If there’s one thing I have learned over the years, it’s that there are always two sides to every story.
On April 9th, a very unfortunate incident played out on United Flight 3411, the video of which has since gone viral causing a mass social media uprising with an ‘off-with-their-heads’ mentality. I mean, across the board. Fire ’em all and let the gods sort it out later.
Look, I get it. When I first saw the video I was appalled too. To say that it was inflammatory would be putting it mildly. But it was also a situation that was escalated far beyond the boundaries of necessity.
If a any law enforcement officer asks me to exit a plane, no matter how royally pissed off I am, I’m going to do it and then seek other means of legal reimbursement. True story.
Knowing what I know about airport security, I’m certainly not going to run back into a secured, federally restricted area at an airport flailing my arms and screaming like a banshee…because, you know, that just happens to be breaking a major federal Homeland Security law.
But that’s just me, obviously.
The moment I made that particular ill-advised choice, I would become an immediate and imminent threat to the aircraft’s security. That’s kind of a big deal. I mean, come on, I once actually had to remove my infant son’s socks because they mimicked little baby sneakers. These guys mean business.
I didn’t like it. I thought it was just plain stupid, honestly. But instead of pitching a massive fit, refusing to comply, and bolting through the TSA checkpoint like an out-of-control toddler, I did the big girl thing–sucked it up, removed the offensive socks, and went on with my happy life, sans being tackled and dragged through the airport in handcuffs by a bunch of big men with guns.
Because if you choose to take advantage of the services the airport provides, you play by their rules.
I know you’re all out there screaming that the ‘rules’ are unfair, but I am a pilot wife. I remember 9/11. Do you? I want my husband, the father of my children, to come home. I want you to get home. That law exists to protect my husband. And your wife. And your grandmother. And your child. And you. I, for one, am glad for the law.
I’m not here to dispute the facts of 3411 with you. I am not interested in getting into an argument of opinion with anyone. We’re all entitled to our own. I’m not arguing that what happened wasn’t completely terrible–it was, on multiple levels. But I am suggesting that the general public take another look at the situation, ask a few more questions, gather a few more facts, and then create a less hostile and more intellectually wrought opinion about what happened.
Because the media is giving you just enough information to keep you enraged–enough to keep their ratings up.
Things to consider:
1) “You can’t just kick a paying customer off the plane!” Psssst! It’s in the fine print. They can, indeed, do just that. And it’s not an airline specific rule, it’s a commercial aviation rule. Every ticket you purchase comes with a plethora of fine print–you know, the stuff we just click ‘next’ on without actually reading what we are agreeing to. Yeah, that. Well, it’s in there, and you checked the ‘I agree’ box when you purchased your ticket. You can read about it and oh-so-much-more here. Kind of makes you want to read all those tiny words on your next phone update before you click ‘I agree’, huh? You should. United did not break any law, and he agreed to the policy and possibility of involuntary bump when he bought his ticket. And so do you.
2) “Kicking a paying customer off an airplane!? I’m taking my business to Southwest!” Ummmm, okay. But just be sure you understand that every major airline, Southwest included, has a similar policy for involuntary bumping in a ‘must ride’ scenario. Don’t believe me? It’s called the contract of carriage. If you’re really bored, you can read Southwest’s here. Or Delta’s here. And on and on. This could have been any airline. In fact, it happens all the time. Most people just don’t wrestle law enforcement in the aisle.
3: “So what’s this ‘must ride’ nonsense anyway? They shouldn’t bump a paying customer for a free employee ride!” It’s actually pretty important to you as an airline traveler that they can. They were not ‘freeloading home’. That’s called non-rev and they have to wait in line behind your checkbook and often don’t make it home to their families if flights are booked (believe me, I know). No, this was a must fly, a positive space situation. In layman terms, it means that a crew must be flown to an airport to man a flight in order to avoid cancellation of said flight due to crew unavailability. The airlines are required to do so to avoid disruption of air traffic. In other words, if there are no willing volunteers and they need seats to get a crew somewhere to avoid disruption of aviation flow, they can, will, must bump people for the better good of the 1000’s. Why? Because one cancelled flight has a serious domino affect in the delicate, complicated world of connections and aviation law. This is not illegal. The only thing DOT requires in this situation is that the passenger is reimbursed his/her money.
4: “It’s the airline’s fault for not planning better!” Do some research! The airline industry is conpex. There are about a million and one things that can cause a crew shortage including but not limited to weather, maintenance, weather, connecting fight delays, weather, FAA timeout regs, and did I mention weather? I wish I could control Mother Nature because I would be one filthy rich person. But I can’t. And neither can United. So they inconvenience one, or four, to keep hundreds on track. Do the math. And of course, if we were on the other end of this thing, we’d be tirading and blowing up the internet because United didn’t bump a passenger to make sure our flight didn’t get cancelled and left hundreds stranded. Damned if you do; damned if you don’t. We’re a fickle crowd, we social media folks.
