United Airlines delivered its response late Wednesday to lawmakers regarding the April 9 incident of a passenger being violently dragged off a plane after being involuntarily bumped.
Dr. David Dao suffered a broken nose, two broken teeth and a concussion after refusing to be removed to make seat space available for crew members on the flight who needed to be in Louisville the next morning for work duty.
The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee demanded answers from United CEO Oscar Munoz in a series of detailed questions, and this is Munoz's verbatim response in the letter he returned to the committee.
When did UA first become aware a/the need to subject passengers to involuntary denied boarding or removal from this flight? Specifically, did UA decide to seat the four airline employees on "must travel" passes after the flight check-in deadline had passed? If so, why was UA unaware of the need to transport these employees earlier (i.e., before passengers were permitted to board)? Did an unanticipated change in crew scheduling or some unforeseen contingency require these airline personnel to travel on this aircraft even after it was fully boarded?
On Sunday, April 9, 2017, United Express Flight 3411(operated by Republic), scheduled to depart at 5:40 pm CDT from Chicago O'Hare International Airport ("ORD") to Louisville International Airport ("SDF") was oversold by one passenger prior to boarding. Despite repeated solicitations for passengers to accept voluntary denied boarding none were found. United followed company boarding rules and Department of Transportation ("DOT") requirements, identifying one passenger who was involuntarily denied boarding ("IDB") prior to boarding the aircraft. This passenger was compensated and accommodated on a later United flight to SDF.
Around the time of boarding, four Republic Airlines crew members ("Republic Crew") arrived at the gate for Flight 3411. This crew needed to board Flight 3411because they were needed to operate an outbound flight from SDF - Flight 3658 to Newark Liberty International Airport ("EWR") with a scheduled departure time of 6:55 am EDT the next day. The Republic Crew had originally been booked on United 4448, which had been scheduled to depart at 2:55 pm CDT from ORD to SDF. However, Flight 4448 was experiencing an extended mechanical delay and based on the information available at the time, it appeared that the Republic Crew had a high probability of not reaching SDF in time to get FAA required rest and to operate their scheduled Flight 3658 early the next day. Given the difficulties in obtaining replacement crews on short notice, the Republic Crew was re-booked by Republic dispatch personnel to Flight 3411beginning at approximately 5:21pm CDT. Republic designated the Republic Crew "must ride" because there was a strong possibility that if they did not arrive in SDF that evening, they would not have sufficient rest time required by FAA regulations in order to work the morning flight (Flight 3658) out of SDF and, as a result, that flight would likely need to be cancelled.
The impact of any such cancellation would be significant - not only for the 70 passengers who were booked on Flight 3658 (SDF-EWR), but also potentially affecting subsequent flights and disrupting travel for many other customers down line.
Thus, in order to accommodate the Republic Crew, United gate agents again solicited volunteers, this time onboard the aircraft due to the last-minute nature of their request. The United agents offered increased compensation, ultimately reaching $1,000 in travel certificates. United did not get all the volunteers necessary. In fact, the only nonstop flight to SDF that was available to book (and not severely delayed and at risk of not operating) would have been the following afternoon. Given its unsuccessful efforts to solicit volunteers, United then followed its involuntary denied boarding process.
United has already announced a change to our policy regarding "must-ride" crew members in response to this unfortunate incident. In order to complete a "must-ride" booking under this new policy, either appropriate seat inventory must be available on the flight in question at the time of booking or any overbooking of the flight must occur no less than 60 minutes prior to the estimated time of departure. This change is designed to ensure that the denied boarding process to resolve an oversale situation, if necessary, may be implemented in the gate or lobby area and not on board the aircraft.
In light of the foreseeable dissatisfaction of passengers being removed from a flight that was already boarded in order to accommodate airline personnel, what other options, if any, were explored to get the airline personnel to their destination? For example, did UA explore options for these employees to travel to a nearby airport before removing passengers from this flight?
United's forthcoming policy changes will empower its personnel to make decisions and find solutions that make sense for both customers and employees. In light of this incident, United is making changes so that policies that United controls can no longer get in the way of doing the right thing.
