Originally Posted by
mitchmu
If pax had done something to create a genuine security or safety threat, then I'd have expected captain + fa's to have provided evidence of same, and then, that evidence would have been used as the basis for an arrest, and then, UA would have denied boarding on future flights (probably a moot point because they'd be in jail anyway).
I think it's important to remember that the capitan is the one who makes the diversion call and s/he cannot see the pax or what they are doing. They must rely on the FA's description and likely error on the side of caution. If they get a "there is a lady back here trying to push up the monitor and won't stop when we asked her to" report from the FA I don't see how they can do anything BUT divert. They are faced with a pax who does not listen to the crew and could by trying to harm the aircraft.
It's likely once they were on the ground and everyone could talk face to face it turned out the issue wasn't as severe as it could have been. I expect the LEOs meeting the aircraft explained to the passenger that they must comply with instructions from the flight crew and impressed upon them (as did the diversion) the potential result if they do not. The LEOs likely servered their purpose even without taking out their handcuffs.
It's definitely an inconvenience to the other passengers and a cost to the airline but I also believe it's part of air travel, as are weather delays, medical diversions, and mechanical incidents. As passengers we need to understand that things like this happen and as an airline I am sure UA takes it into account as cost of operating their business. I would only consider it a problem if a pattern develops (either a pilot more often diverts than their peers, a passenger causes an atypical number of diversions, or an air carrier I travel on diverts more than it's competitors).