Running Head: UNITED AIRLINES LAWSUIT Petak 1

United Airlines Lawsuit

Andrea Petak

James Madison University

HM402

Lind

January 7, 2017
UNITED AIRLINES LAWSUIT Petak 2

THE INCIDENT

On April 9th, 2017 a passenger by the name of David Dao was forcibly removed from a

United Airlines flight. Flight 3411 was an Embraer 170 with 70 passengers which was operated

by United. The flight’s origin was O’Hare International Airport and was expected to arrive at

Louisville International Airport.

Slightly before 5:40 that evening, after passengers were seated, a United gate agent had

come on the intercom to announce the need of removal of four passengers to free space for four

crew members needing to arrive at another location to accommodate an understaffed flight.

Those crew members were supposed to depart on flight 4448 at 2:55 p.m. earlier that same day,

however their plane seemed to experience mechanical problems. These staff members were re-

booked to flight 3411 at 5:21 in the evening. Flight 3411 was expected to take off at 5:40 pm.

The initial offer included 400 dollars in U.S. currency in vouchers for future travel with United

Airlines, a hotel stay, and a seat for another flight that would leave 21 hours later. No passengers

took the offer. The offer was then increased to 800 dollars in United vouchers. Still, passengers

did not offer to leave their flight. A manager had stepped in to inform the passengers that four of

them would be selected by computer to leave the flight. The computer can select based on

criteria including frequency of the flyer and the amount paid. Dao was among those selected, but

verbally refused to leave the aircraft, stating he was a doctor who needed to get back to see

patients the next day. The Chicago Department of Aviation Security Officers were requested by

the United Airlines crew to come on board and assist with Dao’s removal. According to other

passengers, a security officer threw Dao against an adjacent armrest, leaving injuries to his

mouth and head and then drug him down the aisle by his arms while Dao remained unconscious.
UNITED AIRLINES LAWSUIT Petak 3

Shortly after, some passengers left in distress and disgust. The four extra crew members

boarded. Dao then re-boarded the plane, in a daze, running down the aisle, and repeated “I have

to go home”. He passed out again into a seat and was taken off the flight on a stretcher. All

remaining passengers were taken off board for the blood to be cleaned up. The flight was re-

boarded and departed at 7:21 p.m. and landed in Louisville at 9:01 p.m. CDT.

During the altercation, numerous passengers had recorded the scene. These videos then

circulated the internet, primarily social media, in the next few hours and days to come. Dao

suffered a bloodied face, broken nose, sinus injuries, loss of teeth, and a concussion. According

to Dao’s lawyer, reconstructive surgery was needed. Dao also has no recollection of re-boarding

the plane and running back to his seat.

RESPONSES

Originally, United Airlines’ CEO, Oscar Muñoz, seemed to pin the blame onto Dao and

recounted the use of force being necessary due to Dao’s belligerence. He had released a

statement, an apology, to the other customers on that flight referring to the situation and offered

$500 in flight vouchers if they agreed not to sue:

“This is an upsetting event to all of us here at United. I apologize for having to re-

accommodate these customers. Our team is moving with a sense of urgency to work with

the authorities and conduct our own detailed review of what happened. We are also

reaching out to this passenger to talk directly to him and further address and resolve this

situation.” - Oscar Munoz

UNITED AIRLINES LAWSUIT Petak 4

Munoz also sent an email to his staff members that same day:

“As you will read, this situation was unfortunately compounded when one of the

passengers we politely asked to deplane refused and it became necessary to contact

Chicago Aviation Security Officers to help. Our employees followed established

procedures for dealing with situations like this. While I deeply regret this situation arose,

I also emphatically stand behind all of you, and I want to commend you for continuing to

go above and beyond to ensure we fly right.” - Oscar Munoz

These comments sparked outrage from customers, senators, lawmakers, and everyone in

between. United’s reputation and monetary assets plummeted. Shares dropped by 4% the next

day and its market value fell by $1 billion. Then, Munoz’s tune changed. The very next day he

apologized and reassured society it was completely United’s fault:

“The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all

of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all of those sentiments, and one above all:

my deepest apologies for what happened. Like you, I continue to be disturbed by what

happened on this flight and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to

all the customers aboard. No one should ever be mistreated this way. I want you to know

that we take full responsibility and we will work to make it right.”

