Doctor Dragged From United Plane After Computer "Solves" Overbooking Problem

[shimh]

On ‎2017‎-‎04‎-‎12 at 11:34 PM, Emn1ty said:

Have you ever noticed that left-wing solutions involve people exercising rights they don't actually have?

 

If I was offered $800 I'd be off the plane. If someone else was being harassed about not leaving the plane, I'd give my seat up for the $800 in their place. Regardless I'd not confront security and make it an issue of force in the first place. But that's just me. Would I complain about it? Yes, of course. But I wouldn't force security to rip me off the plane because I know that me being on that plane is of their discretion to begin with.

Sure, I likely will too (probably even $400 will do), except it was not $800 off the ticket price or a future ticket.  It is 16 $50 vouchers, all expiring in one year.  You can only use 1 voucher for a ticket.  So unless I will travel 16 times on UA's place in next 365 days, the compensation is a joke.  It is a joke even for a half day delay without collateral impact.  A fully seated plane must have some clever guys.  Yet no one on the plane wants to take the $800 offer should tell you something.   :-D

[Emn1ty]

44 minutes ago, DevTech said:

"In this way, the United video serves as a stark metaphor, one where the quiet brutalization of consumers is rendered in shocking, literal form. The first thought that I had watching the outrageous footage of a passenger being dragged through an aisle like a bag of trash was that this should never happen. But fundamentally, this is an old story: Companies in concentrated industries, like the airlines, have legal cover to break the most basic promise to consumers without legally breaking their contracts. The video is a scandal. But so is the law."

This video is an anecdote, and not the norm. Your quote speaks as if this is some kind of rampant problem.

 

3 minutes ago, shimh said:

Sure, I likely will too, except it was not $800 off the ticket price or a future ticket.  It is 16 $50 vouchers, all expiring in one year.  You can only use 1 voucher for a ticket.  So unless I will travel 16 times on UA's place in next 365 days, the compensation is a joke.  It is a joke even for a half day delay without collateral impact.  A fully seated plane must have some clever guys.  Yet no one on the plane wants to take the $800 offer should tell you something.   :-D

Please cite the source for that information. From what I can tell, they can only offer vouchers if you volunteer to leave. If they select you to be forcibly removed you are given cash (which means that the moment they selected the seats themselves the vouchers were no longer valid compensation).

This may be the reason why nobody volunteered (assuming that's what they were offering and it wasn't a single voucher which doesn't seem to have been confirmed anywhere and this $50 voucher business is only discussed as far as I can tell in reddit comments), however you can also request a check instead as that is your right before agreeing to leave the plane (which they have to honor). He was also getting a free flight and hotel stay, even if at a later time.

[shimh]

2 hours ago, Emn1ty said:

Please cite the source for that information. From what I can tell, they can only offer vouchers if you volunteer to leave. If they select you to be forcibly removed you are given cash (which means that the moment they selected the seats themselves the vouchers were no longer valid compensation).

This may be the reason why nobody volunteered (assuming that's what they were offering and it wasn't a single voucher which doesn't seem to have been confirmed anywhere and this $50 voucher business is only discussed as far as I can tell in reddit comments), however you can also request a check instead as that is your right before agreeing to leave the plane (which they have to honor). He was also getting a free flight and hotel stay, even if at a later time.

Maybe this is the case.  Assuming everyone actually knew the rule (I didn't know it until couple days ago that one could demand a check), now the stupid thing is that no one wanted the vouchers.  So they had to remove "randomly" selected Dr. Dao except that did not go well with his working schedule. Then someone might hope that another person who actually wanted $800 cash, but was not "randomly" selected could break the impasse.  But if he raised his hand, it became voluntary, and vouchers again.

[DevTech]

Delta has quickly raised the maximum incentive to almost $10,000. United still stuck in moronic vacillation.

[DevTech]

In the department of stupid CEOs finally understanding something the rest of the planet already would have figured out day one on the job  if they were running an airline:

 

https://consumerist.com/2017/04/17/united-updates-crew-travel-policies-so-passengers-wont-be-booted-off-flights/

 

“Effective immediately, Crew Scheduling is now only able to make must-ride deadhead [non-paying passenger] bookings on oversold flights if it is 60 minutes or more before the estimated time of departure,” the memo reads.

