Value and Ethics Management – Submission II

United Airlines Drags a Bloodied Passenger

Submitted by: A6
Amjad Aman p39007, Gautam Suneetkumar p39021, Ninad Dharmeshbhai Buch p39034,
Priya Agarwal p39043, Shivangi Wadhwa p39050

Final Decision taken

The final decision that was taken by the airline authorities in the case of Louisville bound
United Flight 3411 was that Dr. Dao must be removed from the flight to accommodate the staff
by any means possible. However this means turned out to be forceful and hostile. He was pulled
out of his seat and dragged down the aisle in this overbooked flight. As a result of this incident
Dr. Dao was hospitalized. He suffered a concussion and broken nose and lost two front teeth.
Not only this, Oscar Munoz, CEO of United Airlines failed to acknowledge the injuries Dr.
Dao suffered and apologized only for having to “re-accommodate customers”. Adding further,
a leaked company email from Munoz described Dr. Dao as “disruptive and belligerent”.
Evaluation of decision taken
 Internal Inconsistencies: United Airline’s current motto “Fly the friendly skies”
strongly contradicts the decision taken by the company in this case. The treatment
meted out to Dr. Dao was not at all friendly. The airline was immensely ridiculed on
social media using twitter hashtag #NewUnitedAirlinesMottos.

 Gaps in reasoning: The main reason that United gave for this horrific incident was that
it was following the company’s standard protocol and the so-called contract of carriage
which allowed United to deny passengers boarding. As per United it was technically
within its rights to forcibly remove the man for refusing to leave the flight. However,
these instances are extremely rare and Staff transport should be identified ahead of time
and factored into bookings.

 Unfulfilled Promises: United airlines brand promises to be the world’s most flyer-
friendly airline. As per a spokesperson, United places great importance on resolving
issues quickly. However this incident shows otherwise. Not only was the response to
this incident ‘not friendly’ and lacked empathy, but there was a delay in the response
to resolve it. The incident took place on Sunday, and it was not until Tuesday that the
CEO apologized to Dr. Dao.

 Questionable Assumptions: United assumed that it would easily get away with such
acts without bearing any consequences. However, it underestimated the power of social
media and how one isolated incident can become a global PR disaster overnight. The
incident was filmed and posted on social media by the fellow passengers. Before the
plane landed on Louisville, the incident had been viewed by people all over the world
and United had no control or ability to take them down. It also assumed that causing
 inconveniencing to four passengers on one flight is better than cancelling a flight and
inconveniencing over 200 passengers. However this backfired the company when it
removed Dr. Dao forcibly.

 Alternative interpretation of the evidence: Interpretation by the airline authorities

was that due course of protocol was followed and that the passenger was disruptive and
belligerent. However the videos surfaced from the flight clearly showed the rogue
behavior of the airport guards and physical injuries inflected to Dr. Dao. Clearly the
interpretation of incident by the company was flawed and maligned.

 Implications of argument: The argument by the CEO in the leaked company email
had serious repercussions. The implication of this argument fueled the whole world and
started criticizing and boycotting the airline.