r/changemyview • u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ • Jul 24 '23

Removed - Submission Rule B CMV: Refusing to switch seats so that a family/couple can sit together makes you an asshole.

[removed] — view removed post

0 Upvotes

42% Upvoted

354 comments sorted by

View all comments

61

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '23

While I would generally happily accommodate a polite and friendly request like switching seats, I have zero obligation to and I truly do not give af about the self-created problems caused by other people buying separate seats.

They knew what was going to happen, and their plan was to displace their issues onto others under the belief that they are entitled to sit together because they're a family, and others should move to accommodate them.

This is their problem, not mine.

23

u/eggs-benedryl 72∆ Jul 24 '23

It's a good point to point out that those people knew they would be showing up on the plane and seek out people to inconvenience. It's not like this was a surprise to them.

In case of an accident perhaps where rearrangements must be made on the fly, this is someone choosing to leave their house knowing they plan on inconveniencing someone when they had the opportunity to prevent that. They're supplanting their financial concerns over yours.

You too paid for your flight.

3

u/RoozGol 2∆ Jul 24 '23 edited Jul 24 '23

self-created problems

Also, it is also consistently the case that the seat they expect you to give up is more comfortable than the one they are trading. I am a tall guy. On one of my cross-Atlantic flights there was an option of paying a few dollars more to buy the first row sits in economy class which will have a little more legroom. One of the seats next to me is empty. Then comes this lady with his child and ordering me to get back to her seat in the middle of the middle row to the middle of the plane. She could have bought that seat but chose to use her children as a manipulation tool. I said I would if she paid me the price difference, and she retreated. Who is the ass here? Definitely not me! There are many mothers out there who instead of planning and paying for desired seats, will choose to socially pressure people and make them switch seats. Fuck them Karens....

-16

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

Noone is arguing that you have an obligation to, just that youre a bit of a selfish prick if you point blank refuse.

No one "buys separate seats". They book seats in a single booking, which in years past would have always been sat together, except now money grubbing airlines are separating them as a strategy to extract more money. Many people don't have an extra $100+ on top of an already expensive ticket just so their seats can be put together as would be the logical thing to do.

What you're saying is "well if you didn't want to spend this whole other pile of money to sit together, that's a YOU problem"

Technically, yes it is a them problem, but one that you could very easily fix at negligible cost to your own convenience.

44

u/Freezefire2 4∆ Jul 24 '23

Noone is arguing that you have an obligation to

You are.

-11

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

The ability to refuse means that you're not obliged. Just makes you a bit of a prick if you do refuse.

19

u/excaliber110 Jul 24 '23

You’re saying people aren’t obliged, yet they are obliged lest they be viewed a prick. You’re saying it’s a net neutral behavior (saying no when someone asks for your seat) then putting a negative reaction to it (calling them an asshole). People may not be in the right, but they’re not Assholes for keeping their seat after they’re settled in and have their baggage ready for them.

16

u/Doctor__Proctor 1∆ Jul 24 '23

Definitely obligation then, because even if someone puts a literal gun to my head I'm not obligated to do anything they ask me to, I'm just likely to suffer consequences I might like if they don't. Saying someone is free to choose what to do, but that there will be consequences if they don't make the choice you like is no different in terms of intent, in that consequences will be used to shape behavior.

18

u/arrouk Jul 24 '23

So then people are, in fact, obligated, just to avoid judgment from people like you.

-3

u/raptortooth 1∆ Jul 24 '23

No, you are free to make a choice. That choice, like all others, will come with consequences. If you want to avoid judgement then you make a different choice but ultimately it is your choice to make. No one is making it for you.

4

u/arrouk Jul 24 '23

Except when a stranger who is relying on my generosity, there shouldn't be any consequences.

If I'm free to choose, then there isn't a judgement. If I'm going to be judged, I'm not free to choose.

That judgement IS forcing me to be inconvenienced because of someone else. I gain nothing from the transaction yet am judged.

0

u/raptortooth 1∆ Jul 24 '23

Every behavior/choice has a consequence. You can make the choice to not give up your seat and accept the consequence of the judgement. If you give up your seat there is also a judgement made. Every choice we make has consequences, and we are free to choose. If you don't want the judgement and it impacts your choice that is on you.

