The article raises the point about whether or not the police were acting under the controlling authority's (i.e., the pilot's) instructions, but that's not the

The article raises the point about whether or not the police were acting under the controlling authority's (i.e., the pilot's) instructions, but that's not the only consideration. Other expert opinions have raised the point that the carriage of contract does not explicitly equate being denied boarding with being removed. In other words, the gate agents are acting like denying boarding allows them to remove Dr. Dao, when that seems to be a false but (until now) unchallenged assumption. Once you're seated, different rules apply. Your point about classism is very fair, but a plumber would have an equally valid claim to Dr. Dao, insofar as being forced to accept a voucher incurs a much more real cost in lost business.