“There will be no deviation from the policy above. No must-ride crew member can displace a customer who has boarded an aircraft.”

 

 

[Emn1ty]

12 minutes ago, DevTech said:

In the department of stupid CEOs finally understanding something the rest of the planet already would have figured out day one on the job  if they were running an airline:

 

https://consumerist.com/2017/04/17/united-updates-crew-travel-policies-so-passengers-wont-be-booted-off-flights/

 

“Effective immediately, Crew Scheduling is now only able to make must-ride deadhead [non-paying passenger] bookings on oversold flights if it is 60 minutes or more before the estimated time of departure,” the memo reads.

“There will be no deviation from the policy above. No must-ride crew member can displace a customer who has boarded an aircraft.”

Good, glad this has been resolved and people don't need to be paranoid about this anymore when flying on United. However, will other airlines follow suit?

[DevTech]

5 minutes ago, Emn1ty said:

Good, glad this has been resolved and people don't need to be paranoid about this anymore when flying on United. However, will other airlines follow suit?

So far at seems like United has a long road to travel. From the same article:

 

"the airline has said it won’t use law enforcement to drag people off flights anymore, and has also promised some kind of compensation for every passenger who was on that April 9 flight."

 

"It may, however, be too little, too late.

 

Morning Consult ran a survey to attempt to measure just how ticked off the traveling public is at United. The answer — “very” — is perhaps not surprising.

 

Morning Consult surveyed potential travelers who had heard about United ‘s recent news and also some who hadn’t, and then they compared their answers about two hypothetical, identical flights. One was from United and one from American, at the same time, for the same cost, traveling the same route. The question was pretty simple: Which flight would you take?

 

Among travelers who had not heard about United’s recent news, about half would select to travel on either airline — a coin toss, as it were.

 

However, among travelers who had been following the news about United, only 21% would select the United flight. The hypothetical American flight would have to both cost more and have an extra layover before more than half of passengers who followed the news would cave and fly United… and even then, 44% of respondents would still take the American Airlines flight instead."

 

[DevTech]

United promises to not beat up its passengers anymore. (CEO still too stupid to realize what he is actually saying - that communicating about the absurdity of what his airline did just reminds people to pick another airline)

 

https://consumerist.com/2017/04/12/united-ceo-says-airline-wont-use-law-enforcement-officers-to-remove-passengers/

 

Munoz now says that this was a mistake, telling GMA, “We are not going to put a law enforcement official onto a plane to take them off… to remove a booked, paid, seated passenger; we can’t do that.”

 

Speaking of which, that city-operated security force — which is not officially part of the Chicago Police Department — has also come under scrutiny for the way it handled the situation. One officer involved in Sunday’s incident is currently on paid leave while the city’s Department of Aviation, which operates O’Hare International, investigates.

 

United Airlines has still not responded to our request for an explanation as to why it insisted on using four seats from a sold-out flight to transport crew members who weren’t needed in Louisville until the next day. The airline operates four non-stop flights from O’Hare to Louisville each Sunday, and there was still one flight remaining that the crew members could have gotten on.

[wakjak]

 

So much for being belligerent... 

 

 

I'll wait for all the people in here so defended United, to admit they were wrong and to offer their apologies. 

[DocM]

There is no defense. All 3 officers are now suspended for overreacting, the policy was belatedly changed (no more deplaning of seated passengers), and now they're putting the burden on employees being transported to board earlier.  

 

This was totally avoidable on the airlines part just by doing that last item to begin with. Whatever hammering they get, and business lost, they totally deserve it. 

 

To be a fly on the wall at the next UA shareholders meeting....it's gonna get fugly.

[FloatingFatMan]

3 hours ago, DocM said:

To be a fly on the wall at the next UA shareholders meeting....it's gonna get fugly.

I'm completely surprised they haven't fired someone already. Incidents like this always have a scapegoat somewhere, and I suspect it will end up being whoever called security to the plane.

