TravelSkills

News and Tips For Your Trips

United: Will 3 wrongs make a right?

United jets on the ramp at Newark Terminal C (Photo: Chris McGinnis)

The three primary characters in this week’s gruesome tale of airline passenger bashing made mistakes: United should have sought a better solution to its oversold/overbooked/crewing situation, David Dao should have gotten off the plane, and the police should have used less force.

On a busy Sunday night at O’Hare, these three mistakes coalesced to create a perfect storm onboard the plane. The end result we’ve all seen play out on viral videos that elicit a visceral, emotional reaction and created a social media firestorm.

United was wrong: United (or Republic) should never have boarded the plane before asking for volunteers. United should have increased the compensation it was offering for passengers to give up their seats until it got a few takers. It should have considered alternatives for getting its crew to Louisville– it could have rented a car and had them there in five hours. United should have tried harder to fix the situation before calling in law enforcement.

David Dao was wrong: But the least wrong of the three. As the Wall Street Journal said this week, “airplanes are dictatorships.” As lopsided and unfair as the situation was and as angry as Dao may have been, he should have gotten off the plane when instructed to do so. By refusing to get off, he was breaking federal law. Once off the plane, he could have possibly plead his case with gate agents, letting them know that he was a doctor with patients to see in the morning and that he was traveling with his daughter. Who  knows, they may have taken that into consideration, let him back on board or put him on another flight or arranged to have a car take him to Louisville. UPDATE: Do airlines have the right to throw you off the plane even though you’ve done nothing wrong? As wrong as it may seem, the answer is: Yes. Travel industry analyst and former airline executive Henry Harteveldt helps explain, “Just as airplanes defy the law of gravity when they take off, air travel has its own unique sets of rules that passengers must follow. Among the rules are following airline employees’ directions and commands. If you deliberately disobey an airline employee’s instructions, it can result in a fine, being removed from a plane, or even being put on a ‘black list’ and not being able to fly that carrier ever again.” For more background on this, see: Can an airline really just yank you off a plane? Plus: Legal minds are picking apart this premise.

Chicago Department of Aviation officers were wrong: As I write this, much of the media focus (and blame) is zeroing in on the Chicago Department of Aviation officers who brutalized Dao. Some force may have been necessary to get him off the plane, but not that much force. Tom Demetrio, Dao’s attorney, said that the 69-year-old “lost two front teeth, broke his nose, and suffered a concussion.” That’s grotesquely excessive. Today Business Insider reports that the union representing United pilots stated, “This violent incident should never have happened and was a result of gross excessive force by Chicago Department of Aviation personnel…For reasons unknown to us, instead of trained Chicago Police Department officers being dispatched to the scene, Chicago Department of Aviation personnel responded. At this point, without direction and outside the control of United Airlines or the Republic crew, the Chicago Department of Aviation forcibly removed the passenger.”

Will three wrongs make a right? Will United change? Will federal rules change? Will passenger behavior change? We’ll have to wait and see. But we are already seeing evidence of a policy change at United. Today the airline outlined procedural changes in a statement:

First, we are committing that United will not ask law enforcement officers to remove passengers from our flights unless it is a matter of safety and security. Second, we’ve started a thorough review of policies that govern crew movement, incentivizing volunteers in these situations, how we handle oversold situations and an examination of how we partner with airport authorities and local law enforcement.  Third, we will fully review and improve our training programs to ensure our employees are prepared and empowered to put our customers first.  Our values – not just systems – will guide everything we do.  We’ll communicate the results of our review and the actions we will take by April 30.    

UPDATE Friday: Delta has now increased compensation limits for voluntary denied boardings — gate agents can now offer up to $2,000 worth of vouchers, while supervisors can offer up to $9,950 worth of vouchers (per OMATT)

Some of the latest stories to note:

United Consumer perception plummets to lowest level in a decade (Ad Age)

United promising to make major customer service changes (Business Insider)

The Eagle has landed: Who is the lawyer taking on United Airlines? (NBC)

United Airlines did nothing wrong…so what’s all the fuss about? (The Street)

(Image: Emma Baum)

Remember this guy? Delta didn’t forcibly remove him and took social media heat for it (TravelSkills)

Dao’s lawyer and daughter speak at press conference (NBC)

Dao: The Asian Rosa Parks (USA Today)

How much authority do flight crews have over passengers? (TravelPulse)

Current United stock price (Google)

What do you think will happen? Will this lead to truly major reforms or will it blow over? Please leave your comments below. 

