United/Continental Merger that the new management team, almost entirely made up of former Continental executives, is particularly tone-deaf and insensitive towards United’s customers to the point of arrogance and disdain. Munoz’s predecessor, Jeff Smisek, also a former Continental executive, was essentially fired for corruption stemming from the “Chairman’s Flight” matter attempting to influence the Port Authority, but was also loathed by United’s customers and employees for his poor treatment of both. Honestly, until the Continental executives finally leave the leadership of United, we will continue to see this appalling attitude and disdain towards customers. Munoz needs to be fired immediately and probably will be pressured to go but it may not change United corporate culture too much and that is a shame!
Hmmmm, by my calculations because of all the delays, the crew would have been at their destination earlier had they driven there. So everyone spouting the fact of “crew rest need” appears to be fallacious. To save three hundred dollars this incident will end up costing them millions. At this point, anything he says needs to be taken with a grain of salt. The CEO needs to go.
Completely disagree with you. His response sound like lawyer crap. How about owning up to your fault or assumed fault as most of civilized world has clearly backed a doctor.
I look forward to hearing the doctor’s story from his own mouth. Hope he gets on TV soon.
Don’t we all… Not sooner than the law sue and oscar’s resignation
It’s not the crime is the cover up again.
With all the attention this has been getting, United should have foreseen this note going out and try to avoid making this even more us against them situation by actualy acknowledging what happened and offering some sort of non-appology with a promise to revisit their polices etc.
I completely disagree with you, UA has been involved in a couple of incidents within the past few days and in both cases they failed to treat their customers with the due respect.
You can be sure, this one will cost UA much more than if they had hired a private plane to fly their crew wherever they needed to go.
UA CEO must go, his actions are not in line with the Leader he should be. The sooner he goes the better for UA.
@FabinhoBP – The problem is that the bench behind Oscar is worse. Scott Kirby would handle this better? NFW…
Disagree on the CEO’s letter. People on the plane were described each other as shaken. They wouldn’t have been so shaken if it were warranted. No reports from passengers state he was getting belligerent. The CEO is doing everything he can to shift blame from United. “Why did the passenger resist!” “Why did the police react that way!” “OMG the passenger was frustrated that he wouldn’t make the flight he not only paid for, but was seated for!”
This letter shows incompetence and United still doesn’t get how bad this is for them.
“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.”
Except that, no, he wasn’t “being denied boarding” and no, this wasn’t an example of them following their “involuntary denial of boarding process,” because THE MAN HAD ALREADY BOARDED THE FLIGHT.
This is a non-sequitur Bethany. I simply don’t understand your argument. What ultimately happened to the man? Answer: he was denied boarding. Same as the other three passengers. Didn’t matter that they had already boarded. What mattered is that when the plane pulled out of the gate, they were denied boarding involuntarily.
Matthew –
It’s not a nonsequitur, because it goes to whether UA had reason to have the guy forcibly removed.
But he wasn’t denied boarding. He was allowed to board and then dragged off. It’s not the same thing at all.
In the inevitable lawsuit, the language will matter, because United’s “Denied Boarding Compensation Policy” which is available online, does say that passengers may be involuntarily be denied boarding. but does not say that they may be forced to leave after they’ve already boarded. And any lawyer worth anything will absolutely argue that “denied boarding” is not the same thing as “let him board then kick him back off.”
My other objection to the use of the phrase is that it’s an attempt to further downplay what actually happened. He wasn’t dragged off the plane bloody and barely conscious, he was just “denied boarding.”
And this is further bolstered by the CoC’s section 21 which enumerates in great detail all of the reasons that a passenger can be removed from a flight:
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx#sec21
Overbooking or financial impact to the airline is not among the exhaustive list.
Arguing that he indeed “didn’t follow crewmember discussions” would be a serious fallacy of circular reasoning.
It’s important to note here that, as a matter of how contracts are interpreted by real lawyers and judges, such a list *is* considered exhaustive even if it’s not explicitly so. Neither the airline (United) nor their partner (Republic), nor anyone else operating on their behalf (Chicago aviation security), had the right to remove this passenger. Without that right, they are in breach of contract as of that moment and can be held liable for any outcome from that breach.
A good argument could have been made that you’re not boarded until you’re seated and the door closes because that’s when the boarding period ends. And that’s what I was initially thinking. But now that the CEO is quoted saying they were fully boarded, that could probably could be used against them.
