United Airlines Incident

The following outline summarizes our findings regarding the incident that occurred on

April 9th, 2017 involving your airline and one of its passengers. We will follow up our findings

with a detailed analysis of specific actions and non-actions that we believe could have handled

this incident more effectively, including actions we believe could have been done in addition to

your own. First, our outline of the incident as we understand it from an unbiased, third party

perspective.

69-year-old David Dao, a passenger of United Airlines was violently escorted off of an

“overbooked” flight. United Airlines had overbooked the flight Dao was boarded on and was

asked to be “involuntarily de-boarded”. After the incident, a passenger was quoted saying the

request for volunteers came after everyone had already boarded. Nobody moved an inch, seeing

it was an unreasonable thing to ask, as the alternative flight was not until the following

afternoon. Dao was one of many who refused to de-board, and as a licensed doctor, Dao was

adamant on arriving at the hospital where he was working the following morning, causing the

airline to justify the act of forcibly removing him. Four officers of the Department of Aviation

removed him very aggressively, and the entire plane appeared to be startled, we know this

because of the videos that other passengers recorded on their phones. The officers used

aggressive methods of pulling him out of his seat, causing him to get a nose bleed, and dragging

him down the aisle. This greatly disturbed the passengers, some even described it as a

“traumatic” incident. So not only did the flight cause distress on Dao, the entire plane was very

much affected. Videos of the incident were taken by surrounding passengers, which caused an

uproar on social media regarding United Airlines for their unacceptable treatment of their
customer. As the video had gone viral, United Airlines then needed to publicly address the

situation. According to the Chicago Tribune, the backlash mounted when United initially was

slow to apologize and appeared defensive. United used words like “disruptive” and “belligerent”

to describe Dao’s behavior. According to various eyewitnesses, this statement was false and the

passengers on the plane all agreed that the airline staff was taking unnecessary measures simply

to remove a passenger from the plane. We have gathered information from several sources

regarding the incident, and we have compiled a timeline of events from the day of the incident

through the following days and weeks. Our findings are as follows:

April 10

Outrage explodes on social media after a video recorded by one of the passengers

surfaces online. The video documents the extreme measures taken by four Chicago Aviation

security officers to remove David Dao from the plane. CEO of United Airlines, Oscar Munoz,

issued an apology in which he states sympathy for having “re-accomodated” the four passengers.

April 11

Parent company of United Airlines, United Continental Holdings, saw a nearly $1 billion

loss in market value. CEO Munoz dishes another apology in greater detail. Expressing his

sorrows as he attempts to make up for the initial response. He pledges to conduct a review and to

present their findings by April 30th. This was sent out on their website and further acknowledged

through Twitter. Market value recovers after this apology, but it is still down roughly $250

million.

April 12
 The court of public opinion still ruled against United, although information about Dao

begins to circulate through media at this time. Bringing justice to the situation and proved that

United was in the wrong. Munoz appears on Good Morning America to apologize yet again.

Speculation as to whether or not the incident was racially motivated begins to surface. On this

day two, more aviation officers were put on leave, bringing a total of 3 suspensions.

April 13

According to International Business Times, plaintiff lawyer Tom Demetrio holds a press

conference where he scolds United Airlines for treating their passengers like “cattle”. Demetrio

goes in-depth on the injuries Dao sustained during the struggle, suffering a broken nose, sinus

injuries, and two missing teeth. United reiterated its initial apology saying it will never use law

enforcement officers “unless it’s a matter of safety and security”.

April 16

United changes its overbooking policy now ensuring passengers can no longer be

removed once they are seated on the plane.

April 21

United Continental Holdings denies the planned promotion of CEO Oscar Munoz to

chairman.

April 22

There were two surveys sent out by Morning Consult and LendEdu to millenials

regarding United Airlines. From the International Business Times article we gathered, the results

showing that about 40% of consumers said they would either no longer fly on United Airlines, or
would avoid giving them any business. These results show the trust of the company has been

tarnished and will need to be earned back.

The Following paragraphs contain our analysis of the actions, statements, and public

appearance of the company during the crisis. This will be followed by actions we believe could

have been taken differently, and in addition to your own, from a hindsight perspective.

The day the video of the incident surfaced online, it is reasonable to expect outrage and

distrust from the public. The first response, by the organization, is the most critical first

impression when dealing with a crisis. People form their entire perspective of the situation based

on what they see and hear from the media and other people. This highlights the fact that people

put more weight or emphasis on the first things they hear regarding a crisis. So the first time that

you as the company address the public, the message must be one that forms the perspective that

your company wants in the minds of the public. You must have a well thought out, scripted,

empathetic, response that demonstrates that your willingness to help, and to take responsibility

for your company's part in the incident. What your company did, was released a written

statement online and to the media, which gave the public a perspective of the company as cold-

hearted and unsympathetic. The initial statement or apology that was given out by CEO Oscar

Munoz contained a phrase that expressed sympathy for having “re-accomodated” the passengers.