5: They shouldn’t have picked the minority Chinese doctor! It’s racist.” That’s just silly. Though federal regulation demands they involuntarily bump to prevent interruption of flights when necessary, each airline does have the leniency to determine how they choose the bumped passengers. They did not play spin the bottle or walk down the aisle looking for the Asian guy. Use your heads, people! There is a computerized algorithm that takes into account price of ticket, how long ago it was purchased, whether or not they can get the passenger to their destination in a timely manner, etc. It wasn’t an ‘Asian thing.’ Stop, people. Just stop. **added note: it has been discussed that Dr. Dao may have initially volunteered his seat and wasn’t chosen randomly at all. He then changed his mind after accepting the deal.
6: “United should go under for assaulting that passenger! Fire the entire crew!” Read the facts. United never touched the passenger. In fact, by all witness accounts, the United flight crew (layman term: pilots and flight attendants) remained calm and pleasant throughout the entire event, never laying hands on the passenger. They followed protocol as required by policy, no matter if it’s a good policy or not. Once law enforcement became involved (also as required by protocol), United stepped out of the decision-making process. They had nothing to do with the rest. The passenger was forcibly removed by aviation security (the very disturbing clip that everyone is talking about) after running back into the secured area after being escorted out once. Once he did that, like it or not, they (law enforcement) were under full discretion of the law to apply necessary force to remove the threat. I’m not saying it’s pretty, but the only one who actually broke a law was the passenger. There’s a reason for these laws–it’s called 9/11. I understand he’s npt a terrorist. I’m only explaining why these laws and policies exist. We can’t have it both ways. But by all means, let’s berate and punish an entire flight crew–in fact thousands of pilots, FA’s, gate attendents, ground crew, etc.–because it makes us all feel a little better.
7: “You piece of **it!” I get that the passengers were upset, angry, maybe even confused. I get that you are too. After all, media is tossing you out chunks of bloody meat like you’re a pack of starving wolves. But I’m seriously disgusted that the must ride crew that had to take those seats as well as aviation folks at airports around the nation after the unfortunate mess that unraveled have been verbally and physically assaulted and threatened. Can you imagine the very uncomfortable position they were in? doing their jobs to feed their families. Just. Like. You. They don’t have a choice. They didn’t ask for this. They didn’t assault anyone. They are not a corporation; they are individuals who need a job. There’s a very fine line between what you despise and becoming what you despise. Many of the comments and actions I have seen perpetrated against United employees cross it. Violence does not fix violence. Don’t become what you hate.
Like I said, I know you’re mad at United, but there’s much more to the story than hits the media fan.
I truly hope that this gives you something to chew on and gives you a smidgen more insight into the complexities of aviation. I’m not making excuses. I think there were bad decisions made on both sides. However, I am saying there are always two sides to every story. Make sure you consider them both.
Tailwinds.
***In answer to some questions: I am in no way affiliated with United Airlines. I have not been paid for this blog. My opinions are not reflective of any airline or even my husband. I write of my own volition. I never stated that United did not make serious customer service or human interaction mistakes. Of course they did! Of course they should have made adjustments before bording, offered more money, and found ways to diffuse the situation. Of course, no human should be assaulted. I called it terrible and appalling in the blog. My only intent was to explain the policy behind what happened and that they were not illegal. United (and other airlines) has scrutinized their policy and made some necessary changes since this blog was published. Those changes are not reflected above in the blog as they were not current policy at the time of event. Thanks.
***A correction to the previous article. Mr. Dao was indeed Vietnamese and not Chinese. That quote was verbatim from a comment off the internet. Also, it has come to light since this publication that the law enforcement officials were not federal. However, they are still not employed by United. I apology profusely for the confusion.
Angelia (A Pilot Wife)



One realizes this is a complete horse hockey response to this situation by this statement of hers…
” This is a federal DOT regulation, not an airline one. The airlines are required to do so to avoid disruption of air traffic. In other words, if there are no willing volunteers and they need seats to get a crew somewhere to avoid disruption of aviation flow, they can, will, must by federal regulation bump people for the better good of the 1000’s. Why? Because one cancelled flight has a serious domino affect in the delicate, complicated world of connections and aviation law.”
You are so full of yourself, it is not funny… Federal law does not require that so many flights stay in the air at one time, or are ready to get into the air at one time, or anything close to what the hell you are trying to represent… Tell me, if an airline buys more aircraft, to fly more routes, does another airline have to stop flying to make room for those other aircraft?… NO… Who the hell do you think you are, some airline princess?… I would bet if you were on that flight, no one would think of taking your primadonna self off of it, would they?…
In total, the airline overbooked a flight, out of greed, they had an aircraft at an airport that suddenly had a crew that could not fly anymore hours, because they were out of log time, and a sudden emergency existed because someone in planning/ scheduling dropped the ball… If they could not get that aircrew to the other airport the airline would have had to put all the passengers of the un crewed flight up in hotels, feed them, and transport them… Which their cheap butts do not want to do…
You fooled no one, Angelinia, or whatever your name is…
~Mac~
Mah, i get her point honestly, this was just one of those frustrating situations that got out of hand and the passenger took the blow. Unfortunately, i think they just chose the wrong passenger because if there’s a doctor on board, i would just leave it where he is, you never know….regardless of how much he paid the ticket or how long ago he bought it! Just imagine if someone had an emergency on flight and needed a doctor immediately…..guess what, he just got bumped, too bad.
