I bet people continue shopping airline tickets on price and barely remember this in a week or two.

The point is that it doesn't matter if it's "fair" or "unreasonable" in your eyes.

It's lawful, and eventually you will be taken off the plane. The time to fight the battle is after you get off, not struggling against overwhelming odds and then getting charges piled on you.

If he had done as you suggest, nothing would have happened, nobody would've noticed and he might have got $1000 in compensation if he was lucky. Instead, United look like a bunch of incompetent thugs and many of the people involved in this debacle will be worrying for their jobs, as they should.

Laws/rules don't change if people don't make a fuss about them being wrong.

Right now he's looking at injuries and lack of a voucher/compensation, and possibly criminal charges.

This situation is akin to getting kicked out of a store that you were asked to leave.

Your rights and compensation are spelled out in the law dealing with situations like this. One person is not allowed to make these unilateral decisions because they feel as though the law is wrong in that time.

Laws and rules don't change if you act like an entitled drama queen that tries to bring race into the situation

You're invited to provide citations to the violated rules, regulations and laws.

I don't see United's contract of carriage rule 21 or rule 25 applicable. The passenger was granted boarding, not denied. FAR 91.3(a) doesn't apply, this has nothing to do with the operation of the aircraft. And federal regulation preempt state and local law, but you're welcome to try and convince me.

I see no contractual basis for involuntary removal after boarding is granted, other than being in breach of some other portion of the contract of carriage. The airline was basically in a position per their own contract, of auctioning off a seat on their own plane and they got pissy and called the police, which was improper, and then the police didn't bother to evaluate the appropriateness of removal.

Trespass doesn't apply, the passenger was authorized. Rescinding that state requires a basis in the contract, or FAA regulations or other law and so far the people engaging in victim blaming are providing a lot of jabber and no convincing explanations.

> You're invited to provide citations to the violated rules, regulations and laws.

From united contract of carriage: UA shall have the right to refuse to transport or shall have the right to remove from the aircraft at any point, any Passenger for the following reasons...:

  C) Force Majeure and Other Unforeseeable Conditions – Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond UA’s control

  H) Safety – Whenever refusal or removal of a Passenger may be necessary for the safety of such Passenger or other Passengers or members of the crew including, but not limited to: 3) Passengers who fail to comply with or interfere with the duties of the members of the flight crew.

He was definitely not complying with and interfering with the duties of the members of the flight crew.

Also, the distinction for boarding granting and non-granting is unclear to me. Is the fact that you receive a boarding pass indication that you're on the plane for good? Apparently not.

> people engaging in victim blaming

Assuming that the passenger was a victim. You should be blamed if you're at fault and unreasonable. If you're unhappy with the situation, deal with it later in the courts. Just like you can't talk your way out of a speeding ticket by "asserting your rights".

C) Does not in any possible way apply here because the outcome of oversold seats is completely predictable, as is the need to accommodate crew shifts. This isn't "chance occurance" at all even in the most vivid imagination of one of my house plants.

And in fact there's no oversold issue either, as it turns out. Exactly four paying passengers were removed for exactly four non-paying non-customer crew. That is not an oversold situation.

H) What safety issue applies here? This isn't a safety issue.

The contract has allowances in specific situations for passenger removal, not one of those allowances is applicable. You have to stretch way above and beyond the simple meaning of words in a dictionary to get where you're going.

> If you're unhappy with the situation, deal with it later in the courts. Just like you can't talk your way out of a speeding ticket by "asserting your rights".

That's asinine. Speeding tickets presuppose a civil or criminal offense from the outset. There is no civil, criminal or contractual offense at all on the part of the passenger/victim.