This takes the cake for the most flawed analysis proposed thus far. Simply based on economics, takes no account for the actual contract in place, nor for the history that is behind the various clauses in that contract regarding denial of boarding and the limit on required compensation (to protect the airlines) created in the aftermath of a Nader lawsuit decades ago.
No, the supersaver ticket did not have a different contract of carriage, it was just bought at a different time when the free market price allowed the passenger to save money. Likely limitations on cancelling the ticket or changing the reservation, but “reservation for space” was not disadvantaged, and once he was boarded United could only remove him for violations of its Rule 21, not even argued by United.
If United wanted to come up with a contract that clearly stated up front all the economic justifications this author suggests - it could do so. Likely would see a loss of ticket sales.
Thanks for clearing that up. It's amazing how many lies have been run up the pro-United flagpole.