Introduction

This is “What Just Happened?,” the podcast that looks at the biggest brand crises of our time, what they meant for organisational strategy and behaviour, and their lasting impact on our approach to crisis communication.

I’m Kate Hartley. And I’m Tamara Littleton. And together, we’ll delve into what happened, why it mattered, and whether it could happen again.

Episode 

Kate Hartley: Today, we are heading to Sunday, the 9th of April 2017, to a fully booked United Airlines flight from Chicago to Louisville, Kentucky. It’s not a plane crash disaster, but it is a crisis. It damaged United’s share price, nearly cost the CEO his job, and garnered massive media interest worldwide. It’s possibly the worst initial crisis response we’ve ever seen from a brand. This crisis had everything: a terrible response from the brand, boycotts, spoof Twitter accounts, employees leaking internal emails, and much more. This is the story of United Airlines versus Dr. David Dao.

Tamara Littleton: I remember this at the time. I can’t wait to dive into this one and really get to grips with it. So what happened?

KH: The United flight was about to take off from Chicago. But at the last minute, after everyone was on the plane and buckled into their seats, United decided to ask for passengers to leave the plane because they wanted four of their own employees to get on that flight.

They offered $400 in flight vouchers, plus a hotel for the night and rebooking the next day, but nobody wanted to do it. They upped the offer to $800, but still, no one accepted. Likely because it was the last flight to Louisville that day. United had to select passengers at random to remove from the plane.

Three passengers agreed, but the fourth, Dr. David Dao, a 69-year-old physician from Kentucky, refused because he had to work the next day and see patients at the hospital. Rather than choosing someone who didn’t have such obligations, the airline called security. It’s worth noting that the security officers were employed by the city of Chicago, not by United. The officers forcibly removed him by dragging him along the aisle floor and knocking his face against an armrest. He ended up with two broken teeth, a bloody face, a broken nose, and a concussion. He was taken to a hospital nearby to recover. The photos and videos from that event are unforgettable.

TL: Other passengers were live-tweeting the whole incident, right?

KH: Yes, it was filmed and live-tweeted, and those initial posts were picked up by United’s social media team, who expressed concern and asked for flight details, as you would do if you were part of the social media team. The United employees got on the plane, which was not popular with the other passengers who had just witnessed a man being dragged off. The flight was delayed by two hours.

As soon as it landed in Louisville, one of the passengers started exchanging tweets with a local news station. That night, United gave its first statement to the local news and on Twitter. The statement was terrible. It said, “Flight 3411 from Chicago to Louisville was overbooked. After our team looked for volunteers, one customer refused to leave the aircraft voluntarily. Law enforcement was asked to come to the gate. We apologise for the overbook situation. Further details on the removed customer should be directed to authorities.”

TL: Let’s break that down. Blaming the passenger?

KH: Exactly. Blaming the person who was dragged down the aisle is an extraordinary response. They apologised for the overbook, not for bashing someone’s head against an armrest. It’s absolutely dreadful.

TL: I can only imagine they didn’t have all the facts at that time.

KH: They had the images on Twitter live and must have seen them. I don’t know what made them decide on that statement, but it was terrible. Rightly, they got completely trashed for it, and it spread like wildfire because people were horrified. Once social media got hold of it, spoof accounts were set up, and people shared posts mocking United.

Realising the severity of the situation, the CEO, Oscar Munoz, sent a message to United employees explaining what had happened. However, he again blamed Dao, saying he refused to disembark and resisted security. This statement leaked and was all over the media. One passenger on board even suggested Dao was singled out because of his ethnicity, specifically because he was Chinese. Within 48 hours, “United forcibly removed passenger” was trending on Weibo in China, with more than 550 million views and 240,000 comments, calling for a boycott of United Airlines. Dao was actually Vietnamese-American, but that didn’t stop the spread.

TL: I remember people posting videos of themselves cutting up United loyalty cards and credit cards.

KH: Yes, there was a petition asking the US government to investigate. United’s response was terrible. Later, the CEO issued a more formal apology on Twitter, saying, “This is an upsetting event for all of us at United. I apologise 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.”

TL: It lacked empathy and made it about them.

KH: Exactly. The term “re-accommodate” was especially terrible. Dao was not re-accommodated; he was dragged off the plane with a bloody nose and concussion. The public was outraged.

TL: I remember the timeline was spread out too. This wasn’t the same day as the incident.

KH: Correct. It was 24 hours later. They had time to think about it. My feeling is that the statement likely went through many legal approvals and got watered down. It didn’t sound like Munoz either. The backlash was massive, and Munoz eventually wrote a much more personal and meaningful statement.

He said, “The truly horrific event that occurred on this flight has elicited many responses from all of us: outrage, anger, disappointment. I share all those sentiments, and above all, my deepest apologies for what happened. No one should ever be mistreated this way. We take full responsibility and will work to make it right. It’s never too late to do the right thing. I have committed to our customers and our employees that we are going to fix what’s broken so this never happens again.” He ended by saying they would communicate the results of their review by April 30. That statement was heartfelt, personal, and took accountability.

