He had no right to act like a bleedin’ revolutionary!
I’ve never disagreed with you before, but there’s always a first. I strongly disagree this time.
Toward the beginning of all this I read an article by a law prof written for a legal journal. He carefully walked through all United’s applicable Terms of Service. Here are the highlights.
At the gate, United had a free hand. They could have denied boarding for any number of reasons. They could have told Dao the plane was overbooked. [It wasn’t.] He’d have had no recourse; he’d just be high and dry.
Once United issued his boarding pass and allowed him to be seated, their own ToS limited the reasons they could kick him off. What it comes down to is disruptive behavior. Dao would need to be drunk, disorderly, making threats, etc. None of those conditions applied; Dao was sitting quietly in his seat, minding his own business.
Munoz, the CEO of United, has admitted Dao did nothing to warrant or justify being kicked off. Much less did this non-aggressive 69 yo man deserve the excessive force that was used on him. United screwed up. For that they will pay, as well they should.