THE LAW

It is true, airlines can allow passengers from boarding their flight, however, only for

three reasons- an intoxicated passenger, passengers who are unruly or if they are a person on
UNITED AIRLINES LAWSUIT Petak 5

the terrorist watch list. Airlines mustn’t allow customers of the prior listings to board the plane.

Once boarded they cannot ask for a customer to leave their seat, let alone be removed from their

seat. This is a breakage of “contract of carriage”. United Airlines broke their contract of carriage

in two ways- Rule 21 and Rule 25.

Rule 21 is the “Refusal to Transport”. This does give United the right to remove a

passenger from the aircraft if certain reasons are violated. These reasons include:

1. Breachment of the Contract of Carriage

2. Asked to leave due to government request, regulation, or security directive

3. Force Maguire or any other unforeseeable condition

4. Necessity to search the passenger’s property

5. Issue of identification

6. Ticket not paid for

7. Traveling across International boundaries

8. Breaking of any of the 19 safety rules

None of these applied or were broken by Mr. Dao. Based on video surveillance and other

facts Dao was not removed for any of the reasons listed above.

Rule 25 is based on “Denied Boarding Compensation” and has two sections, A and B.

When it comes to Dao’s situation we are concerned with section A, which lists 6 provisions:

1. Request for Volunteers

2. Boarding Priorities

3. Transportation for Passengers Denied Boarding

4. Compensation for Passengers Denied Boarding Involuntarily

UNITED AIRLINES LAWSUIT Petak 6

5. Payment Time and Form for Passengers Traveling Between Point within the United

States or from the United States to a Foreign Point

6. Limitation of Liability

The provisions broken by United include 2, 4, and 6. Provision 2 regards ‘Boarding

Priorities’. This allows United to deny boarding if there aren’t enough customers volunteering to

give up their seat after compensation. Boarding that is denied involuntary must be done

according to United’s boarding priority, which follows as “The priority of all other confirmed

passengers may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent

flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-

in without advanced seat assignment.” (United). Under provision 4, United broke their

“Compensation for Passengers Denied Boarding Involuntarily”. In their contract, it states they

must pay customers 400% of the fare up to a maximum of $1350 in U.S. dollars. They had

stopped at $800. Provision 6 is in accordance to ‘Limitation of Liability’. In United’s contract

this limits liability of damages up to $1350 and excludes damages for refused a customer that

had paid for a confirmed seat.

Dao paid for a ticket with a reserved seat and was not denied boarding at the gate.

Usually overbooked flights are taken care of before passengers board the aircraft. United’s

contract does not state an oversell of tickets on the behalf of the airline as a reason for a

customer to be removed from their seat, let alone forcibly removed. United has broken their

own Contract of Carriage.

ETHICAL DILEMMA

Whether what United had done was illegal or not, they acted in an extremely unethical

manner. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word ‘unethical’ as “not conforming to a high

moral standard: morally wrong: not ethical: illegal and unethical business practices: immoral
UNITED AIRLINES LAWSUIT Petak 7

and unethical behavior”. (Merriam-Webster). Many unethical decisions are made to benefit the

individual without regards to others around them. In this case the individual is United and the

people around them are their customers, especially Dao. Usually an unethical decision is made

without much thought and can lead to very negative consequences. Even if United legally had

the right to deny customers their seat after they boarded the plane, should they have? Should

they have overbooked to start with? Or if they weren’t really overbooked, but needed to make

room for flight personnel for another flight, should they have bumped passengers from a full

plane? Shouldn’t they have put this crew on a flight that wasn’t fully booked? Were the

monetary assets they offered equal to nonmonetary reasons customers may have needed to stay

upon the aircraft? Was the force used that lead to a bloodied and concussed customer

necessary? Should a CEO have praised his employees for how they handled the situation? Was

it okay that the only thing he apologized for was having to re-accommodate customers? These

are all things that happened and had a negative effect on many things- Dao, United’s economics,

the industry, people, and more. It took United to lose billions of dollars for it to finally release

an apology two days later.