 

[McCordRm]

I had originally written a Rant about it, but I decided to change my stance a bit based on

Mike Rowe's commentary on the topic.

 

You can read his take on it here: 

 

I disagree with him on the power of the Corporation:

 

Edited April 19, 2017 by McCordRm

[Emn1ty]

8 minutes ago, McCordRm said:

snip...

Hey put what I was trying to say in much better words.

[McCordRm]

There we go... now it actually links my disagreement correctly.

[+Fulcrum Subscriber¹]

On 4/19/2017 at 1:52 PM, McCordRm said:

You can read his take on it here: 

 

Quote

Does that mean he deserved a beating? Of course not. But it doesn’t mean he's innocent. Like the airline, Dr. Dao had options. He had recourse. He could have deplaned and pled his case to the gate agent. But he didn’t. He chose resistance. That was dumb. United chose confrontation. That was dumber. Now, here we are. Dumb and Dumber.

-Mike Rowe

And when the gate agent simply says, "sorry for the inconvenience, goodbye", none of us would have been the wiser. Once they take you into the dark alley, no witnesses, out of sight, out of mind.

 

Quote

Point is, this is how the market is supposed to work. Their stock is down hundreds of millions of dollars, their customers are flying on other carriers, and according to CNN, they just might be the most hated company in the world today.

-Mike Rowe

So Mike Rowe acknowledges that the market "works" only when people like Dr Dao resist authority?

 

Any changes that have resulted from this are only temporary, Americans have proven they will forget yesterday. And once they forget, pending no actual FAA oversight, United Airlines will revert this policy.  All this stock price backlash, is just blowing smoke in our faces. STNY, United Airlines revenue will be better than STLY.

 

I more agree with how the next source admonishes the use of authority under these circumstances.

 

On 4/19/2017 at 1:52 PM, McCordRm said:

I disagree with him on the power of the Corporation:

 

The bakery should not have been forced to provide a service to the gay couple. This gay couple abused the justice system. I am weary to provide a corporation the same freedom to discriminate as to a mom&pop shop, simply because one of these can have significantly more far reaching policies. And where as the mom&pop shop is likely not receiving much in government support subsidies.

 

I simply will not equate a small bakery's ability to discriminate against race, religion, or whatever, to a multi-national corporation's likewise.

 

[Jim K Global Moderator]

United today released corrective actions (or a commitment) to prevent paying passengers from being beaten off a plane.

 

 

United commits to: 

- Limit use of law enforcement to safety and security issues only.

- Not require customers seated on the plane to give up their seat involuntarily unless safety or security is at risk.

- Increase customer compensation incentives for voluntary denied boarding up to $10,000. 

- Establish a customer solutions team to provide agents with creative solutions such as using nearby airports, other airlines or ground transportations to get customers to their final destination.

- Ensure crews are booked onto a flight at least 60 minutes prior to departure.

- Provide employees with additional annual training.

- Create an automated system for soliciting volunteers to change travel plans.

- Reduce the amount of overbooking.

- Empower employees to resolve customer service issues in the moment.

- Eliminate the red tape on permanently lost bags by adopting a "no questions asked" policy on lost luggage.

 

Quote

Summary of What Happened on United Express Flight 3411

Sunday, April 9, 2017

 

United Express Flight 3411 is regularly scheduled to fly Sunday through Friday from O'Hare to Louisville, with a planned departure of 5:40 p.m. CDT and an arrival of 8:02 p.m. EDT. Seating capacity is 70 customers.

 

Before boarding, flight 3411 was overbooked by one customer. Despite early attempts by United, via website/kiosk and multiple announcements at the gate asking for customers willing to take later flights, there were no volunteers. As a result, one customer who had not yet been given a seat assignment was involuntarily denied boarding (see Involuntary Denied Boarding Selection Process sidebar). The customer received a check as compensation and was booked on another United flight. The other customers were then called to board the plane.

