"They were just following protocol" is the new "Befehl ist Befehl" - also known as Nurember defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superior_orders
The fact that a defenceless man has left a plane covered in blood should give everyone pause. They followed orders is a very poor response.
My comment was meant to suggest that anger at the CEO for supporting his employees, who only called security, and didn't beat the guy up themselves, is misplaced. UA screwed up, but the email wasn't what went wrong.
The UA employees followed protocol by calling security. Protocols are generally in place for a reason, and they can be reworked. I don't think comparing overbooking to German soldiers entering a plea against war crimes is a good analogy.
As comparing overbooking to German soldiers - the Nuremberg defense, despite originated from Nazi's trial, refers today to any account where "I was just following orders". It refers to /any/ situation where someone claims unaccountability because "it is the protocol". This is exactly the case. If the protocol accounts for beating up a passenger, are the employees unaccountable just because "that's what the manual says"? No, they are not. They are human beings and they could say "fuck the protocol". There are a million other ways to handle a logistical problem without the use of violence.
If I were a United employee I would also not be impressed. UA is now instantly associated with violence.
You want to know that something went wrong and that UA doesn't stand for violence, as most other employees would.
But that's what the letter's saying...
He says it right here:
He was approached a few more times after that in order to gain his compliance to come off the aircraft, and each time he refused and became more and more disruptive and belligerent. Our agents were left with no choice but to call Chicago Aviation Security Officers to assist in removing the customer from the flight. He repeatedly declined to leave. Chicago Aviation Security Officers were unable to gain his co-operation and physically removed him from the flight as he continued to resist - running back onto the aircraft in defiance of both our crew and security officials.
It's very clear to me that UA did not condone or suggest the violence against the passenger. The CEO's description of the events makes it clear to employees that this situation escalated out of control after they passed it off to security.
Just because you can apply it doesn't mean you should. You really need to define what protocol they have that you hate so much. The guard that attacked the passenger was placed on leave. Suggesting the violence wasn't protocol.