UNITED IN THE FUTURE

It is clear there needs to be something done to change this behavior and prevent this

from repeating in the future, whether that be policies, teaching, or management control,

implemented in attempt to prevent this from happening again. Without improvement,

companies will lose money and the economy will be impacted, customers will not be pleased and

could be injured, and no one learns from such a horrific event.

Recently United has released ten new policies to improve their customers’ experiences.

They have also added the ten policies to ensure they don’t have a repeat event. The ten policies

are as follows:
UNITED AIRLINES LAWSUIT Petak 8

“United commits to:

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

2. Not require customers seated on the plane to give up their seat involuntarily unless

safety or security is at risk.

3. Increase customer compensation incentives for voluntary denied boarding up to

$10,000.

4. 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.

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

6. Provide employees with additional annual training.

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

8. Reduce the amount of overbooking.

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

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

policy on lost luggage.”

In addition to these rules Munoz (CEO of United) had reached a settlement with Dao and

had taken full responsibility of the incident.

TAKEAWAY

There have been many companies whom have created public relations predicaments and

United is just one. Although United’s incident is one of the more recent and larger scale ones,

many companies may have experienced incidents of their own or could. United, as well as other

companies, can learn from their mistakes.

UNITED AIRLINES LAWSUIT Petak 9

At the end of it all, no matter the legality of the situation, Dr. Dao should have never

been treated the way he was. He was treated in a barbaric manner that no customer should

endure. “Fly the Friendly Skies”. What a charming slogan United has. If only they upheld it. At

that moment with Mr. Dao, they seemed to have forgotten their slogan, what they stood for as a

company, and what they owe to their customers. Sure, company’s exist to make a profit,

however profit cannot be made without products, services, and paying customers. A company’s

customers are the sole reason for its existence. Sometimes, companies lose sight of this.

In reality, United should have done many things differently. First and Foremost, their

Contract of Carriage needs to be rewritten to not be as vague. It is extremely ambiguous when

referring to what is considered boarded on an aircraft. Does a customer have to get through the

gate only? In their seat? Or is boarded considered when the unit’s doors are closed for takeoff?

Anyone who knows anything about written contracts, knows it falls upon the contractor when

something is so unclear. How their Contract of Carriage is worded seems to allow them to deny

Dao boarding, but once he is on the plane, that is his seat to keep. Secondly, it is clear from the

contract, an overbooking or the rescheduling of flight members on the on the airline’s behalf is

not a reason to remove a passenger. United shouldn’t have either overbooked or not have had

Dao removed from the plane. When offering monetary compensation for their customers to

voluntarily leave the plane, they should have offered more. The amount of force in which was

used to remove Dao from his seat and cause significant injury should not have been used. After

everything was said and done, the CEO of United went on to apologize to other customers

regarding them feeling the need to re-accommodate Dao and he praised his employees for

handling the situation in the manner they did. This should have never been the response to

someone that should care about his customers. In hindsight, these suggestions are referring to

what United should have done in that situation, but how can they learn from their mistake and

prevent it from happening again?

UNITED AIRLINES LAWSUIT Petak 10

FUTURE TACTICS FOR UNITED AND OTHERS

It is clear that some things went extremely wrong. I think there are many things that can

be done, but here are a few proposals that could make a major impact.

Even though there are policies in place, they shouldn’t always be put first and if they are,

make sure they are very clear. The customers should always come first. It may sound so cliché,

but when it comes to a company in any segment of the Hospitality or Tourism industry, the

customers really do come first. Companies exist to serve and create exceptional experiences.