 

At the same time, an earlier flight to Louisville, originally scheduled to depart O'Hare at 2:55 p.m. CDT was experiencing a maintenance issue (it was unclear if this issue could be fixed, but regardless, it would depart after flight 3411). Booked on this flight were four crew members, scheduled to operate the early Monday morning United Express flight from Louisville to Newark. Without this crew's timely arrival in Louisville, there was the prospect of disrupting more than 100 United customers by canceling at least one flight on Monday and likely more. With this in mind, the four crew members were booked on flight 3411, creating the need to identify four customers who would not be able to take the flight.

 

United agents began to seek four volunteers, this time while customers were seated on the aircraft. The agent offered an $800 travel credit plus the cost of meals and hotel accommodations for the evening, but no customers were willing to accept the offer. The agent then followed the involuntary denial of boarding selection process to determine which customers would be asked to leave the airplane.

 

Once the four customers on flight 3411 were identified, the United supervisor spoke with two of the customers, a couple, who then departed the aircraft and received compensation. The next customers approached were Dr. Dao and his wife. The supervisor apologized and explained they would also need to depart the aircraft, but Dr. Dao refused. The supervisor was unable to convince Dr. Dao to depart the aircraft. Given Dr. Dao's unwillingness to deplane, the supervisor left the plane and spoke to the United zone controller, who indicated that authorities would be contacted. The supervisor went back on the plane to request again that Dr. Dao deplane and advised him that authorities would be contacted. At this point, one customer onboard the aircraft volunteered to change flights for $1,000 but United needed two volunteers in order to avoid having to remove the Daos. No other customers would volunteer unless United could guarantee an arrival in Louisville later that night. Given the fact that the 2:55 p.m. CDT departure remained on a maintenance delay, with a possibility of cancelling, United could not make that commitment.

 

Officers from the Chicago Department of Aviation, which has authority to respond to such airline requests and historically has been effective in getting customers to voluntarily comply, answered United's request for assistance. These security officers were unable to gain Dr. Dao's cooperation to depart the plane voluntarily.

 

At this time, the United supervisor left the aircraft and attempted to call a manager about the situation, and Dr. Dao, as evidenced by widely reported video footage, was physically removed from his seat by the Chicago Department of Aviation Officers. After being forcibly removed from the aircraft, Dr. Dao ran back onto the airplane and Chicago Department of Aviation Officers removed him for a second time. He was later taken to a local hospital.

 

All customers then deplaned. After approximately 40 minutes, the flight re boarded without the Daos and departed for Louisville.

Source:  United

 

Good on them for laying out new ground rules ... though this probably should have been the protocol a long time ago.

[DocM]

29 minutes ago, Jim K said:

Good on them for laying out new ground rules ... though this probably should have been the protocol a long time ago.

Precisely. This was a ticking PR bomb just waiting to blow up in their face. 

[techbeck]

Quote

 

United to offer passengers up to $10,000 to surrender seats

 

United Airlines (UAL.N) said on Thursday it would offer passengers who volunteer to forfeit their seats on overbooked flights up to $10,000 as part of the carrier's efforts to repair the damage from the rough removal of a passenger.

 

The offer came after rival Delta Air Lines Inc (DAL.N) outlined plans to offer up to $9,950 in such cases.

 

United also said it would take actions to reduce overbooking flights and improve customer satisfaction.

 

"Our goal is to reduce incidents of involuntary denial of boarding to as close to zero as possible and become a more customer-focused airline," the carrier said in the statement.

 

 

More....

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ual-passenger-idUSKBN17T0HC

 

Looks like things are really shaking up at United.  Sucks it had to come to this, but at least some good is coming out of it.  They are even offering $1500 for lost baggage no questions asked.

[Mockingbird]

As expected, the passenger get a nice compensation as part a settlement 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/27/business/united-david-dao-settlement.html?_r=0

[Emn1ty]

2 hours ago, Mockingbird said:

As expected, the passenger get a nice compensation as part a settlement 

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/27/business/united-david-dao-settlement.html?_r=0

I'm not quite sure how you can equate "undisclosed amount" with "nice compensation". We can assume he got decent compensation, but we'll never know how much he got.

[DocM]

If it was under $1M and United pays his lawyer fees, said lawyer was incompetant.

 

Edited April 28, 2017 by DocM