Yes it is, he paid for the seat and has every right to be there. If he was unruly, sure. But he wasn’t - he held up his end of the bargain, and had every right to expect the airline to hold up their end.
Except that paying for a seat doesn't actually give you the right to be there. I'm sure none of us have fully read the contract of carriage. But you can certainly pay for a seat but be denied that seat. It's not great, and I wish customers had more power in this situation to be able to negotiate a better contract, but... that's where we are.
I don’t disagree, but if the flight crew tells you to get off the plane, you get off the plane. You can argue about it with the airline’s corporate team. You’re not going to win a fight with the flight crew, nor should you expect to. Make a best effort attempt to make your case (politely and with decorum), and if they still boot you, you’ll have to seek recourse post event.
Funny thing that public. Everyone thinks everyone else sees it their way. You can always pick out the authoritarians in the room, because they are usually the only ones without doubt "the public" will be on their side.
I’m an extremely laissez-faire person, but we’re talking about publicly-bailed out airlines operating out of publicly-funded airports begging for publicly-maintained law enforcement. I think you might misunderstand who’s trying and failing to invoke “the public” here.
Last I checked, TSA was nearly universally despised, airlines in particular are dubiously popular, and aside from the ATF and FCC, I see more griping about the tyrannical tendencies of the FAA by those subject to it's capriciousness, no matter how well justified one may think it to be.
Point being, I'd refrain from making assimptions on the "Public's" behalf, when it's more "a bunch of bureaucrats" dictating things.
They’re just begging the government for power they won’t be granted. If they were actually independent like Greyhound or Uber, this wouldn’t be a story, the passengers would already be banned.