Some of the comments here are absurd. Here are some facts not many of these commenters are aware of:
1) this wasn’t a legacy united airlines flight. It was a republic airlines flight with contracted pilots and flight attendants working for republic flying under a United Airlines leased airplane. Has anyone paid attention to the small writing on the nose of Erjs and Crj planes? If they say republic, go get, expressjet, etc… They are not paid by United Airlines they are paid by those contract carriers.
2) Aside from the fact that compensation was offered, his name was selected randomly. What about the three others that did not cause a disturbance as they exited the aircraft? Would you risk cancelling the flight for everyone else? Or would you rather redraw a name? Then it becomes a matter of sexism, racism, ageism, etc etc. If you were selected on the second draw, what excuse would you use? I’m not a doctor but an ER nurse which is equally as important? Why should the randomly selected person get to walk away from it?
3) Moreover, a crew was operationally needed to fly the aircraft back from Louisville. And for those of you saying crew rest is nonsense, have you ever read the FAR/AIM? These are regulations put in place and enforced by the Federal Aviation Administration and suggested by the research of the NTSB (national transportation safety board). The NTSB employs researchers whom evaluate human factors involved in all aircraft accidents and reported incidents. One key amongst them is crew fatigue and situational awareness. If you want to sit on an aircraft with a crew that drove from Chicago to Louisville that same day be my guest but know that it is ILLEGAL for crew to not acquire adequate rest. This is a federal regulation, not nonsense.
4) for those of you bringing up “united being in the news for something else again”…please read the entire article and not just the title. The women asked to change out of leggings were United pass riders. Meaning they get to fly for free because they are either employees, freinds of employees, or family of employees. That also means they have to follow an employee travel dress code because they are representing United when they are traveling for free. Would you wear sandals and tights to the office? You’d get sent home immediately or asked to change. Let’s also touch on the fact that these ladies hit “I UNDERSTAND” the employee dress code when they register online for free travel as employees on discounted travel.
In conclusion, the CEO handled the response in a composed manner. And the article nails it on the head.
5) the passenger being dragged off the flight was being done so by police officers. And may I remind you this doctor was not being very civil compared to the other three volunteers. Also note being removed forcibly from the flight wasn’t the first resorted to method.
Rick
Great points. This was a no one situation,
BUT what makes this guy above the law?
What would have happened had the flight just been delayed because of weather? Would he still be crying foul?
Without all the facts its quite easy for all of us to judge. Regardless of the reasons, unruly passengers are just making it difficult for EVERYONE to travel.
@Rick
“Some of the comments here are absurd. Here are some facts not many of these commenters are aware of:”
Thanks for the condescending beginning to a superficial and misguided post, particularly when some of your “facts” aren’t.
With respect to your point 1: “Live by the codeshare, die by the codeshare.” This story no longer has anything to do with the substance of the issue to the general public – it’s all about the appearance. Even Oscar knows that, and it’s why he made his statement, ham-handed as it is.
Your point 2: “his name was selected randomly.” Says who? That’s not what Oscar said. He said that they “followed [their] involuntary denial of boarding process.” The United contract of carriage says:
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.
That’s not random. Quit making stuff up.
Your point 3: If a crew was required operationally to operate the flight, and they had not already had positive space seats confirmed for them on the flight, then Republic screwed up. They didn’t have a crew in place, probably because they’re crewing flights so tightly these days. It should have been on Republic to offer the necessary compensation to encourage volunteers. They should not have tried to IDB this guy, because the flight wasn’t actually overbooked – it was overbooked because they needed to move late arriving deadheads, not booked passengers.
Your point 4: You’re completely missing the point. Whether the legging event was real or bogus (as I said, I think it was totally bogus), that’s not what most of the public thought, largely because United screwed up their twitter response, so that PR environment is the reality that United has to operate in if they want to attempt to salvage their reputation with a large segment of travelers.
Your point 5: Yes, he was dragged to the door by police officers, in a way that caused him bodily injury. The issue, however, is whether or not the police had a legal basis to remove him in such a fashion. It is open for substantial debate as to whether he had committed an offense that gave rise to reason to be placed in police custody in such a fashion. And whether he was ultimately released or not, there is no question that he was in police custody.
You’ll notice that most of the posters here and on other social media sites disagree with your assessment of United’s response. You might consider whether, just maybe, you’re actually the one who is incorrect.
