Originally Posted by
WorldLux
Still apples and oranges as you don't buy the seat (or the aircraft) as a passenger. You essentially rent it and get the right to put your butt into a seat for a flight X on day Y.
A comparable example would be: You let a room in your house to a person. That person keeps paying his rent and performs accordingly to the terms both of you agreed upon (he doesn't make house parties, mows the lawn, doesn't do drugs on your premises, etc.).
By surprise, a friend's boyfriend/girlfriend breaks up with them and that friend needs to crash somewhere. You give that friend the room of your tenant. The tenant objects. You call the cops. I would love to see the cop that would intervene.
Of course, even this example isn't perfect and bear in mind that analogy works very rarely (particularly in law) and should thus be avoided.
Nothing you have said above is a direct comparison to purchasing a seat on an airliner as part of the service THEY OFFER to transport you from A to B.
Yes, terms and conditions do exist but to suggest it is normal to remove a paying passenger from a flight (with or without compensation) for no infractions is unacceptable, especially if they do not agree to be removed once they have cleared boarding and are seated in the aircraft.
The onus is on the airliner to fulfill their obligations to the paying customer.
If they were going to remove 3-4 passengers for operational purposes, the correct procedure would have been to stop the 3-4 passengers at the check in counter and to inform them WHY they could not board the flight they were booked on and to sort out compensation and to re-book them on the next available flight.
Not once the passengers had boarded and were seated and were ready to depart. Not a 68 year old man travelling with his wife who had no interest in compensation to step off the aircraft nor had no interest in solving a problem UA made for themselves.