Ok?
They offered what they did. They seriously only really have to offer the price of the ticket. That is all he paid for.
And I think the physical situation got out of control in part due to the passenger making a bigger deal out of this than it needed to be. These guys needed to get him out of the seat, in a confined space, and I doubt they went in hoping to slam him into anything. The passenger wanted to put on a show, and security were pressed to get him out of the seat. By the time it got to that point, it was already too far gone to ever not look bad. However, it doesn’t matter if he paid or not. This policy is common on lots of airlines, and is an open secret, that doesn’t happen often. But people sure do act gravely offended when it does. Unless it was a plane carrying the staff needed so that the plane they are taking doesn’t get cancelled.
“They offered what they did. They seriously only really have to offer the price of the ticket.”
Uh, no.
The airline sold a ticket and made a contract with the passenger. United’s Contract of Carriage (COC- required by 14 CFR 253 -often referred to as the “fine print”) includes many terms resulting from Federal Government regulations created after a Ralph Nader lawsuit where he had lost his seat. There are two distinct sections: Rule 21 entitled “Refusal of Transport,” and Rule 25 entitled “Denied Boarding Compensation” that will come into play in the upcoming lawsuit.
United cited Rule 25 incorrectly - while there are several issues with this rule such as the order for determining the losers (”may be determined based on a passenger’s fare class, itinerary, status of frequent flyer program membership, and the time in which the passenger presents him/herself for check-in without advanced seat assignment” while in this case they did a “lottery”) the passengers had in fact already boarded (and been seated) and could not be forced from their seats (they could have volunteered - free market solution - but United wasn’t willing to let the free market decide).
Rule 21 does address removal of a person from an aircraft for many reasons. None were cited by United. The fact he refused an illegal order and resisted will not be sufficient.
You state “This policy is common on lots of airlines, and is an open secret....” All airlines have a COC, what their policies are in implementing the COC is a big question. Taking someone off after boarding is quite different than denying them boarding and whatever their policies provide to be in compliance with federal laws and regulations. Their rights to take a passenger off after boarding are limited, in United’s case by their COC rule 21.
In his initial comments, the CEO said “established procedures were followed.” Wow - all I can say is the CEO just admitted that their own procedures are not consistent with their contract. Personally, I think he is probably correct in that over the last several decades since the Nader lawsuit United’s procedures evolved to the point a major correction is needed. And will likely be mandated by Congress at some point during the litigation that will severely impact, if not bankrupt, United.