---

Introduction

---

Most people will have seen the video footage by now showing how United Airlines forcibly removed a passenger on a commercial flight.

It is hard to miss this footage with it being all over social media and the web.

I think what is most striking here is the fact that this is a perfect example of how large companies can create PR and marketing disasters.

It is also a brilliant example of how upper management, in this case the CEO, can aggravate the issue further by placing the blame on the customer.

Granted the customer in this case did not seem to be acting in an adult or mature manner but treating a customer this way is marketing suicide whatever way you look at it.

If you have somehow missed this story you can read about it and watch the video in this USA Today article.

---

So What Actually Happened?

---

The flight was (like many flights) full.

Airlines tend to engage in a practice known as overbooking in order to maximise profits and make sure that they don't have any seats going empty.

This ensures that even if some people don't make their flight, it still leaves full because others can take their place.

In this case the problem occurred because the airline itself had to transfer 4 crew members to the destination (Louiseville) in order to serve another flight.

In order to vacate the required seats they offered $800 in vouchers for customers to give up their seats and take the next flight (which in this case was the next day).

Unfortunately enough people did not volunteer and it appears a random lottery type method was used to pick the passenger (David Dao) who ended up being forcibly removed.

Dao protested and refused because he told the United staff he was a physician that had patients he needed to see and the next flight would not allow him to reach his destination in time.

This seems to be an entirely justifiable reason (on a par with the flight crew needing to travel to avoid a future flight being cancelled).

Unfortunately the way this impasse was dealt with seems to have been entirely unjustified.

Security personnel were called onboard to forcibly remove him.

As you can see in the video it was done quite violently and appeared to cause him physical injury - perhaps even a head injury.

To my eyes he did not seem to be behaving in a rational manner when he managed to run back on to the plane.

Anyway whatever was going on with him - even if it was just sheer obstinacy or stubbornness it does not excuse the behaviour from the airline and the security personnel that removed him.

This was not a security situation and there was no safety risk to justify such violence.

---

What I Would Have Done to Mitigate This

---

As those of you who read my blog will know I am not just interested in neurology and the dysfunction of the brain.

I am also fascinated by psychology and it's logical extensions into social psychology, human networking and most importantly here in public relations.

One issue that often puzzles me is why some companies will make massively costly PR blunders in order to save a comparably tiny amount of money.

This appears to be a textbook case of doing just that.

There are a number of easy techniques that United could have used to defuse the situation.

This might have cost them a small amount of money, but not the likely millions they will now lose due to the bad publicity and lawsuit this will bring.

For example they could have simply flown their crew members out on another airline.

Yes it would have cost them more money but it would have been a tiny fraction of the cost to their reputation - heck even chartering a private jet might have worked out cheaper.

Another obvious alternative would have been to up their bids to pay passengers more until someone accepted.

If $800 is not enough, try $1000 or $5000 - it is better than $500,000 in a lawsuit, plus medical bills and millions in lost revenue.

Indeed these situations could even have been turned around and flipped into positive PR.

Imagine if United had made the guarantee that they would always compensate passengers who had to be bumped, or that they would never force someone off a plane.

The PR gains from doing this might well cancel out the loss of profits they might incur from empty seats. Perhaps they could even slightly raise their prices to give passengers a guaranteed seat?

Secondly once this unfortunate situation had occurred, rather than sending out a letter internally condemning the passenger involved here they should have made a decisive apology.

The CEO should have met with the passenger to apologise personally, pay his full medical costs and payed him some sort of compensation.

This would have shown acceptance of their mistake, contrition and a desire to minimise any further harm (reputationally or otherwise) to the customer.

In addition the opportunity could have been used to outline how the company would ensure another situation like this would never rise again and to emphasise that they put the interests of their customers first.

This would at least have gone part way to ensuring that customers do not automatically strike the airline off the list of companies they would be willing to use.

Instead, the actions of United Airlines thus far have resoundingly given the message that when there is a clash between their own interests and the interests of the customer, the customer will lose.

That is PR poison in a service industry.

---

The Millgram Angle

---

You are all probably aware of Stanley Millgram's famous psychology experiments in the 1960s.

If not you can find a nice summary by Saul McLeod on the Simply Psychology website.

This set of experiments suggested (amongst other things) that a large proportion of people would blindly follow orders from an authority figure - even if the end result was something they would normally find ethically troubling (such as hurting or even killing another person).

I think we can see some parallels with Millgram's findings here.

The United staff and security personnel blindly did whatever was necessary to follow orders and eject the passenger - even if it meant injuring him and despite the protestations and concerns of the other passengers who were watching.

It is of interest that nobody (either in the security team) or the United staff felt that they had sufficient authority to question or go against these orders.

This was not a case of suspected terrorism, or removing someone for their own safety. This was purely a logistical issue yet none of those involved thought that direct violent action was a step too far.

It seems they had absolved themselves of all responsibility and placed all moral consequences in the hands of those that had given the orders.

That is exactly what seemed to happen in Millgram's experiments.

---

Conclusion

---

I think this issue highlights how large companies (even those in service industries) can make massive PR mistakes in order to save relatively small amounts of money.

It also suggests a breakdown in the leadership, training and support structures within the company itself when the front line crew feel unable to refuse unreasonable treatment or demands towards passengers.

This is further emphasised by the tone-deaf response of the CEO and upper management in then blaming the customer for what happened.

This could still be rescued (using some of the techniques I outline above) but due to poor management so far the cost will be a lot greater than it otherwise would have been.

Anyway I've waffled on enough. What do you think?

---

Thank you for reading

---

---

---

All uncredited images are taken from my personal Thinkstock Photography account. More information can be provided on request.

---

---

Are you new to Steemit and Looking for Answers?

Please visit:

Steemithelp.net

A collection of guides and tutorials that cover the basics of Steem and Steemit.

---

Get the Markdown version of the Steemithelp Footer to add to your own posts here. Follow me on Steemit & Twitter. Let's get STEEM on Coinbase: THIS POST shows you how.

---

---