[BobL]

I thought we FReepers tended to be libertarian-types and supported the right of businesses to serve or not serve their customers.

But I guess that goes out the window and we become FLAMING LIBERALS when:

1) We don’t like the company
2) There is a video
3) The media whips us into a frenzy

So much for us FReepers ‘standing on principle’, at least in this case.

[samtheman]

How about these two principles:

1. He paid for a seat
2. He was seated in the seat he paid for

It’s not socialism to say he has a right to what he paid for.

Was there an emergency of some kind?

No. There wasn’t.

There was only two facts that matter:

1. He paid for a seat
2. He was seated in the seat he paid for

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I would think even the most die hard libertarian types would be against a company using government forces to break a contract.

That sounds more like communism.

[SecAmndmt]

I didn’t know that libertarianism was now equivalent to fascism, or maybe highway robbery? A ticket is a contract. A contract is a contract. He paid for a service. What about the non-aggression principle? United stinks, as anyone who has flown them knows.

[JayGalt]

That is a non sequitur.

In what way should we support the right of United not to serve this passenger after they have taken his money and seated him on the plane when he has not broken any condition of carriage from their contract? They don’t have that right & no thinking person would suggest they do.

United has the right to cancel the flight for cause but not to deny a boarded passenger solely because they now want his seat for a higher value passenger or someone who will pay a premium for the seat.