United Airlines slammed for removing standby passenger for no reason

UNITED AIRLINES BOEING 787-9 N29981 (MSN 66142)

A recent incident aboard a United Airlines flight departing from Chicago O’Hare International Airport (ORD/KORD) has raised serious questions about the airline’s boarding policies and the treatment of passengers in vulnerable situations. A standby traveler, who had already boarded the aircraft, was unexpectedly removed just before departure, leading to a cascade of complications and confusion.

On the 2nd of May 2025, two passengers flying on a shared itinerary received boarding passes shortly before departure for United Airlines flight UA1905 to Pittsburgh (PIT/KPIT). Both individuals were cleared to board and took their assigned seats. However, moments before the aircraft was scheduled to depart, one of the travelers was approached by a cabin crew member and instructed to disembark temporarily to resolve a system issue.

They were told the matter would be quick and that reboarding would be allowed. Once at the gate, however, a separate airline representative informed the traveler that the issue could not be resolved in time and that the aircraft would be departing without them.

The situation escalated due to the fact that the passenger’s travel companion—an elderly individual dependent on assistance—remained onboard. Despite requesting to disembark the elderly passenger and remain together, that request was cold heartedly denied by airline staff. The result was an emotional separation that left one traveler stranded without personal belongings and the other flying alone without needed support.

To make matters worse, the removed traveler had left his wallet and a mobile phone in the seat pocket, which staff refused to retrieve, despite many urgent requests. This created an immediate communication breakdown, compounding the distress of being separated during travel.

After arrival at the destination, the onboard traveler sought clarification from airline personnel. An explanation was given suggesting that the removal was related to weight concerns for the flight. However, this reasoning was a straight out lie by the airline, as this statement was later disputed by another staff member, who indicated no such weight limitations were in effect for that flight.

This discrepancy has fueled criticism over the lack of clear communication and transparency in the decision-making process. Both travelers were part of the same booking, yet only one was denied the right to continue—a detail that has still not been adequately explained.

Following the disruption, the airline offered a flight credit to the removed passenger. The initial amount of compensation was three hundred and fifty dollars, later raised to five hundred dollars after dissatisfaction was expressed. The traveler was then rebooked on another flight departing later that same day.

However, current regulations set by the U.S. Department of Transportation stipulate that involuntary denied boarding involving delays of one to four hours may warrant compensation equaling two hundred percent of the one-way fare, up to a maximum of seven hundred seventy-five dollars. Additionally, this reimbursement should be provided in cash—not airline credit.