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)
Angelia, thank you so much for writing this. When I heard about this incident first, I read it on a friend’s post. My immediate reply, “As a pilot, I would suggest there was far more to this story than appears in this post. The news only shows what it wants to show.” Thank you for filling in some gaps for me. Excellently written! (From a female airline pilot)
Thank you, I am a mother a daughter a wife a sister and an aunt. I want to come home to my loved once . With everything that is going on in the world today I want the crew members to be extra cautious. Looking at the video it was more to the story .People do believe a lot lately without , please 🛑 , hear both sides of the story and then decide
Thank you to all the pilots and the crew for everything that you do
Paula, you are right. The media, whether news or social, always blows things out of proportion. They also pick and choose which sound bites they want to use (case in point, the presidential elections). Also, these people who take videos on their phones just film and show what they want to(case in point, some of the videos of “police brutality”). You are right that there two sides to everything. Actually there are three sides; my side, your side, and the right side. I have never been in a plane but I have known a lot of United pilots and they were always courteous and kind. So I would bet there was more to it than met the eye.
Sorry wife…united has planes at their disposal…could have put employees on another plane. United was and is WRONG! Not going to change my mind! Good try!
That’s a great mindset you have there to refuse to change your mind when presented width the facts. United does have planes at its disposal and it used one. The contract of carriage allows this type of change. The customer was in the wrong (no matter how United handled it). Imagine being one of the hundreds or thousands of people depending on these four employees to move. Inconveniencing one passenger to satisfy thousands downline is an easy and correct choice. It is not even controversial.
Refusing to change your mind when you are wrong is not a virtue.
If they had planes available at their disposal, they aren’t running their business correctly. Almost all planes are in service attempting to complete routes worldwide on time. Only those in maintenance or retired are grounded.
At first I didn’t understand how the man was already seated when he was told they needed his seat. But I understand trying to move flight employees to get to working another flight last minute. And he was compensated. The DOT monitors this very closely.
I agree. Once the officers were called, he should have stood up, walked off and worked out the legalities later.
Nice try, Paige. United had ONE plane going from O’Hare to Louisville and the deadheading flight crew was needed there. Four people were inconvenienced to get an entire plane load of passengers off the gate on time at Louisville Standiford.
Fun fact: It takes less than 5 hours to drive to Louisvile from O’Hare, and less than $200 to rent a car. The flight was scheduled to leave at 5:40PM, meaning they could have gotten to Louisville by Midnight at the latest.
Wrong Paige. They do not have planes just sitting around hanging out to put a crew on.
Excessive use of exclamation points and CAPITALS aside, you have a great argument, assuming you consider emotions and feelings an argument!
Are you in a position to know what other planes were (or weren’t available) for them to put the pilots on? Louisville isn’t a hub for United, so they don’t have a huge number of flights there. On 4/16 (a Sunday, same day of the week as the flight in question), there are four flights. Assuming that the schedule is the same as on the 9th, flight 3411 is the next to last flight of the day, but the last flight doesn’t arrive until 9:00 p.m. Assuming that crew was flying the 6:35 a.m. flight from Louisville to Chicago the next day, would they have had enough legally mandated rest time which requires 8 uninterrupted hours of sleep? Not if they arrive at 9 p.m., have to get to a hotel, and then be up by 5 for a 6:35 a.m. flight. I’m fairly certain United (and all other major airlines) knows when they have to get their crews to a certain place much better than you do.
Are you saying that United should just fly a mostly empty plane, with only the crew as passengers to Louisville? That would be irresponsible to their shareholders considering how much that would cost. (Also irresponsible to the shareholders is botching their response to this whole incident.)
Of course, you could argue that they could have put them on an airline, but why would they disrupt another airline’s flight schedule when they *legally* can bump somebody off their own flight?
As mentioned above, it wasn’t United who removed the man from the flight – it was law enforcement officers. They probably went overboard, and if so, they should be held accountable. On the other hand, though, the doctor disregarded a lawful order from a law enforcement officer. Next time you get pulled over, try refusing a lawful order from a police officer and see what happens.
I don’t know all the facts, but I can certainly come up with logical, thought out reasons that United might actually be right in *some* aspects of the whole situation and not WRONG!
Same here, I believe all Airlines have smaller planes at their disposal and could use them for employee transfers. People book a flight on a given date for a reason, most need to be at that destination and it’s just not fair to ask, then tell them “too bad”, it’s in the rules! The United Employees need to get to their destination as needed also, not at the last minute, so get an earlier flight!
If they had to be exactly where THIS plane was going, how many other planes do you think were going there AT THAT TIME??
The fact that you think United, or any other airline for that matter, has “planes at their disposal” to dispatch at their will-airspace regulations be damned- and never mind who is going to pilot the thing when flight crews are out of place due to delays and weather- shows your complete ignorance in the matter.
That’s your opinion and as she stated: we all have them and it’s our right to do so. It’s a shame you can’t at least TRY to understand both sides. It definitely wasn’t handled correctly, and United may have learned a valuable lesson!! But I feel that she states an excellent case FOR THE LAW ENFORCEMENT SIDE of this.. why wouldn’t someone take the $800 that was offered?!! That’s a very nice traveling sim of airfare!!!
Hopefully everyone, including those of us that has read this post, with think twice if we’re ever asked to leave a plane…….
Excellent, valid. I keep seeing “Southwest. We beat our competitors. Not You.” Well.l not exactly true. In 2000 Southwest Airlines Flight 1763 had a teen beat to death onboard by 8 passengers. He tried to enter the flight deck. While no one was charged, a young man lost his life. It is also the crews job to control the helping passengers. Failure to comply for ANY REASON is a serious concern. Once he refused to cooperate, no crew would allow him to fly. They think, “in an emergency this guy will not cooperate. I’m not taking him.” You walk off the plane. Plead your case. That is what you do.