If United and their operators etc. did not follow their policy of IDB by choosing to allow this passenger remain onboard due to his alleged medical degree or lack there of, Asianness or non-Asianness, age or youth, mental illness or sanity, then they should be sued for discrimination. They did follow their policy and I support that.
It is up for substantial debate whether the police officers, who don’t work for United or Republic, needed to treat him in the way he was treated. It is not up for substantial debate whether he needed to be removed from the aircraft once he refused the lawful instructions of the operators of the aircraft.
Well said. If a flight crew for whatever reason you deem right or wrong calls the police to remove you from a flight, it’s no longer your decision to stay. Your getting off the plane. The decision you do have is how much dignity you leave with.
I find it interesting that he claims that passengers were offered $1,000 cash to take a later flight when every other account says that the maximum offered was a voucher.
I predict this memo will cost him his CEO job.
I also disagree with you but have a question regarding UA policy on dead heading. 1. Does the airline make any notation in the system that these people will be on the flight and need seats? 2. Do these employees themselves do any entry in the system? 3. Or do these employees just show up unannounced and get a seat?
The whole situation of airline oversells needs to be looked into by the regulatory authorities. In what other industry does the seller get to sell one item for sale (in this case a seat) TWICE? If there are no shows the aircraft should fly with those seats empty. The airline still sold them. Intentional overbooking (which is what the airlines do) is an unethical business behavior. Also, you can’t defend Munoz. He’s incompetent. He’s a railroad guy who was on the Board when they let the previous CEO go. As soon as he assumed office he promptly had a heart attack and was out of the office for months while the airline basically flew itself. I flew Continental before the merger and it was a good airline. Since the merger with United, the care for the customer is gone.
>The whole situation of airline oversells needs to be looked into by the regulatory authorities.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
The regulatory authorities broadening their authority under the current administration????
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha…
The public needs to demand it Greg-y. Airline overbooking is institutionalized theft, and its been going on for decades. Obama sure didn’t do anything about it, did he?
I don’t disagree, but I’m also not holding my breath, as I enjoy oxygenation:
Presidential Executive Order on Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs
EXECUTIVE ORDER
– – – – – – –
REDUCING REGULATION AND CONTROLLING REGULATORY COSTS
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, as amended (31 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), section 1105 of title 31, United States Code, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:
…
Sec. 2. Regulatory Cap for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) Unless prohibited by law, whenever an executive department or agency (agency) publicly proposes for notice and comment or otherwise promulgates a new regulation, it shall identify at least two existing regulations to be repealed.
(b) For fiscal year 2017, which is in progress, the heads of all agencies are directed that the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, to be finalized this year shall be no greater than zero, unless otherwise required by law or consistent with advice provided in writing by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (Director).
Greg, it’s probably a regulation that is PERMITTING overbooking. So, if you got rid of that regulation, overbooking wouldn’t be allowed as it is ILLEGAL in any other business.
There are multiple flights before 3pm, on UA or AA. Did UA even try to book those? There are also taxi. Did UA even try? It isnt because the company policy does not allow this as it is costing money. So the CEO is personally responsible for this. Why did Delta offer amex gift card as VDB? didnt UA like to copy DL? UA had gone revenue based like DL but forget to copy those things that cost money. The fault is clearly at the top
Thank you, Matthew, for being the one voice that is being reasonable and not jumping on the ridiculous outrage wagon. United did absolutely zero wrong. They’re allowed to IDB the whole plane if they want. Furthermore, the cops did nothing wrong. The man was breaking the law by staying on board. Resisting the instructions of first the crew and then an officer and refusing a lawful order was what got the idiot hurt. There is no evidence that any police injured that man, but given the way he needed to be dragged off the plane and the way he came running back onto the plane makes it highly likely that he did that himself trying to struggle out of the policemen’s grasp.
There are appalling acts of police brutality in this country that I stand strongly against. But I equally stand against this absurd culture of people thinking that they can do a whole range of illegal actions of defiance against the law without deserving the completely predictable consequences that arise.
Oscar’s job as CEO is to maximize value for his stockholders, not by being proven right.
Look around you – do you think that dragging a 69 year old Asian doctor off a plane so that Republic can deadhead a crewmember that they were too incompetent to prebook them seats to get them in the right place at the right time and then defending it as United’s employees “continuing to go above and beyond to ensure we fly right” is working very well today to maximize stockholder value?
