I too was deplaned but it was due to weight issues as it was cold, snowy and the pilot was worried about ice buildup. I too did not complain.

The passenger was a doctor... in the US....$$$$$... does anyone else feel a MAJOR lawsuit is about to be handed to UA on a surgical platter? UA didn't pull the guy off but the security they called did and don't think for one minute they didn't give them the parameters by which to free up the seats.

Lawsuit? America? It will never happen.

And reading further... it was to accommodate their own standby employees.... this just gets juicier by the minute.....

How many of us have lost our upgrade seat on AC to a rogue pilot who decided at the last minute he needs to get somewhere?? :mad:

Oh yeah, major lawsuit. Possibly two, one against Munoz for defamation and libel.

I wonder if the passengers on-board will sue as well, for emotional distress (I mean, a flight attendant told someone to move to the back so they don't have to watch? Seriously? What jury wouldn't bite at that tidbit?)

Based on Flight UA 3411 on Sunday, 9. April 2017

Official request made to LH/LX:
1. UA should be suspended from Star Alliance, effective immediately.
2. All codeshares with UA should be terminated, effective immediately.

This shall not be tolerated.

I will never board another UA aircraft.

Are you for real?

Once again since your sanctimonious finger wagging BS (a worldwide plague unfortunately)) seems to be affecting your reading comprehension, I would assist the crew to neutralize a passenger if asked without hesitation. I would vacate my seat if I was instructed by the crew. Are we detecting a pattern here? That is If you can see past your outrage at the depravity of my soul, my complete lack of moral fiber and my general awfulness on your human worth assessment scale. Now go back to your safe space.

I'm pretty sure when the rest of the internet wakes up, or at least, the rest of the members of this forum wake up, someone will tell you about the contract with the AC pilots, wherein there are specifications that allow them, or require them, to fly to get to their next flight, or head back to their base etc.

My issue tends to be with the optics of seeing large group of cabin crew all seated in the J cabin on a transcon. I'm sure someone can explain that too.

And, surprise surprise, they get their meal preference from their buddy on-shift before non-status revenue pax get asked.

Trespass. (A defense to trespass is having a contractual right of use, but the UA contract undoubtedly reserves the right for refusal. Once notified of this refusal, the passenger was trespassing by intentionally remaining on the plane and refusing lawful orders to vacate.) An arrest pursuant to this offence would be justified. It is an open question whether the arrest was appropriately executed but I won't speculate based on the available videos; the arrest itself was undoubtedly lawful.

In Canada, this would usually be charged as mischief, which encompasses most common law property offences. This is much the same if you walk onto a bus or Starbucks, pay, are told you need to immediately leave, and then refuse to leave. Your recourse is going to court, not sitting/standing where you are indefinitely. The police are justified to remove you in such circumstances.

In addition, the particular United flight was operated by a subcontractor, Republic Airline, who operates for each of UA, DL, and AA. So, definitely avoid those three airlines, as it can easily be argued the party really at fault here is Republic.

Yet you didn't state anything about being asked by a crew in your post, sir. My reading comprehension is pretty good, as I was able to determine from the articles about the Icelandair incident that it was the passengers who subdued the unruly gentleman and not the crew.

Although very well documented, it was over four years ago, so I can understand a hazy recollection of the event. And that event bears no resemblance to the current incident under discussion.

Is it trespass if you're invited onto the airplane by the airline? All the passengers on board were.

Nevertheless, there are laws in place to protect passengers faced with an IDB situation; and indeed such protections are reflected in the airline's t&c's. What seems probable to me is that UA, having boarded the passenger legally could not then legally revoke that authorisation. IDB must by definition take place prior to boarding and not subsequently.

Furthermore, both the legal texts and UA's t&c's provide a fig leaf for UA's use of IDB procedures in the case of oversold flights. Yet this was not an oversold flight. It was a fully booked flight, with all pax embarked, when the late request for 4 seats for UA aircrew came in. It was not oversold.

I am not a lawyer, I hasten to add. But it seems to me that UA was in default of the law, and not a passenger who was embarked fully in accordance with his contract. Trespasser? I don't think so.

UA had options to satisfy its manpower positioning issues. The fact that they kicked a passenger off without reaching the reserve price of its IDB auction in order to solve their issues demonstrates the paucity of their management decision making.

And I would love to see a restaurant or Starbucks try to chuck out a client who had absolutely no cause to be chucked out: a restaurant or coffee shop is a public place of commerce, and if no nuisance was being caused by its client, a charge of trespass would hardly fly in the face of the management's whimsicality.

I'll agree that a trespress offence (probably) arose here. I'm just asking Stranger, who has repeatedly said "pax must follow all crew instructions", where this is written in stone tablets, regardless of the instruction's relevance to aircraft or passenger safety. To take this to the absurd, surely I could not be arrested if crew ordered me to write my name in pink with rainbows, and I refused.