> It's actually highly questionable whether United had that authority. I was thinking about this some more, and I would think that they do. Consider what would

> It's actually highly questionable whether United had that authority. I was thinking about this some more, and I would think that they do. Consider what would happen if, instead of the actual situation, the passenger was being removed for being highly obnoxious. Maybe if he was sexually harassing flight attendants or intentionally making a mess or something. In that case, the commander of the aircraft might also demand that he leave, without needing to cite an exact law that he broke and prove that he broke it. I'm not saying that the actual removal in this case was right. I am saying that the ability of bad actors to behave in ways that are obnoxious and interfere with normal operations yet technically do not break any specific laws is the reason why property owners, vehicle commanders, etc generally have broad authority, recognized and enforced by law, to demand that anyone leave at any time without needing a reason. The law only specifies a few minor exceptions to this based on certain very specific types of discrimination. I would consider United to have abused that right in this case, but that's why the system is that if the commander says that you're off, then you're off, and the police don't hold some mini-trial on board the plane to figure out what if any laws were broken. > It's corporate propaganda to claim consumers have no rights. I don't think anybody is arguing that. It's a matter of exactly what rights do they have, and how those rights are to be enforced. He does have the right to either be transported or refunded his fare, but that is to be enforced by a civil court of law at a later date, not by a snap decision by whatever cop happens to show up.