[taxcontrol]

Once he was identified by United that he was no longer going to fly on the aircraft, he was trespassing. Once he was trespassing and refusing to leave, he was interfering with the operation of the aircraft. The lawful order was to vacate the aircraft.

1) yes the flight was oversold. It became oversold when more passengers need seats than are available.
2) his being allowed to board is irrelevant

[NobleFree]

Once he was identified by United that he was no longer going to fly on the aircraft, he was trespassing. [...]

1) yes the flight was oversold. It became oversold when more passengers need seats than are available.
2) his being allowed to board is irrelevant

Dan has already shown you the proof that all these claims are wrong.

Sorry to learn of your United stock losses.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Once he was identified by United that he was no longer going to fly on the aircraft, he was trespassing. Once he was trespassing and refusing to leave, he was interfering with the operation of the aircraft. The lawful order was to vacate the aircraft.

Whether he was trespassing remains in dispute. I will respectfully disagree. But, I will defer to opinions of those with greater legal knowledge than myself, and whose opinions happen to agree with mine. (See: when is an airline passenger considered to be trespassing)

Please cite legal opinions that agree with you that he was trespassing.

As Dorf on Law points out, he was not trespassing. He paid for the seat. According to UAL's own CoC, they have no rules concerning removing a passenger due to overbooking. As Dorf also points out, in the absence of such a rule, the airline was in violation of their own CoC by forcibly removing Dao.

Even UAL's own CEO, Munoz says Dao did nothing wrong.

Please cite the law, or section of UAL's CoC in which Dao violated by refusing to deplane.

1) yes the flight was oversold. It became oversold when more passengers need seats than are available.

The dead-heading crew members fly for free, therefore the plain definition of "oversold" refers only to paying customers.

No, actually an oversold condition occurs prior to boarding. In this case, the number of passengers exactly equaled the number of seats. This condition changed when UAL decided (after all the passengers were seated) that it needed paying customers to vacate four seats to make room for dead-heading crew members. (who were flying for free)

But, if you have a source that shows the flight was oversold, according to the definition of UAL's own CoC, please provide it.

2) his being allowed to board is irrelevant

Please show how this is irrelevent.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

1) yes the flight was oversold. It became oversold when more passengers need seats than are available.

FWIW:

United 'clarifies' that Flight 3411 was not oversold

United says Flight 3411 wasn't overbooked. It just had no open seats left