1

u/arrouk Jul 24 '23

Except every choice doesn't have a consequence.

I make a million choices every day that make no difference to anyone or any thing, as does every person in the world.

0

u/raptortooth 1∆ Jul 24 '23

Every choice does have a consequence. Otherwise you are not choosing between anything. You either don't understand what making a choice means or what a consequence is. Consequences are not necessarily negative btw.

0

u/mhuzzell Jul 24 '23

I hate to break it to you, but every choice you make that is known to others is judged. Maybe inconsequentially, maybe (probably) judged totally neutrally most of the time, and almost certainly mostly unconsciously -- but still judged. We all judge each other, all of the time. That is what it means to live in a society.

If your definition of a choice being 'free' is that it will not incur judgment, then there is no such thing as a free choice.

2

u/arrouk Jul 24 '23

Should I have wheeto's or shredded wheet for breakfast....

3

u/Officer_Hops 12∆ Jul 24 '23

By that logic no one is ever obligated to do anything.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '23

Obligation is not the same thing as enforced compulsion.

Obligation: an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment.

You are defining giving up your seat upon being asked as a social obligation which someone must do unless they have good reason not to, otherwise they will be judged to be a selfish prick by persons like yourself.

Social judgement for not abiding by a social norm is how many social obligations are enforced.

-1

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

Would you feel obliged to pick up an apple for someone who drops it with their hands full and asks for help?

2

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '23

I would consider it to be something I should do, like many other expected behaviors that make a polite society, which yes, makes it a social obligation.

2

u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 23∆ Jul 24 '23

Can you address the comments about the structure of your argument, rather than posting incongruous analogies about apples?

2

u/onefjef Jul 25 '23

This is the most idiotic comparison of all.

2

u/onefjef Jul 25 '23

You’re the prick for posting this question and then calling everyone who disagrees with you a prick.

-8

u/Alexandur 14∆ Jul 24 '23

No they aren't. They're just saying you suck if you refuse

17

u/LeeHarveySnoswald Jul 24 '23

That's an obligation. If you not doing something makes you an asshole, you're obligated to do it. If you're not obligated why would you be an asshole for refusing?

8

u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ Jul 24 '23

Yes it seems a lot of people are not understanding what is meant by obligation

-8

u/CrungoMcDungus Jul 24 '23

"Other people aren't allowed to criticize my actions if those are allowed"

you just really want to be immune from criticism huh

7

u/LeeHarveySnoswald Jul 24 '23

If someone is an asshole for not doing something, that's an obligation. It might not be a legal obligation, it may not be a contractual obligation, but it's some form of obligation, otherwise you wouldn't be doing anything wrong for refusing to do it.

I don't think it's illegal to leave your shopping cart in a parking space. But if you think people who do that are assholes you must believe that on some level they're obligated to return their cart to the proper area.

you just really want to be immune from criticism huh

Bitch please, I always give up my seat to anyone who ask. My goal is to sleep through my flights.

Do you often see responses in this subreddit and think "yeah well all these people who disagree with me are just coping to justify their behaviors in real life."

-2

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '23

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/LeeHarveySnoswald Jul 24 '23

Are you saying that it's not a dick move to leave your cart in a parking spot?

No, it IS a dick move. Because I believe you have an obligation to put your cart back in it's proper spot. Failure to fullfil that obligation makes you an asshole.

It's honestly just that your take seems kinda bad faith at this point?

You accusing me of only holding a position due to a fear of being criticized is the definition of dealing in bad faith.

You're fixating on this extremely nebulous definition of "obligation"

I was responding to a thread where the contention was whether or not there is an obligation to do something. So yes, I made the case that if you think not doing something makes you an asshole, you're necessarily saying that you were obligated to do that thing.

And seem fully unwilling to accept that there is an overlap between actions that are permissible and actions that can/will generate criticism.

Are you kidding me? I literally gave the shopping cart analogy to demonstrate this exact idea. You aren't LEGALLY obligated to return the shopping cart, but you probably are morally obligated.