People notice small things like this. The video being passed around online proves that nobody on

the flight was “re-accommodated”. This shows poor word choice on Oscar Munoz’s part as well

as the company, because it demonstrates a lack of ownership and responsibility on the part of the

company. People are not stupid, so be sure to use word choice that respects people’s intelligence

and to take the knowledge of the public into account when crafting a response or statement. This
is crucial because, as stated previously, people place more emphasis on the first things they hear.

So, if the message sent by your company is the message that portrays your company as one that

owns its responsibility, admits their own mistakes, expresses true empathy to those affected, and

a willingness to take responsibility, the public will have a hard time holding a grudge against

your company in the future.

Munoz appeared on Good Morning America on April the 12th to apologize further about

the incident. This is a good move on the part of the company and on that of Munoz, because it

demonstrates the transparency your company is attempting to show. This is also a great

opportunity to set the stage for the future. Munoz should have, however, used this as an

opportunity to address any rumors and misconceptions at this time. There were rumors of the

incident being racially motivated, which is always a negative look. It it key to use live and in

person opportunities like this to address any uncertainty or rumors in the public, because seeing a

person from the company address issues that the viewers may be concerned about, goes a long

way to healing the damaged relationship between the company and the public.

On April 13th Dao’s lawyer, Tom Demetrio, held a press conference to express the

unsettling treatment of his client. Describing their actions as treating passengers like “cattle”, as

it was unacceptable. During the press conference Tom Demetrio expressed in depth the injuries

Dao had acquired during the incident. These included a broken nose, injuries to sinus, and a set

of missing teeth. All of which could have been avoided. After reviewing the press conference,

Dao’s lawyer places heavy emphasis on the changes needed to the overbooking policy. Demetrio

appealed to the heartstrings of the audience by explaining Dao’s role as a father and how this

incident is affecting him, as he is now the “Poster Child” for the incident. United’s response to
this was focusing on ensuring the situation would never recur. This then resulted in United

Airlines expressing an apology and ensuring a policy that secures it to never happen again. Only

allowing the airlines to remove someone if it is a matter of “safety and security”. This is a

positive approach to gain back the trust of customers, as their policy of overbooking required

adjustments. By acknowledging the mistreatment from law enforcement officers, they attribute

the responsibility and blame to the proper parties responsible. This is a good deflection of

attention from your company, and it also demonstrates further transparency by condemning the

group responsible. The Department of Aviation Security released a statement to the press in a

conference which states, “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” (United Airlines). Giving a deadline of when information will be released

to the public again shows transparency, and this allows the trust of the company to be regained

with the public. Another positive for your company is that CEO Oscar Munoz, called Dr. Dao

numerous times expressing his deepest apologies. This goes a long way towards making the

apology more genuine.

Part 2: Advice for the Future

From our 3rd party perspective, we have analyzed and concluded our findings regarding

how your company should change policies and behavior to better address and resolve a crisis in

the future.
 First, the initial actions taken by the Aviation Officers were far too extreme. We

understand that emotions can become high and tense during these interactions, and snap

judgements must be made by those involved both for their own safety, and to complete the task

they have been assigned. This being said, flight officials should be trained in the future to know

how to respond properly when people/passengers react in ways that are in direct violation of

what they are being told. Violence is and always should be the last resort. However, if the

person(s) being ordered to obey by lawful superiors are continuously disregarding the authority

presented, fair warning must be given before any physical actions take place. From a legal

perspective, this will limit potential liabilities for your company and those involved.

Regarding your company’s response to the incident, it is always best to make a video

response so the people can feel the human element from your perspective. This makes the

message more personable and will feel more genuine to the public. When doing this, the

spokesperson must be well spoken, must be able to put emotion into his/her body language and

voice tone, and the message must be one that is tailored to the specific people affected, and those

who we wish to keep good faith with. Moving forward this idea, there are two ways your

company could and should have chosen to engage in corrective face work. This takes the forms

of either corrective action, or mortification. Since your company is not entirely responsible

(shared with the Department of Aviation Security) your company does not need to own the

responsibility of what happened, meaning mortification would not be recommended. The fact

that the incident took place on one of your company's planes does however mean that you have

to answer to the public. Corrective action is best in this case, and the first step is to restore the

state of affairs between your company and the public back to what they were before this incident.

This can be achieved through a PR campaign, a new mission statement for the company, or re-
designing the appearance of United’s appearance both in advertisements and in person.

Following this, your company must promise to prevent the recurrence of an event like this. Not

only must you promise this, but it is essential that your company makes good on this promise,

otherwise your reputation will be more damaged than before.

After going through this experience, it is clear the impact and power that social media

has, and the effects that it can have regarding misinformation and formulating public opinion.