@Kimberly, there is a huge difference between someone trying to enter the flight deck, and a passenger sitting in the seat they paid for. The passenger in your example had no right or reason to go into the flight deck, so you have to assume criminal intent, and act accordingly. The passenger in this story was a paying customer that the company was trying to deny access to the service that he had purchased. Not even remotely the same. What’s to stop them from doing this to someone else? They don’t like your clothes? You’re off. They don’t like your religion? You’re off. They don’t like your skin color? You’re off. There was no reason to remove this customer, and absolutely no reason to assault him.
Actually, there was a reason to remove him (though one is not actually needed). He was stupid to not move. He had no right to not move. The contract of carriage makes that very plain. This mindset would have affected thousands of people downline from this flight. Space positive travel is a requirement for the airline to make things work. It isn’t new, nor is it controversial. It’s just that a lot of people are ignorant.
Seriously, Jonathan, did you miss half of this article or something??!!! Another couple had already been asked and had left before this took place. Once their ‘algorithym’ was complete, the airline knew which customers it could best accommodate to get them where they needed to go!! It wasn’t just a “Let’s pick on this guy” day!!!
Umm. Did any of the other passengers offer to trade with this guy before things escalated to much? No, don’t think so.
Who knew it was going to escalate so fast. The airline mishandled it, no excuse to use 911. Paid passenger passed security, He explained he is a doctor and had had to be at work, what about his patients, maybe he had surgery. There was definitely a better way to handle this. United called security so even if they didn’t touch him, they were just as guilty. Passenger fares have gone up, Baggage prices have gone up, Fuel prices have gone down seating has gotten tighter. Look more like it’s a profit than some security breach.
Why would they? They all had places to be.
Or, to put it another way, they would have done, if the company had made it worth their while. Whatever amount of compensation they had to offer, it would have been pennies in comparison to the loss they had at the stock market yesterday because of their ham-fisted solution.
The bottom line here is, there is no comparison between the passengers and the company. The passengers can be nice or mean, patient or impatient, understanding or pissed off. They’re just people. They’re not relying on customers’ trust in order to stay in business. The company literally only exists because people are willing to pay for a service, and fewer people will be willing to pay for that service now that they see what could happen to them.
The fact that it’s all legal makes zero difference in this debate really. If we’re gonna be pulling out radical examples like 9/11, well let’s look at everything done in Nazi Germany before/ during WWII – all perfectly legal, according to laws at that time. The fact that something is legal does not mean it’s decent or fair or morally correct, and all the other airlines who also have the same legal terms and also overbook and also could be punching people in the face to get them off their planes DO NOT DO THAT, because they know that it’s way better to spend a few hundred dollars more to get a volunteer when you have to bump people, than to cause an incident that will cause you literal billions of dollars in losses when it breaks out and everyone sees what horrible policies you have. I’ve been in these situations plenty of times with lots of different air carriers, mostly European, and NEVER had anyone dreamed of kicking someone off the flight in this manner. They will be unfailingly patient and apologetic and will keep offering bigger and bigger incentives until someone takes it.
The ‘crime’ here is not bumping people off of planes, although in honesty it’s ridiculous to try and state that ‘that’s how it HAS to be’, because the company would not fold if it kept one or two spare seats on each plane, instead of overbooking to maximize profits. The crime is the way it was done. The crime is making it so blatantly clear that the company cares only about itself and not at all about its customers. The CEO coming out saying he’s ‘proud of his staff’ for how they kicked the guy off. (And then of course eating his words when he saw the plummeting stocks). Them digging up random dirt on the passenger as if him being a bad person makes them better.
The fact that you are technically allowed to do something by law (and I still think this is a bit of a gray area, after having read all of the contracts and regulations) does not mean you should do it, and if you do choose to do it, you can’t insist everyone else has to like it just because they signed your fine print. Because as it’s been pointed out – what exact choice do we have? If a new bill was passed tomorrow saying airline staff has the right to select a few passengers for random sexual harassment (extreme and silly example, but just to illustrate a point), we’d still all sign, because what else am I gonna do? Bike across the ocean?? You’d just go and hope you weren’t the poor sap who got selected for fingering. But this is why the state, and the companies, have to take the responsibility to protect us – because we can’t all individually negotiate our own terms with them. They need to be decent. And if they decide that being decent is inconvenient, then they have to take the brunt of our wrath. That’s just how it goes. It’s the one power we do have.
Very well stated. I completely agree.
Why should they?? They were paying customers also. You are missing the point.
While I don’t think the man was completely rational about digging his heels in to stand on his principles, I do know that when someone is non-violent and standing on a principle that the correct answer is definitely not to smash his face. As petty as what this man did seems to be, in no way should he have been subjected to violence. So in short, I don’t think the airline was wrong for asking him to get out, and I don’t think he was wrong for having an expectation that he was going to travel since they already let him on the plane, but that’s a civil disagreement that could be handled with compensation. The only people who were wrong were the ones that used violence. We are either a civil society that tries to avoid violence at all costs, or we are thugs looking to smack down the first non-conformist that irritates us… I can see where we stand today, I just hope tomorrow we start to wake up and smell what we’re shoveling.
Brent, there difference lies in if law enforcement has a valid reason to give you a lawful order. If they do, and you refuse – even amicabaly – they will force compliance. Most sane people comply because they don’t want to get slammed to the pavement, or dragged out of a plane. This passenger made the mistake of mis-judging his “rights” – and it’s a shame. The law enforcement officers asked nicely, and he refused. They don’t ask a second time.
but they didn’t
You clearly didn’t read the entire article Brent.
Screaming like a little girl and throwing a tantrum isn’t “standing on his principles” , It’s just throwing a tantrum.