For example, United also had an incident not too long ago where they denied two younger girls

boarding because they were wearing leggings. Their dress code mattered due to the fact they

were “Pass Riders”, meaning their tickets were discounted for some reason. This may be a

policy in place, but at the end of the day, I am not quite sure why two little girls wearing leggings

should matter so much to this company. United then responded saying their regular customers

can feel free to wear leggings. So, in other words, unless you are paying a higher price, forget

wearing leggings. This seems to be a worry more about policies than customers. Also, if they

must stick to their policies, the policy should be re-written explaining what exact clothing is not

accepted. Companies should always keep the customer first and make sure their policies are

specific.

Companies should always tell the truth to its customers. Telling the truth includes being

honest before, during, and after and accepting responsibility for its own mistakes. United made

its first mistake by stating the flight was overbooked. The flight was never overbooked. There

were no more customers then there were seats. They bumped passengers for their four flight

attendants that were needed for another flight. Those attendants were supposed to leave on

another flight. After the incident, the CEO apologized basically on the customer’s behalf. He

took a few insincere apologies and days to finally apologize about the company’s behavior. By

then it’s hard to tell if the apology was sincere. Mistakes can happen and it’s unfortunate for

everyone involved, but an apology can go a long way.

UNITED AIRLINES LAWSUIT Petak 11

To touch more upon what was just stated about over booking, companies should re-visit

and re-think their overbooking policies. We all know companies do it. More profit can be made.

What happens though if everyone shows up? JetBlue and Southwest have banned overbooking.

United says they plan to reduce it. Completely stopping overbooking is the only way to stop

passengers from getting bumped by other passengers.

I think the ten changes announced that were put into place to improve customer service

was a good idea. If United follows them, they’ll be a nice addition to ensure more rights and fair

treatment of customers. All companies should improve upon their current policies and actions.

This can be done in a few different ways.

Most of the differences that can be made must start at the top of the company’s food

chain. “Do what I do, not as I say”. Executives, Owners and Managers must comply with the

company’s rules, views, and behaviors. Those in charge can improve the company as a whole.

Communication is very important amongst a company. It should be talked about what has gone

wrong, what is being done well, and what is expected. Here on out United along with other

companies, should sit down and have meetings with employees on a periodic basis. During

those meetings, teaching may be an efficient practice to apply. After things are talked and

taught about, it would benefit managers and employees to keep up with progress. If someone

isn’t working up to standards expected, they should be reprimanded. If an employee handled an

issue incorrectly, illegally, or unethically there should be some consequence of a warning, leave,

or getting fired. The employee at fault should appropriately notified without invading their

privacy so there can be continuous learning. If there is a mistake made, the upper level of

management should handle the situation in a professional manner that will truly benefit the

customer. All of the communication, teaching and application can benefit managers, employees,

and customers.
UNITED AIRLINES LAWSUIT Petak 12

CONCLUSION

United had an unfortunate and avoidable situation with a customer named David Dao

last April. The customer was not denied boarding the plane, but was later asked to give up his

seat to make room for crew members for another flight. He didn’t comply and authorities used

physical force to remove him from his seat, leaving him injured. United didn’t take proper

action and released multiple statements without any remorse. Their value declined

significantly. This event has caused United to re-think some of its procedures and ultimately

added ten new policies. This would be a good learning opportunity for United and other

companies to learn, adjust, and teach.

UNITED AIRLINES LAWSUIT Petak 13

Citations

Contract of Carriage Document. (n.d.). Retrieved December 22, 2017, from

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/contract-of-carriage.aspx

Levin, B. (2017, April 11). United C.E.O. Offers the Worst Possible Response to the Airline's P.R.
Disaster. Retrieved December 29, 2017, from
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/04/united-airlines-oscar-munoz

Unethical. (n.d.). Retrieved January 01, 2018, from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/unethical

United Airlines Announces Changes to Improve Customer Experience. (n.d.). Retrieved January
04, 2018, from http://newsroom.united.com/2017-04-27-United-Airlines-Announces-Changes-
to-Improve-Customer-Experience

United Express Flight 3411 incident. (2018, January 03). Retrieved January 06, 2018, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_incident