CPD isn’t the group taking most of the heat. It’s rightfully United. They did not *have* to handle this situation in this way. That passenger didn’t (arguably (very questionably)) commit any illegal act until United chose poorly to handle the situation the way they did and bump him off in favor of deadheading crew.
United then has repeatedly compounded the error. If you think otherwise, then you have no clue whatsoever about marketing, PR or crisis communications. The last month at United will be studied for years at graduate schools of business as a case study for how not to deal with challenging situations.
Mathew, It looks like you’re still defending UA for their barbaric behavior. You now agree with me that the four f/a’s showed up after the flight had boarded. I think what you are overlooking is why was this flight crew so “out of position” that UA had to kick off paying customers for non-rev employees. UA could have put their crew on another airline. My friend Michelle flies for DL and usually has to fly on AS to get in position. So Matthew, if you want to be a credible air travel blogger, go out and get the facts and report back to us. Find out why these four f/a’s were so far out of position to crew their next flite.
Oscar Munoz is a poor excuse for an airline CEO as United has lead the race to the bottom of the Big 3 U.S. carriers.
When I responded to your previous post, it was known that the flight had completely boarded before the bumping began. I guess when Oscar Munoz tells you the flight had completely boarded, then it must be true. So much for “flying the friendly skies of United”. No wonder they no longer use that tag-line.
Mathew, be a responsible writer and find out the real story of the “ORD 4”. I’ll be scanning boardingarea.com for your answer. Thanks.
I’ll do my best. I’d love to get to the bottom of this.
Nothing like alternate facts
Well I guess the President of Penn State was in a difficult position when he defended Jerry Sandusky the child molester. But he’s now in jail.
Being in a difficult position doesn’t give you a pass. It just gives you an opportunity to be a leader, or not.
Forcibly removing a passenger who paid you money, who you boarded and seated, is very bad. And then to blame the incident on the passenger by calling him belligerent is even worse. The video shows the passenger was non-compliant — with good reason — but the POLICE were belligerent and the initiators of violence.
It’s fine to defend employees. They were following policy. The problem is that the policy is stupid. The CEO should fix it and apologize for it.
But to say “treating our customers and each other with respect and dignity is at the core of who we are” after what his company did is so bad he should be fired.
CEO job is safe. Video & IDB is proof of a full airplane and that’s what makes profits. Stock was up nearly a full percent today.
Did you expect the gate employees to let the crew miss the flight and get reprimanded or fired? No.
Did you expect the Aviation police to stand there and ask him politely 20 times to deplane? No.
He didn’t follow authority directions and paid the price. Next time you get pulled over and officer asks you to step out of the car just repeatedly refuse. Let us know how that goes. Makes no difference whether you were actually speeding or not (ie. already boarded).
If you don’t like the current laws and regulations then vote for new legislators. That’s what the Trump supporters did.
Stock down 3 ½ percent this morning.
But that’s not actually the point. My point is that there is no way that having an Asian grandfather forcibly removed, and basically beaten in the process, is accretive to stockholder value.
Stock is down 1.4 Billion dollars… that is Billion with a Big B you idiot
He is in a difficult position. He made his choice. He will pay the price if necessary.
Meanwhile, you seem to know better about flight measures, so please point out the rule in the flight manual that says “if the passenger you randomly picked refuses to leave a flight, ignore the other passengers who might say yes and persist and force this particular Asian to give up by any means, including abuse of police force”. And does the manual grant the crew the right to start with a rude opening line which more or less goes like : “our four staff members who showed up late wants four seats so this flight is not going to take off (if none of you comply)?” Who would want to say yes?
Attitude is all the matters to solve a problem. Manuals is to help staff, not to hinder their work or grant them the right to abuse power. It is not a symbol of power at all. Manuals certainly did not teach them to command passengers. Just be polite and say please when you need help. This is mere common sense
Exactly, the plane was already loaded and passengers were already seated. The terms of carriage specifically state that no passenger can be removed unless they commit certain acts which was not the case.
United was at the mercy of the passengers and if they needed the seats, then should have increased the amount and if no one said yes, then United should have learned the lesson to plan ahead because legally, denial of boarding does not apply in this situation since all the passengers were already loaded and seated.
Bullshit. There’s completely no good excuse for what happened. Overbooking is what airlines do to make money. It’s a gamble. If the airline loses the bet, it’s time for them to pay up, not physically assault paying customers who were _already_ seated.
I’m sure in a plane that’s very full you’d be able to find volunteers once you start offering higher and higher sums of money.