Your company must be actively searching through various social media platforms immediately

following an incident such as this. This will enable your company to actively stay ahead of

rumors and misinformation so that your company can publicly address these things. By being

proactive in this area, it will help your company to manage the formation of opinions by the

public because your company will be actively addressing rumors. Having a deep engagement

with social media in the wake of an incident will also be very useful in forming any public

statements or apologies. For example, CEO Oscar Munoz stated an apology for having “re-

accommodated” the flights passengers. If your company was active on social media, you would

have known that there was a video documenting the brutal treatment of these passengers. It is

clear in the video that nobody was “re-accommodated” and the public was well aware of this.

When Oscar Munoz stated his apology the way he did, it insults the basic intelligence of the

public because everyone had seen the video prior to hearing the apology.

Since United Airlines is at fault for the crisis, their image has been damaged through the

spread of negative attention. Needing to address this, image repair is traditionally handled in two

stages. The first is focusing on establishing credibility, specifically with their spokesperson,

Oscar Munoz. His statements and apologies much be seen as genuine, and ensure there will be
no recurrence of the event to gain credibility. The second step is reducing the damage to the

company's reputation once the crisis is fully resolved. It is important that United Airlines

understands the audience they’re attempting to reach when repairing their image. In order to

address the correct audience, United Airlines must determine what specifically is damaging their

image, as well as the audience that is most significant to their company. An audience United

Airlines should specifically address is the customers that feel significant distrust in the company

as a result of the incident. By reassuring the audience of completed changes in the overbooking

policy, this will help to start regaining the trust of the consumers. The kick-back from the

situation could potentially stem from opinions that form reports and spread through social media,

drawing attention to United Airlines competitors. Competitors can use this downfall to United

Airlines as leverage to encouraging their loyal customers to consider traveling with an alternative

company. Avid users of other airlines will begin to persuade consumers to choose their

trustworthy company. Thus, making it extremely important for United Airlines stress the

insurance of good customer service despite this incident.

Justification:

United Airlines was responsible for an act that caused extreme distrust to their customers

and we believe our recommendations would help to begin to repair this. The forming of new

policies is extremely important for the company to vocalize, as this would ensure there would be

no recurrence of the event. As their original policy did technically state that their action to

remove Mr.Dao was justified. New policies surrounding their overbooking policy as well as new

protocol for Aviation Officers will improve the company's reputation since they’re actively

looking to learn from the situation. They must be very transparent with their audience about the
timeline in which the new policies will be established and enforced to guarantee the customers

uncertainty of treatment be resolved. Our recommendation of a video response we believe would

show the audience a geniene response that is more personable than just a statement posted

online. The original statement showed he wasn’t very sympathetic towards the passengers. As

the CEO’s initial response caused negative kickback, showing the spokesperson using emotion,

empathy, and a sincere response exhibits the company's authentic apology. Ultimately repairing

the company’s violent image as sympathetic.

Staying up to date on social media regarding conversations sparked about the company

would benefit their ability to identify the correct target audience when releasing statements. The

video that circulated had quickly caused many people to quickly place judgement on the situation

and it’s reflection on the company. Rumors spread about the incident potentially stemming from

a racial motive. By keeping up to date with the public's conversations, United Airlines would

receive more insight towards the damage they must work to repair. This statement must be

addressed by the spokesperson because it is offensive to a large part of their audience, ultimately

adding to the negative associations of the company. Corrective action can work to repair the

company’s image, we recommend they redesign the company's mission statement and

appearance in advertisements as well as in person to start fresh. To further advance this, United

Airlines should begin to revamp the company's look giving consumers a new feel for the

company after proving they’re new standards of customer service. Giving the consumer an

incentive to still choose them to travel versus an alternate company.

 Works Cited

June 06, 2017, by Sean Czarnecki. “Timeline of a Crisis: United Airlines.” PR Week,

www.prweek.com/article/1435619/timeline-crisis-united-airlines.

Pignataro, Juliana Rose. “United Airlines Controversy Timeline: Full List Of Events

After Passenger Dragged Off Plane.” International Business Times, 13 Apr. 2017,

www.ibtimes.com/united-airlines-controversy-timeline-full-list-events-after-passenger-dragged-

plane-2525027.

“Statement on Press Conference.” United Hub, 31 Jan. 2019, hub.united.com/news-

releases-2567373433.html .

Victor, Daniel, and Matt Stevens. “United Airlines Passenger Is Dragged From an

Overbooked Flight.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 10 Apr. 2017,

www.nytimes.com/2017/04/10/business/united-flight-passenger-dragged.html.

Zumbach, Lauren. “A Year after a Passenger Was Dragged off a United Flight, Everyday

Indignities Remain.” Chicagotribune.com, 9 Apr. 2018, www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-

biz-united-passenger-dragging-anniversary-20180405-story.htm .