ICYMI, see the 25 most recent TravelSkills posts right here

In the market for a new credit card? See our “Credit Card Deals” tab to shop around! It helps us help you.

Don’t miss out! Join the 185,000+ people who read TravelSkills every month! Sign up here for one email-per-day updates!

 


Print pagePDF pageEmail page

Comments

  1. If United had offered a more reasonable level of compensation, there would have been plenty of volunteers.

  2. United’s response so far has been pretty thin gruel compared to the gravity of their PR catastrophe. Their policy should be to never bump passengers involuntarily, period, and to raise the offer until enough people volunteer, or until the price is high enough the airline chooses to transport the crew some other way, like driving them, chartering a private plane, etc.

    The need to break the culture (not unique to United) of responding to unhappy customers, especially customers with a damn good reason to be unhappy, with escalation instead of de-escalation, as pretty much every other business has learned to do. Excessive security fears around commercial aviation make escalation all too easy for the airlines, so they’ve never learned how to do anything better.

  3. The increased volunteer compensation limits and changes to flight crew travel policies have already resulted from this incident.

    The cynic in me is expecting that the language in the Contract of Carriage or some related ticket purchase agreement will be updated so that a passenger agrees to being de-boarded for any reason; in essence, explicitly waiving any rights of carriage that might currently be perceived to exist.

    I suspect that the government has made it clear to the airlines that it
    is not in the interest of national and aviation security to have the
    current laws examined or challenged.

  5. It really bugs me when this comment gets bandied about: “By refusing to get off, he was breaking federal law.” Oh really? Says who? Industry experts? Lawyers and pundits who make money off of this? There is no law broken until a judge or jury finalizes the case…and this is contract law. Most won’t fight because it isn’t financially worth it. That doesn’t make professional bullies right. Their flimsy contracts that are 50 pages of number six font are chocked full of words that can be challenged in court. They aren’t laws, they’re contracts. The airlines love to press the fear button …makes small people feel powerful…like Chicken Little. This is what the industry has sunk to…

  6. I know, the poor guy has opened a can of worms by having a very popular blog, and we are the worms !! Chris, you do sound like a mediation attorney already.

  7. Are you kidding ? If I’d had the misfortune to be in that godforsaken concourse, then seeing this happen, I’d have been willing to PAY THEM to get the plane out of here.

  8. there ain’t no law, I’m pretty sure. Dr. Dao fell into a grey area, and, for all the drama of going limp and allowing himself to be dragged out, he was closer to innocence than if he had actually interfered, ie, fought back against the thugs. He did not. I hope he cleans them out.

  10. Because you include the passenger in the list of at-fault parties. That’s what makes your posts SEEM shill-like.

    Chris, I was the FIRST one to applaud your courage in posting the story. But your comments are more and more SEEMING like someone who wants to transfer some of the heat from United’s back onto the passenger’s. And using hyperbole (“big bad”) shows poor judgement as a Moderator, which makes us wonder why you are being defensive on behalf of United.

  11. Has United or Mr. Munoz explained (or even been asked) why Mr. Munoz’s initial email to employees was worded the way it was? IMO, the attitude conveyed in that email added much fuel to what was initially a small fire.

  12. Thanks, Brad! We all want to know. Right now there are a lot of opinions about what happened, what went wrong and who is to blame. That’s the court of public opinion. Let’s see how this plays out in a real court if it ever gets there.

  13. Some airlines such as Virgin America and Jet Blue have virtually no bumping. Is it because both airlines operate mostly point to point non stops where the flight crew stays with the plane all day, as opposed to the hub airlines where fights are often delayed because crews working flight A or B have to sprint across the airport to work another flight.
    When I travel I add an extra day cushion to account for weather and involuntary bumping and the last two trips flights were delayed long hours because flight crews were stuck in another city because of bad weather (the weather was great at both my departure and destination point). Is air travel to the point that if one HAS to be somewhere at a specific time for a court date, to meet a cruise ship or to attend a meeting, should one schedule an itinerary so they arrive 24 hours before their scheduled event and spend a day in a hotel room to compensate for every increasing flight delays?

  16. As is so often the case in life, had the gate agent been charming when asking for vols instead of being gruff, none of this would have happened. Passengers would have been more cooperative and left happily with their compensation. Bottom line, blame falls on the doc; he should not have thrown a tantrum. Had he behaved like an adult, explained himself politely, UA could have picked a different passenger. Life is not fair, you gotta deal with it. The airlines encourage bad behavior with their awful treatment of all passengers.