And if somehow that doesn’t work or “is too expensive” either their staff should sit on the floor if legal, or they should wait for another plane even one from a competing airline (just like normal passengers who are late or on standby etc).
If it really is not worth offering passengers enough to give up their seats voluntarily then perhaps it’s not that important for the staff to be there either.
Companies should not be allowed to use violence to enforce their profits. If they lose the bet, they should pay.
Matthew you are completely wrong. You think you have found some kind of erudite answer to this situation. Instead you suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You don’t physically harm someone for money, without hyperbole, it is literally violent theft.
The CEO’s does not understand the severity of the situation. If he really can not go against his “close to mutiny” staff, then he should have suffered the milder consequences of “no comment”. If the CEO were more astute, he would have waited to have more information before committing to a plan of action and response. Likely, his response at the end of Tuesday (the 11th) would be very contrite, and offer a world of apology. Now he’s gone through the one way door. Apologizing is reasonably low cost, and employees would have known he “has to take the consumers side” in this situation. Then later and separately, he would make it up to the employees.
Your own analysis is weak. Good enough to analyze basic airline news or loyalty programs, but not intelligent enough to deal with this kind of multi-faceted high level situation. Dunning-Kruger.
How cute of you to bring back memories of Psychology 101. Thanks for your comment. But do consider that your narcissism may be clouding your judgement, leading you to make a blatant syllogistic fallacy.
Or perhaps I just like to rile people like you up…a Wag the Dog to encourage more engagement.
Let’s see. So did my narcissism cloud my judgment? Or did I accurately describe the necessary change in tone from the initial response you foolishly defended.
And if your “or” is true, then it’s time to just leave this blog (for me and maybe for you too). Do you really mean to say you spout tabloid statements just to clickbait readership? Actually that’s fine I guess, you get you views and ad revenues. I hope that’s satisfying.
Nope this won’t fly. Look at United’s terms of carriage. You can only remove a passenger for certain acts or conditions which none applied.
United”s mistake was that they did this to a fully loaded airplane after everyone boarded. Once this occurred then a new set of rules apply.
You f— up, you pay up. Lol.
Does your review process take this long, or have you denied my previous post for criticizing the author for his ability to analyze the situation.
Summary: Author doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The CEO is clearly not making the best business decision in this case. The situation is complex and has been “released into the wild”. The bad PR requires trained spin professionals and strategists to recover from. Not an email saying, “sorry, not sorry”.
That’s from the business standpoint. From a consumer stand point, the whole violence for money is deplorable and can not be condoned!
Sorry Dave, was on the road this morning. Both comments are now approved. Thank you for your input.
Sorry, but supporting this type of nonsense and inconsideration is unacceptable. Actually posting this defense only demonstrates your inability to think through a situation appropriately. United had other options, MANY other options that did NOT include violation of someone’s human rights.
1) they could have driven those employees to Louisville (only about 4 hours away)
2) they could have booked those employees or customers on competing airlines
3) they could have offered a driver service for the customers that were involuntarily booted
4) they could have utilized staff already in Louisville and made some possibly difficult but doable personnel changes to accommodate the changing landscape of their flights
Interruption to paying customers and violently “re-allocating” human beings is unacceptable. I would typically go off on a tangent here about the earlier statement with respect to your inability to “think” but I feel that most people already are fully aware of your obvious deficiencies as an intelligent human being.
Careful, your IP address gives you away…
Do you think that’s the same person or something? News flash, no one else sees the ip address, so you have to be clear in what you’re saying. You’re saying you’ll track him down for calling you deficient? Or you think it’s the same person calling you deficient? (it’s not, it’s not a coincidence that someone else criticised you in the same way within a few posts. Take a hint when you get similar feedback.)
Do you really need to be such a glutton for punishment? Clearly no matter what its not ok to drag a person out of the flight.
The CEO can’t defend the action, and by extension you can’t defend the CEO. It does not take genius to figure this out.
Sorry, Matt – as any self employed person will tell anyone “The customer is always right even when they are wrong”. United’s iconic “Fly the Friendly Skies of United” ad campaign contravenes what happened yesterday and makes a mockery of their core value system as a company.
If United needed to send employees to another destination – employees who were last to board and therefore were most likely last to arrive – they should have arranged alternate transportation for the employees. Period. Another airline? A small United owned plane? Something.
