Fúck your sympathy. It's a mild inconvenience. I might travel in less comfort, or I might get bumped and arrive 12 hours late. It's not a fúcking bereavement.
Printable View
No. UA were causing a disturbance by trying to throw a paying customer out for no reason other than their incompetence.
You seem to think that being 'a paying customer' is some kind of sacrosanct status afforded to one by virtue of handing over some cash in return for goods and services. In fact, in this instance, it was simply a means whereby he entered into a legal contract hedged about by all sorts of clauses and caveats that he clearly didn't read.
The contract was broken by UA. It cannot be broken for arbitrary reasons which is precisely what they did. You cannot use contract law to justify breaking a contract for no reason other than your incompetence. |UA had an obligation to perform which they were shirking.
It isn't remotely difficult to grasp. As far as I am aware those clauses are inserted for legal reasons to cover the airline in the event of genuine emergencies and so forth. THey are not designed to be a convenient fall back to help with their own administrative and operational needs.
Our contracts with students allow us to remove a student from their course at any time without explanation. It goes without saying we have never done it and never will. Falling back on these clauses in a contract is the act of an utter ****.
And I have now used the term plane about 5 times. Will you please take the ****ing bait! ;)