  18. Hey BlueLion – can you bring an example of your “Vietnamese wannabe PO”? If you think the vietnamese community “fearful” – I am glad Mr Dao (who is in his late 60’s) was not in this case.

  19. You missed the detail before the assault (also heard from other passenger) – Dr Dao did state the reason for not being able to volunteer. He initially volunteered and backed out when he came to find out the next flight was at 3am next day, explaining he was a physician and had patients to see in the morning. Some how he was randomly selected for involuntary bump, by stroke of bad luck. But he had legitimate reason. UA had no legitimate “overbooking”. Besides, they had to respect his reason and physician’s priority, but they didn’t care. Customer Service was not practiced. Everybody had to go to work. He did not show arrogance or that “self-importance”, didnot raise voice, didnot refuse. Also, he travelled with his wife, not his daughter. As assertive as he could be, it turned out it was the God-guided act or the gut instinct that he or any one would follow.

  20. I have to agree with Mark, if Mr. Dao would of been a lamb and gotten off the flight, this problem wouldn’t of come about. It would of never gotten any word in any newspaper or media outlet, the airlines would of gotten away with this.
    Just like all of these videos of police beating on men during arrests, this wouldn’t of ever gotten the same scrutiny without video.

    The big question for Chris and everyone else, how many times does something like this happen? I bet that a few hundred, maybe thousands of people a year (probably a lot more) have been asked to off board a plane because of a problem like this. So this is a dirty little secret that United and probably other airlines get away with. So now people can see this problem and hopefully force United to fix it.

    It’s all about being organized and having the training and man power to handle these problems before they board a flight. It seems obvious that United didn’t have that and created the problem.

    I hope that people don’t think I am being insensitive to bring this up but in a way this is a bit like what happened to Rosa Park. In 1955, Parks refused to obey bus driver’s order to give up her seat in the colored section to a white passenger, after the white section was filled. This action brought the problem to public scutiny and help change a wrong, Parks’ act of defiance became important symbols of the modern Civil Rights Movement.

    So by what Mr. Dao did brought out the problem that has probably hurt other folks who were forced off planes.

    I can only hope that a rule is made that once the airline boards the plane that they can’t take anyone off a plane for something like this. We expect that the airlines will be organized enough not to have this happen. Also everyone has said the same thing, United should of offered more for the seat, even if it costs them a couple of thousand dollars. It’s was there fault and they should be ready to pay for a problem that they created.

    One last point, the reason this is a big deal is just about every person that flys United has a horror story, lots and lots of people really hate United. Instead of getting better they have gotten worst in cramming people into planes and people hate this. I also can write a book on all the wrongs that United has done to me in 35 plus years of flying, so I only hope that this incident will make United much better or their brand will be terribly disrespected around the world.

    United, hope your listening to people like me.

  21. No is actually the fly by night company that handles the gate for Republic, fault but then again they are operating under the authority of United. My grandfather flew for PanAm from 1928-1963, the stories he had. His #1 rule for customer service, was that anyone that purchased a ticket to be aboard his plane is a VIP..not freeloaders.

  22. yeah, I’m on the airplane almost every week of the year, including this week, and haven’t found any traveler yet that agrees with the POV that Dao is on the wrong. I think we need to bring common sense back, which I thought Chris WAS especially wise at. Please make a distinction between safety versus economic interest in this case.
    In fact, don’t you think flights will be less safe if the security guys continue to lose credibility if passengers start to question their motives for removing passengers?

  23. It’s not that clear that the passenger HAD to comply. Plainly, not every crew order must be obeyed (obviously illegal demands. for example); this one falls in a “gray area” wher the order was not based on safety, or misconduct of the passenger, or a legitimate “over-sold” situation, but the economic interests of the carrier. That will come out in the inevitable litigation, and I’ll bet that the passenger makes out a strong case of unenforceable abuse of authority by United.
    At the same time, while it has drawn some notice, the REAL liability exposure here rests with the Chicago Airports Authority. It was their ill-trained and unsupervised goons who used manifestly excessive and probably illegal force on the passenger. This is no different from a licensed police officer who unjustifiably kicks a person in his custody (think Rodney King). That is a slam dunk liability–and a very large one. Chicago richly deserves it in this case.
    As passengers, this is a case that needs to be prosecuted, to establish for all of us what the boundaries are. Flight safety is one thing; the economic selfishness of the carrier is something entirely different.

  25. Chris blog almost sounds like “talking points” from United Airlines PR department.

  26. Thanks, Mark. This is just the kind of thing that I think will be closely examined by United and perhaps all airlines as a result of this incident. Might lead to changes, might not.