With Flight 3411, there were a number of challenges associated with moving the Republic Crew. That crew of four was scheduled to travel from ORD to Louisville, as described above in response to Question 1, at 2:55 pm CDT on the afternoon of April 9 aboard UA 4448 (United Express). Because Republic does not maintain a crew base at SDF, the Republic Crew was being repositioned to Louisville in order to operate a Monday morning Republic flight for United Express, UA 3658 (SDF-Newark, scheduled for 6:55 am EDT departure). Flight 4448 was experiencing a significant mechanical delay and, according to Republic management, as Flight 3411 was preparing for departure, concern was mounting that Flight 4448 would either be cancelled or not leave ORD with enough time for the repositioning crew to arrive at SDF, take their FAA-required rest and operate the next day's early-morning flight.
The driving distance between ORD and the area of Louisville International Airport is over 300 miles. Especially given the loss of one hour moving from Central to Eastern time zones, driving the crew from Chicago to Louisville would have ensured a severe delay or possible cancellation the following morning, due to FAA crew rest requirements. Flight 3411 was the last on-tine opportunity to transport the Republic Crew to SDF to prevent the likely cancellation of their flight the next day.
[READMORE]READ MORE: United CEO Calls Viral Video A 'Watershed Moment' [/READMORE]
As compared to passengers who are denied boarding before enplanement, are there different policies or procedures in place to "bump" a passenger who has already been seated?
The same denied boarding policies are applied to passengers already seated as those used before boarding begins. It is rare that a passenger is denied boarding after already having been seated. This happens most commonly due to a seat that is found to be unusable or unsafe after boarding, or to "weight and balance" problems (when last-minute factors, commonly involving changing weather or airport characteristics, mean that the flight, while it has more seats than passengers, cannot operate safely with the number of passengers who have checked in).
Does UA consider a case where employees or crew members involuntarily displace a ticketed passenger who has met the check-in deadline an "oversold" situation under UA's contract of carriage?
Flight 3411was oversold by one passenger even before the Republic Crew arrived at the gate, as explained in the answer to Question 1, triggering United's denied boarding process. United seeks passengers to volunteer before denying boarding as a matter of policy, using training and technology tools and in accordance with DOT requirements. United followed the applicable rules of our Contract of Carriage (relevant rule attached) and DOT denied-boarding requirements to ensure the smallest number of people holding confirmed reserved space were involuntarily denied boarding.
United recently announced changes that are designed to better serve customers and empower employees. For example, crews must now be booked on flights at least 60 minutes prior to departure, unless there are open seats.
How often are security or law enforcement personnel called upon to remove a passenger subjected to involuntary bumping after having been seated on an aircraft?
United does not maintain statistics on how often passengers have been subject to involuntary denied boarding after having been seated or if there have been other events like this when security personnel have been involved. United emphasizes that a situation such as the one that occurred on Flight 3411 is rare. In direct response to this incident, United has implemented a policy change such that it will not ask law enforcement officers to remove a customer from an aircraft except when required for a safety or security concern. United will soon announce additional steps it will take to reduce incidents of involuntary denial of boarding.
In 2016, United had a total of 3,765 involuntary denied boardings across more than 86.8 million mainline passengers, or less than 1 involuntarily denied boarding per 23,000 of these customers. United encourages passengers to volunteer by using offers and had 16 volunteers for each one passenger who had to be involuntarily denied boarding. United notes, however, the low number of passengers involuntarily denied boarding generally, and with the vast majority of those incidents occurring before customers board the aircraft, the overall number of passengers subject to IDB while seated would be far fewer than that low number (all 2016 data on United mainline flights departing the United States as reported to the DOT).
How was the need to remove passengers communicated to those on board the aircraft?
United's gate agents individually approached passengers who were selected for IDB to apologetically explain the situation. They approached two passengers on the aircraft, informed them of their selection, and they left the aircraft without incident. United provided those passengers with the DOT-required notice, compensation in the form of a check and a refund of their tickets. The next passengers United approached were the Daos, a party of two, and they declined.
What specific incentives were offered for voluntary rebooking? Did UA increase those incentives on-board the aircraft when the passenger in question objected to removal in an attempt to diffuse the situation? Does UA limit the incentives that maybe offered in these circumstances? If so, how?
As part of its review, United is examining the policies that govern incentivizing volunteers in oversold situations.
United agents assigned to Flight 3411implemented United's voluntary denied boarding process and solicited volunteers before initiating the involuntary denied boarding process. As summarized in United's response to Question 1, Flight 3411 was oversold by one passenger even before the Republic Crew arrived at the gate.