Paying customers come first. And, you certainly never ever allow police to beat up a customer. None of this would have happened had the airlines arranged for alternate transport for their staff. I’m sure a transportation company can arrange to get staff to where they need to go on a dime. If they can’t they should not be transporting the public.
I think United is going to suffer horribly for this and I would imagine they become a distant third behind Delta and AA
While I agree United will suffer horribly for this in terms of reputation, I vehemently disagree that the customer is always right. Often, the customer is wrong and needs to be re-educated.
But with the crew issue — by contract they must fly. Uber would not have been option. We don’t know if there were later flight options on AA. I’m still curious how late (at what point) the deadheading crew was booked on this flight.
The storm troopers at United could have plunked down a few thousand and sent the deadheads on an air taxi or chartered a small plane.
UAL did something that Aeroflot and Air North Korea or whatever it’s called would never even contemplate.
The people involved should be prosecuted and sent to prison. Munoz is running a criminal enterprise. The DOJ should size the entire airline under the RICO statutes.
Two issues with Munoz’ letter:
First, the reports from other passengers on the flight say that the highest amount of money that was offered for voluntary “re-accomodation” was $800, not $1000. Munoz needs to get that story straight.
Second, the doctor’s attempts to explain why it was important to be in Louisville the next day (he has to see his patients) was not being disruptive and belligerent.
You can’t fault Munoz for standing by his employees – they are executing a system of policies and procedures that Munoz’ management team created.
What was missing from Munoz’ communications – until this afternoon, once UAL’s stock began tanking – was any sense of empathy for a passenger who leaves a United airplane bloodied. Munoz and his PR staff can cling to having followed proper procedures and their rights to de-board passengers – but the videos we all saw speak a more meaningful truth – an elderly man violently pulled from his seat, bloodied, dragged down the aisle, and robbed of his dignity. Other passengers protesting, upset, crying. A chaperone pulling his minors off the plane, saying, “They don’t need to see this”. Those images will linger longer in our minds (and wallets) long after the verbiage from a press release fades.
What was unfortunate was that United could have handled this in so many other, more productive ways. Ways that would have been fairer, and kinder, and more just. And – less costly, in the long run.
The most important thing they could have done different was pay up. Why stop at $800? The FAA provides for up to $1350 and United could have gone higher, given that the ‘volunteers’ would be taking a 3pm flight the next day and missing a day’s pay, at least. If airlines are going to routinely oversell flights, they should pay what the ‘market’ will bear, so that they appropriate cost their practice of overselling.
When you are in the customer service business, your job is to serve and protect customers. A CEO shouldn’t have to make tradeoffs between customers and employees. Once that happens, you won’t have a business for much longer.
I’m in Thailand where there is a military junta ruled out the country. Even we are under military dictatorship but the police officer never use violence to the unarmed people like in the aviation police did in United airline 3411.
We respected the people right!
Let me ask a question why the UA do not know in advance that they have to reserve 4 seats for there employees. It is unbelievable that they don’t have such an simple information. Furthermore, it look highly like the 4 employees just arrived after all passenger are already board. Why flight manager don’t refuse the late check-in employee like ordinary passenger. It is double standard or mismanagement arranged by UA.
United has already lost in the court of public opinion, with all these videos out there & the appalled passengers who were on the flight. People now are scared to fly United, because they don’t want this to happen to them or their family members. Even if they chose to comply, nobody, but nobody wants to be told that they have been chosen by a computer to leave a flight that they are sitting on, with their stuff in the overhead bins and their luggage already on board. And worst of all for United, people are not typically treated this way on other airlines.
The ONLY Way to regain a percentage of the customers United has lost, is to come down hard on this: condemn what happened; state this is not their policy; reassure everyone that this would never happen again on a United flight; fire anyone involved, including higher level executives who came up with this policy. Accept full responsibility and fully apologize, something that the CEO is not capable of doing in his callous & inadequate response, so he needs to resign or be fired also. Because someone at United made this terrible decision that resulted in this man being assaulted, United will be paying dearly to this passenger and his family, and I am sure there will be lawsuits from the passengers who were traumatized from watching this. Not to mention there were a bunch of high school students, whose parents are probably irate and also considering lawsuits. Worst of all for United, they will lose money from all the customers they will be losing. I used to happily support United airlines, for several decades now. Unless the above happens, I am more than willing to pay an additional $100-$150 per ticket to fly on a different airline. $200-300 is a small price to pay to make sure my head doesn’t get bashed in by United, or that I don’t have to watch someone else’s head get bashed in…!