United CEO Oscar Munoz appeared on ABC’s Good Morning America today as the first stop on his apology tour for the passenger dragging incident.
The seven minute interview is worth a watch–
Munoz is guarded in his words, yet does not revert to corporate doublespeak. He also offers a promise that a similar event will never happen again. Further, he suggests that the very role of using law enforcement personnel to serve as bouncers or revenue enforcers (“for non-safety reasons” Munoz says) must be scrutinized. That is refreshing to hear, even if late.
Munoz also states he has no intention of stepping down. With the United stock price having rebounded, his job is likely safe for now.
Admission of Legal Liability?
In other news, we’ve already learned that Dr. Dao has lawyered up. In retaining two powerful Chicago-area lawyers, Dao positions himself for a large settlement.
Did Munoz admit to liability when he said the passenger did no wrong? Of course, but that was already done in last night’s apology. That part of the interview still strikes me most. The pause, the hesitation, and finally the answer.
I am not a mind-reader, but I felt Munoz wanted to say “well, he was at fault too” but (wisely?) held his tongue. It would have done no good to say otherwise. Many are already complaining that his apology is too little, too late.
Check out the interview. It’s worth watching.
(H/T Lucky)
More coverage:
Doctor Dragged Off Oversold United Flight
United CEO Addresses Bloodied Passenger Incident
I’ll Defend Oscar’s Note to United Employees on Flight 3411
Royal Jordanian Trolls United Airlines
Is Oscar Munoz in Danger of Losing His Job?
Details Emerge on Identity of Doctor Dragged Off United Flight
What United CEO Left Out of Apology
Emirates Shames United With Powerful Ad
Must See: United CEO on Good Morning America
this is hilarious …. a convicted felon plays the victim card, but never apologized for the people he has previously wronged.
Oh man!!!! United will regret so much what happened here. Maybe $200 more in travel vouchers and we would never be talking about this. Now look at their stock price, people cutting their credit cards, people not flying them and this guy hiring two big shot lawyers who will squeeze every cent possible from United. This will cost them way more than travel vouchers. I still think Munoz should start polishing his resume.
Matthew,
Am I correct that Dr. Dao was not charged criminally? If so, please put your lawyer hat on and I will put my law enforcement hat on.
I assume failing to head the command of a crew member is a Federal Crime, then is that the authority in which local law enforcement physically removed him? Or, is it that he did not comply with the terms and conditions, which would be a civil dispute? If it’s a federal crime, where is the FBI and the US Attorney in determining if they are going to charge him?
It may be they decided it was then a case of trespass? So then where is the Cook County States Attorney?
As a law enforcement person and a commander, it is not clear to me what authority these local Chicago guys were operating under to physically remove him, and the fact he may not have been charged further demonstrates they may have had limited in their authority to do so. They essentially acted as bouncers for UA.
A further effect of this incident is I assure you all local law enforcement agencies who have the responsibility to police airports will be reviewing their policies and moving towards a “it’s your problem UA, not mine” policy.
Mike,
It was a civil dispute and it was United that was not following their terms of the contract of carriage.
United can do whatever they need to do before a passenger boards a flight. The can deny anyone boarding. But in this case, he was given boarding and was sitting in his seat. It was a gate agent who asked him to leave and only the flight crew have the federal authority. After he boards, then Rule 21 is in effect. A passenger can only be removed from an aircraft for certain very specific reasons and removal because an airline employees needs some seats is not one of them,
United used criminal enforcement for a civil dispute.
Mike, totally agree on your last point. And I do hope that cops no longer serve as airline bouncers.
Mike
I don’t know if CDoA’s personnel on-scene are fully-sworn LEOs or just Specials, and the rules get murky when you transition from jetway to aircraft as to jurisdiction to boot. That’s one of the headaches FAMs have had to deal with, too.
Whether or not they are in breach of contract or consumer laws, have authority to require LEOs deplane revenue-PAX, and everything else is going to be on the civil side. The problem criminal-side, to my mind, is going to be nitpicking whether or not the doors were closed.
My guess is since the doors were open, this is going to devolve back down to local, and a simple trespass, rather than go federal – if it even goes that far.
End of the day, ROAR applies, and the flight crew has final authority on who can stay and who can go. But the relevant sections of FARs don’t really address this – he didn’t assault, intimidate, or interfere with the flight crew or operation of the aircraft.
There’s a lot of little lessons LEOs can take on board from the videos though. Part of me is still rolling my eyes at the entire evolution on CDoA’s part. The chair of borkage just got longer and longer and no-one stepped back, paused, and assessed.