  27. Yes, Dr. Dao is a practicing physician. He got his license back a couple of years ago after being convicted of a felony. One issue that hasn’t been discussed, that we trained for back in the 70’s in cop school, is that Vietnamese from the old country, are especially fearful of people with badges and are most likely to act out in violence when confronted like the wannabe police officer did.

  28. Chris, you keep saying it was crew instructions. No where I have seen in the media that the crew was involved, but rather a gate agent who is not a crew member.

  29. United screwed up. The Chicago Airport police screwed up. But Dao is not blameless in this encounter. If the reports that he’s not a practicing doctor are true, then he lied. More importantly, he didn’t get off the plane as he was asked to.

    You’d think people would get it by now but they don’t. You do what you’re told and deal with any disputes outside the airplane, not on board. If that’s not acceptable, please use another form of travel. I don’t need to be worrying about passengers who think they can do whatever they want in a sealed aluminum tube cruising at 39,000 feet and I’m sure most travelers would agree.

  30. Chris, Had Mr. Dao removed himself like the good sheep you believe we are suppose to be, this issue between a fare paying passenger and a private company unwilling to up the offer to have a reasonable end to United’s problem would not be discussed. The power of the crew/GATE Agents in this situation is what should be questioned. United uses the law as a commercial benefit and means to treat people as they see fit and it has finally caught up with them. Yes, people need to obey the law but maybe the enforcement and application of the law needs to be questioned and applied appropriately, as a security or safety issue perhaps seems reasonable, yes? Not to save United a couple of round trip tickets to Paris. Huge difference.

    To continue to say Mr Dao is wrong is absurd that no reasonable person believes or should stand for. To simply claim the issue is about following the almighty ‘Crew Instructions’ is a bit silly given the reasons and application of the law in this situation. He should not have had to explain a damn thing to the GATE agents at all, as it never should have gotten to the point that people are removed for commercial reasons, up the offer and people will gladly walk off.

  31. No way. This is all on UAL. The offer could have easily been increased slightly and people will be lining up!
    I’ll say this as well… The upper limit on passenger compensation, my understanding, was set by previous regime, not current one.

  32. sorry, again disagree. It’s not black and white in this case, especially when the plane is still on the ground. A litmus test is this: will he be charged? And if he is, will he beat the rap sheet when all the facts are presented?

  33. Oh yes, Jeff.. I remember those double boarding pass situations… happened to me more that once back in the day. Not fun at all. Esp when you were the guy not seated!

  35. Mr. Dao was wrong by the law. Saying that this law is for safety issues. I get that. I have been flying for twenty-five years and the only people I have ever seen removed are rowdy or non-rev passengers on mainline carriers (I was a non-rev at one time as my mother worked for an airline). The only other time was back in the days (15 years ago or so) when it seemed double boarding passes would occasionally be issued but this was so rare. I can’t guarantee it but if this had been a mainline flight I bet it would not have happened. I find the commuters rife with cabin crew and flight crews with attitudes. Again he should have gotten off by law but the reality it should have never been boarded. Commuters are issues. On commuters I’ve had them to have passengers get off because the last flight told the two 50# bags of sand and out weight an balance was off. Commuters are an issue and most problems I’ve ever had (which are very, very few) are with commuter crews.

  36. Thanks for your comments, Shang, but what I’m saying here is that he was wrong to not obey crew instructions. It does not matter if the flight was over booked or over sold or whatever… passengers must obey what the pilot and crew tell them to do. That is federal law. To me, not obeying federal law is what Dao got wrong. Some interesting reading about that here: http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/interfering-with-a-flight-attendant-or-crewmember.htm#

  37. Calling in law enforcement to force the will of a private institution in resolving a minor business issue….that is the most wrong of all wrongs. How are we OK with that? This was not a security, or even a petty crime issue!!! It’s the use of nuclear option, and wrongly applied at that.
    Again, Chris, I don’t understand how you can still insist that David Dao is wrong at this point. It turned out that this was not an overbooked situation, and the contract of carriage did not allow (ok.. is silent) on the issue of a boarded, seated, fully-paying passenger. Wow….

  38. I think you forgot to put the “Sponsored Post” label on this one. It’s getting a bit silly now

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Editorial Disclaimer: This editorial content is not provided or commissioned by the credit card issuer. Opinions expressed here are author's alone, not those of the credit card issuer, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by the credit card issuer. This site may be compensated through the credit card issuer Affiliate Program. Responses in the comments section are not provided or commissioned by the bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by the bank advertiser. It is not the bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.”