TL: That probably saved his job. The tone was completely different.

KH: Yes, it was a lot better and gave a deadline for reporting results. This really did change things.

TL: So what was the result of the crisis?

KH: It was a bad week for United. Its stock price dropped, reducing its market cap by $770 million. There were consumer calls for a boycott. Even then-President Donald Trump called Dao’s treatment horrible. Public sympathy was initially with Dao, understandably. Dao did reach a settlement with United, though the amount was undisclosed. However, journalists dug up his past, reporting criminal charges for unauthorised drug prescriptions. Despite this, the initial sympathy remained.

The industry did change; bumping passengers off flights is now down. United ended its policy of involuntary removal unless necessary for safety and increased the cap on payments for voluntary rebooking. Despite the crisis, United’s share price bounced back within a month, reaching a record high, and passenger numbers increased. The security officers involved faced consequences, but ultimately, United recovered.

TL: Given that recovery, was it really a crisis for United?

KH: Yes, I think it was a crisis. It felt like one for those managing it. The share price dropped, it had the potential to hit sales, and it cost the company in terms of reputation. But they recovered, thanks to strong leadership. Munoz’s statement acknowledging the event and committing to change helped turn things around.

TL: It’s a good example of why it’s important to keep leaders who learn from a crisis rather than sacking them immediately.

KH: Absolutely. Munoz showed strength in leadership by eventually addressing the issue head-on and committing to change. It shows the importance of not returning to business as usual after a crisis but learning and evolving from it.

TL: It also highlights the importance of strategic intent.

KH: Yes, they could have avoided the reputation damage by responding better initially. Learning from this, they showed how strong leadership and a commitment to change can pull a company back from a crisis.

Break

KH: I’m really excited to be joined today by Mark Fritz, a leadership specialist and author. He has run master classes in leadership in over 50 countries around the world. He’s also someone I interviewed about leadership when writing my book on communicating in a crisis. Mark, thank you for being here today.

Mark Fritz: Thank you. It’s great to be here.

KH: We wanted to talk about the role of leaders in a crisis. In the United case, Oscar Munoz showed amazing leadership later in the crisis but initially went off track. How would you define the overall role of a leader in a crisis? What are the key things leaders need to get right?

MF: There are two key things: focusing people on what to do right now in terms of communication and being solution-focused on what needs to be done. Have that thread in mind to move forward and out of the crisis and do something different if required.

KH: How do you find the ability to make those decisions? When running simulations, we see leaders struggle to make decisions under pressure in a crisis, possibly the worst day of their working lives. You talked about getting the right people together and developing different options. How do you create the environment to make good decisions under pressure?

MF: The key is getting the right people together. You have to reach down into the organisation to know what’s really happening. The more something is done based on policy, the less truthful the information may be. Companies prone to issues should know who they need to talk to. Identify key questions and get clear answers for effective communication. In the United case, Oscar likely didn’t have the right information initially. His second statement felt more authentic.

KH: That makes sense. It didn’t really sound like him initially.

TL: It really ties into the importance of core values in communication.

MF: Yes, values must be consistent in communication. Listening to the right people is crucial. Good leaders listen to customers and employees to adapt and do the right thing.

KH: Is listening something leaders always do well? It’s something you really have to develop, isn’t it?

MF: It’s probably fair to say not all leaders are good listeners. The best leaders have strategic patience. They know when to listen more to get a better perspective, balancing logical and emotional aspects.

KH: I love the idea of strategic patience.

MF: It’s key. Listening enough to get to the root cause and make better decisions. Also, listening enough makes people feel valued.

TL: Does that tie into psychological safety and allowing people to challenge leaders?

MF: Absolutely. Good leaders remain calm, encouraging more open communication. Irritation makes people clam up.

KH: You mentioned finding a way to quiet your mind. How do you do that as a leader?

MF: Good leaders have some form of recovery to avoid constant stress. They are curious and focus on finding solutions. Mature leaders look for ways forward, not blame.

KH: You’ve taught in many countries. Are there common traits among leaders that need development?

MF: The best leaders are clear in expectations and direction. They describe where they’re going and what they expect. They reinforce core behaviors and serve as good role models.

KH: If a leader came to you in a crisis, what would you advise them to do first?

MF: I’d advise them to listen to the right people to get a clear picture of the crisis. Be open and honest about what you’re doing and how you’ll respond. Clear expectations are crucial.

MH: Any final thoughts on recovery for leaders and businesses post-crisis?

MF: Leaders need something that centers them, whether it’s family time, sports, or hobbies. They know what calms them in different timeframes. It’s about finding ways to stay centered and calm.

KH: If you had been advising Oscar Munoz during the United crisis, what would you have said?

MF: I would have advised him to immediately talk to the direct people involved to understand what really happened. Misinterpretation of policies versus actual events often leads to issues.

Outro

You’ve been listening to “What Just Happened?” with Kate Hartley and Tamara Littleton. If you enjoyed the podcast, please subscribe, rate, and review.