Matthew, I’ve read further into your blog, I think I’ve got a basic handle on your view of LEOs and flying machines 🙂 I’d just like to note that groundside LEOs != airside Specials != FAMs. Of the three, the first and last aren’t airline bouncers, and not supposed to be. Mission is everything 😛
i totally agree with your reading of his pause. Before reading your blog, I watched the video and I felt the same way. I don’t think he is really sorry, but just trying to cover up the mess he created. He didn’t answer if they handled it badly in the last question either.
Too little, too late. The best chance United has of regaining some proportion of the customers is to replace this CEO (he can resign, the Board can fire him, doesn’t matter).
He had a tremendous opportunity to make a horrifying situation better, and instead, made it worse. What’s worse than what happened to this passenger? Answer: The CEO supporting what happened. He could have, right away, distanced the company from this event, denounced what happened, said this is not policy, reassure everyone this will NEVER happen again to anyone in a similar situation. Of course, it is noble to protect and support your employees, generally speaking. But when a bloodied face dripping on your plane was the outcome, and getting dragged down the aisle; sorry, you cannot.
This CEO showed an inability to search for good advice, find good advice, take good advice, or some combination. Where are his financial advisers? They can quickly do the calculation of having to pay out to the passenger; and let’s suppose the worst case scenario and every passenger on the plane sues for being forced to witness what happened and experiencing trauma from this. The millions of dollars paid out are still very little compared to a bankrupt airline, and losing millions of customers from this bad publicity. You can bet United will be losing many of its Asian customers internationally- do you think they want this to happen to them?
Where was the CEO’s occupational psychologists and experts on customers? They could quickly tell him that when a customer sees this video, they will imagine that this could potentially happen to them. Let’s see, our country just elected a President, half of his platform was based on preventing terrorism. Generally, people fear being killed by terrorists on planes. Guess what their next fear will be now? Being pulled out from your seat violently and dragged down the aisle. Fear is a powerful force here, and the videos make people fear flying on United Airlines. They don’t want this to happen to themselves or their loved ones. Worse yet, even if it happened, it is clear the CEO will support the employees instead of the customer.
Where were the CEO’s PR folks? The CEO was acting like this was a car accident between 2 private citizens where you admit no fault. That’s wrong– he is in a business that depends on customers. Admitting no fault in a situation like this causes customers to not trust you. Admit the legal liability and win the customers back. Ironic, but that’s how it works. The CEO was also acting like police depts do when they’ve done an internal investigation and concluded their police did nothing wrong. Again, a big distinction. Even if people disagree w/the police dept’s conclusion, they will still require their services next time they call 911. An Airline is totally different. If people disagree with him, he will lose business from his customers. In fact, the adage in the business he is in is more like “the customer is always right.” The CEO forgot all of this in his initial responses, and instead worsened the trust between United Airlines and their customers. It’s so bad, that he has to go. Even though he changed his tune now, we don’t believe him, because we saw firsthand that his initial responses were callous, lacked responsibility, and it’s obvious in what happened in the video– well, the problems clearly start at the top.
Put another way, even the leggings incident was strange and is a bit of a gray area but picky to pick on kids wearing leggings. But whatever. It wasn’t going to change me flying on United. However, this current incident is making me change my behavior with United. I have been a mileage plus member for decades, have enjoyed supporting them, probably in the past would even pick United over other airlines if the same price range. Now, this week I have to book a flight to Washington D.C. for the summer and guess what? With the CEO in place and with what happened, I will definitely avoid United. Don’t want this to happen to me or to see this happen to someone else.
And no, it is not about $$ or the bottom line either. I consider myself an average traveler. I have turned down the cheapest flights in Europe when I didn’t recognize their name, or felt the planes would be too small. I have passed over cheaper flights for airlines that had safety problems. And I certainly would pass over United now for my own safety, even if they were cheaper.
I agree and disagree with this being too little too late.
There’s certainly a lot of lost ground to catch-up, but at the same time going public and essentially saying “We screwed up on the plane, and in the boardroom afterwards too” will go a long way to staunching the bleeding.
The question will be if they actually do anything that makes an operational difference, and how they handle making the Dr whole. They’re the big bad airline, everyone hates them, people would likely even rate RyanAir higher than United if asked right now, I imagine. They might not care on a corporate level about the injuries to body and feelings of a handful of PAX, they might feel perfectly justified in everything they did and, indeed, believe they were contractually and legally in the right. But none of that will help if investors abandon them because they look bad – literally the bottom line.
I look at the interview as aimed not so much at the public as to investors and stockholders – saying to them “We’re moving to deal with a PR nightmare”.
PAX come, PAX go. People will always need an airplane. Investors look far further than the carousel at the end of the trip, and those are the ones UA is going to want to keep calm.
I am *such* a cynic, aren’t I? 😛
Yes, agree!