United IS responsible... To put him on the next flight.
MCT is just that, the absolute minimum. It's not a guarantee that you'll make your connection.
Nor is it a guarantee that they will hold a plane filled with 200 pax at the gate, and thereby risk their respective connections, so one late arriving pax can make the flight.
There are super complex algorithms used by airlines in these scenarios. These aren't decisions made off the cuff.
I'm not saying that United "owes" him a smooth transition; all I was doing was defending him from those who thought it was
his fault that he chose an itinerary with a short connection - to which I said, it's
not his fault. It's up to the airline to publish routings that they can reasonably keep to, especially when they know they are prone to delays.
Now, as for what remedial action to take... yes, you're right, the contract of carriage may dictate that they only have to get him onto the next flight. But it also doesn't require the airline to provide a working IFE (heck, many planes don't even
have IFE) or a kosher meal, and yet you hear all the time about people getting compensated for lack of those. Why? Because when an airline causes a certain level of aggravation/discomfort to a passenger, the industry standard is for them to provide something to "soften the blow", even if they don't owe it to the pax by the letter of the law.
Now, Freddie's situation has definitely crossed that threshold, to where it qualifies as "significant enough" to deserve compensation. Now, your only
taynah is that it's his fault for not choosing a better itinerary... to which I answer: no, it's not. If UA publishes a certain MCT, it means they are comfortable with it - comfortable enough, anyway, that a passenger can rely on their calculations and buy the ticket, and not have to worry about making his own
cheshbonos.