United began its volunteer solicitation process early in the day on April 9 through its kiosks and at the gate via an announcement on the public address system conveying the oversold status of the flight and soliciting volunteers to take alternate transportation in exchange for compensation. According to agents who worked Flight 3411, United offered increasing compensation, eventually offering $1,000 in travel certificates while onboard Flight 3411in an attempt to persuade passengers to volunteer rather than having to deny additional passengers boarding involuntarily. Additionally, passengers were offered a confirmed seat on a flight to SDF the following afternoon, including hotel accommodation and meals, as United's agents were unable to guarantee them an alternative flight to SOF that day.
[READMORE]READ MORE: More Bad News For United [/READMORE]
What assurances, if any, were made to passengers subjected to involuntary denied boarding or removal from this aircraft regarding arrival at their intended destination? How were these assurances communicated? Did UA explore options for a same- day arrival at the intended destination on flights operated by other airlines? Ifnot, why not?
United is taking steps to provide its employees with additional tools and training to ensure that a situation such as Flight 3411, never happens again. As a matter of policy, passengers who are denied boarding, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, are offered alternative flights.
At the time of the denied boarding of Flight 3411, it was not clear what alternative flights or other transportation options passengers might elect, but options were scarce. Passengers whom United involuntarily denied boarding on the flight could have been accommodated on the only remaining United flight to Louisville that evening, UA 4448, which had been scheduled to depart several hours earlier that day but was still awaiting departure due to a significant mechanical delay. However, United's agents on Flight 3411 could not assure passengers that Flight 4448 would in fact depart that evening because it was unknown at the time of the denied boardings whether that flight would operate or when. (Flight 4448 did eventually operate that evening, arriving shortly before midnight Eastern time, and accommodated one passenger who had been denied boarding from Flight 3411, as described in response to Question 1.) Passengers were offered the option of a confirmed seat on an afternoon flight to Louisville the following day, including hotel accommodation and meals. United explored options for accommodating passengers on other airlines' flights, but none were available.
What interline agreements does UA currently maintain with other airlines to deal with voluntary or involuntarily denied boarding situations? In the past calendar year (2016}, how many times were these interline agreements used to provide alternate accommodations to either voluntarily or involuntarily displaced passengers?
United maintains interline agreements with many airlines and United considers accommodating passengers that are voluntarily or involuntarily denied boarding by United on any of the airlines with which United has such an agreement. A list of all airlines with which United has interline agreements is attached. As United utilizes these airlines and agreements for a variety of situations, including cancellations known in advance of departure, the company does not keep, in the ordinary course of business, separate statistics on use of interline agreements in the event of voluntary or involuntary denied boarding. However, in calendar year 2016 United used interline agreements to help over 1 million of our customers get to their destinations. We accommodate United customers on other airlines through these agreements when needed in the event of denied boarding, but more often when there mechanical issues or delays related to weather or Air Traffic Control.
In this instance, how did UA select the passengers who were ultimately subjected to involuntary denied boarding or removal? What are UA's policies for selecting passengers for involuntary denied boarding or removal? How are these policies communicated to passengers?
With involuntary denial of boarding, United follows company procedures and U.S. government rules. United includes a variety of factors in deciding who is selected for denied boarding, including frequent flyer program status, fare class, itinerary and the time the passenger presents him/herself for check-in. In this instance, United gate personnel asked a company help desk to create the list of passengers who might be involuntarily denied boarding following those rules. For the four passengers on the aircraft who were selected for involuntary denied boarding according to this process, fare class and wholly domestic itineraries were the determining factors.
In the relatively rare event of involuntary denial of boarding, United follows our rules and DOT requirements. Those priorities are published in our Contract of Carriage. United's boarding gates and places that United sells tickets also have notices about denied boarding. This information is also printed on United's ticket receipts. In addition, United has printed notices for passengers stating DOT rules at airports it serves. These notices include compensation levels and how United selects passengers to be denied boarding. We provide these notices (attached) whenever a passenger is denied boarding involuntarily and also upon request.
United has committed to immediate changes, including promising not to ask law enforcement officers to remove passengers from our flights unless it is a matter of safety or security, and requiring crews traveling on our aircraft to be booked at least 60 minutes prior to departure, unless there are open seats. We will continue our thorough review of policies that govern crew movement, incentivizing volunteers in these situations and how we handle oversold situations. With these changes, we seek to avoid putting our customers, employees, and partners into impossible situations due to policies we control.
For the latest travel news, updates and deals, subscribe to the daily TravelPulse newsletter.
Topics From This Article to Explore