Generally speaking airlines do offer some compensation for giving up your seat, maybe nobody took the bait on this particular flight. Nowadays we all plan our trips accordingly, we have other commitments to the destination, we must go to work, catch another flight etc. Very few have the luxury of postponing flights without consequences.
In this case they just went beyond their power, it shouldn’t have happened…..
It’s also crazy that airlines can kick you out of the seat for these reasons, i understand if you are dangerous, drunk or behaving badly but for overbookings or for flying a crew, it’s truly not fair.
I hope this will be a good lesson and an eye opener on all sides, clients, FAA and airlines.
Together with us, the travel agents
I really do agree with you regarding the passengers inappropriate reaction to being asked to leave the plane. I also understand the must FLY requirement. Now the airlines all know this law and its requirements. I also understand everything you are talking about in regards to employee logistics. Now for the question regarding must FLY, could the airlines have made other arrangements with other airlines? With UPS or FedEx? Chartered a Flight? Just offering some ideas. After that video and the events leading up to it, I certainly wouldn’t want to be one of the pilots having to take that flight.
Thankful the CEO of United responded better today. Now they should give Dr. Dao a few years of free flights in business class.
Dear Pilot’s wife. Right on. I am a frequent flyer. This situation has been blown way out of proportion. The man was asked to leave the plain with 3 other people all who complied. when he refused in a hostile manner appropriate safety procedurers were called for. If he had not been behaving in an inappropriate manner the Airplane security would not have had to remove him and then to come screaming back into the plain would have made me as a passenger feel like I was in danger the from mad man not the air police. I would have felt may he was a terrorist who wanted to do something bad to the plane. People to really stop and think. The other three passengers complied gratiously. If this man really had to be someplace for business I am sure the airline would have found another way to get him. there. To further complicate the situation it has been learned that he is a conviced criminal. Pleople out there need to get a little common sense and the media sould be ashammed.
Or perhaps people should be even more appalled, because United was even more in the wrong than has been reported:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/04/united-passenger-removal-reporting-management-fail.html
“Let us underscore: even putting aside the violence, what happened in this case does NOT happen all the time, and that has legal implications.
Absence of reporting on airline regulations leads to widespread skewing of story in United’s favor. Even though most readers may think United is getting beaten up aplenty in the press, in fact it is getting a virtual free pass as far as its rights to remove a paying passenger with a confirmed seat who has been seated.1 This seems to reflect the deep internalization in America of deference to authority in the post 9/11 world, as well as reporters who appear to be insufficiently inquisitive. And there also seems to be a widespread perception that because it’s United’s plane, it can do what it sees fit. In fact, airlines are regulated and United is also bound to honor its own agreements.”
Something very wrong with your attitude. Just cos the first 3 people were willing to be treated like cattle does not mean that the 4th person should accept that treatment.
Refusing to be screwed over is not a hostile act. Someone trying to screw you over is being hostile.
What “safety procedures” are there for someone who doesn’t want to give up their seat?
It’s not a safety issue. Take a step back and look at the unfounded leaps of logic you are making here.
The witnesses say that the guy was not a problem passenger, he was just unwilling to be kicked off the plane, and he has every right to keep his seat if he is not bothering or endangering anyone else. The airlines might get away with this often in practice, but that because most people don’t know their rights and they think they can be involuntarily bumped from the plane, the same way they can be bumped at the gate. Or maybe they don’t even care about their rights, they are more afraid of ‘causing a scene’ than of being treated like cattle.
You may not know your rights, or how to say “no” when someone demands you don’t have rights, but other people do have a spine. That’s not inappropriate behaviour, it’s just something that is foreign behaviour to people whose reflex action is to cave in to bully tactics.
There was another passenger willing to get off the plane for $1600 but the airline was overly focussed on getting this guy off for a smaller compensation, even though the terms and conditions do not allow them to kick him off. The denial of boarding procedure is what happens _before_ boarding, that’s why it’s called denial of boarding.
I think you need to reevaluate your attitude to authority, if you see a non-violent man knocked unconscious by authorities, and then reappear bleeding from the face, and babbling about wanting to go home, and you think that HE is the dangerous one, not the 3 guys who smashed his face into an arm rest and dragged him off the plane.
Actually his wife was one of the four that were selected.
Apparently he wasn’t a criminal, though. I can try and find you the source (hopefully it’s reliable) but the media confused this doctor with another who shares an almost identical name.