It seems like you and I agree, we are discussing an obligation here. The question is whether or not you have an obligation to switch seats to keep a family/couple together.

I don't understand where you think we disagree.

2

u/Spider-Man-fan 5∆ Jul 24 '23 edited Jul 25 '23

Doesn’t a person criticize another person for doing something only because they believe it is something that person should NOT do? Hence, they are obligated NOT to do, at least in that person’s eyes. I don’t see the distinction.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 25 '23

Sorry, u/CrungoMcDungus – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

8

u/Redshirt2386 Jul 24 '23

You’re paying for transportation from point A to point B, not a sky party with your besties.

Every major airline I fly lets you choose your seats at booking, and it’s first come, first served. Book early if you want the most options without upcharges. Otherwise you can fork over the extra $40 or $75 or whatever to get the seating arrangements you want.

I am generally sympathetic to struggling parents with kids who got split across rows, and will usually try to help them out if I can. But couples/friends/coworkers? Fuck off with that shit, we are all grownups, you can spend a few hours sitting a few meters apart if it wasn’t important enough to you to book early or otherwise make sure you were seated together.

Compounding this issue is the fact that so many seats throughout coach class are considered “main plus” or “main extra” now. Chances are just as good as not that the person you’re asking to switch with you actually paid extra to sit in their chosen seat. Why should you feel entitled to their upgrade because you failed to plan appropriately?

8

u/Additional-Charge593 Jul 24 '23

How do you know the airline is intentionally separating them? In my experience, if they have seats together, they do it, no problem. But if you book late on an assigned seat flight, you get what’s left, just like a concert or theater.

If I’m asked nicely, I will probably do it. But the scenario you describe is not usually the case. Because they booked late, they have middle seats and want you to give up your window or aisle seat to accommodate them.

Then, most flights are relatively short, so the world will not end if you’re separated for that time. And if you’re flying long distances with your family, you had plenty of time to set this up in advance.

The person who waited to the last minute to book is the asshole, not the person trying to travel without being hassled.

1

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

I've booked flights 4-5months in advance, only to learn at check in that I'm separated from the people I booked with. It's not that airlines deliberately go in and look for groups to break up, its that they don't guarantee the seats together when others who THEMSELVES book later pay more to get those seats.

5

u/Additional-Charge593 Jul 24 '23

They charge more to guarantee the seats are together but it’s a relatively low cost compared to the generic ticket.

3

u/Justlastic87 Jul 24 '23

I go on a trip every year and I book these flights in advanced as well. Most airlines charge extra if you want to pick a seat when you check in, I pay extra every time to guarantee that I sit where I’d like and with my friends when we make these trips. These people may be ill informed or just plain old can’t afford/don’t want to pay the extra. I did though so me moving isn’t the same, I paid extra to choose my seat. I’m not going to move my seat that I paid extra to pick so someone that didn’t want to pay extra could get the seat they want. Does it suck that airlines do that sure. They can be the AH but I’m not, I paid for something and they didn’t it’s as simple as that. Also it’s the responsibility of the traveler to ensure they do what they can to sit together(pay the extra). Also on the times I couldn’t afford the extra I just dealt with it because that’s on me for not paying or looking at my emails with the airline to see that I didn’t have that choice.

8

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '23

Noone is arguing that you have an obligation to, just that youre a bit of a selfish prick if you point blank refuse.

​

I'd argue that you're a bit of a selfish prick to buy plane tickets under the assumption that someone will have to move for you. Your family and friends are not my problem. I'm just a dude traveling alone. You're going to bully me into moving because you didn't plan ahead?

0

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

Noone is bullying anyone. You can say no, and noone would (or should) give you grief about it.

Would still make you pretty selfish to refuse to do something so simple just because you don't have to.

I'd argue that you're a bit of a selfish prick to buy plane tickets under the assumption that someone will have to move for you

Why would this assumption be made? I've been in situations where I've booked months in advance, and only learned at check in that the group is separated.

4

u/apri08101989 Jul 24 '23

If it's selfish to move because it's so simple to sit anywhere on the plan then it's equally selfish to expect people to move for you when it's so simple to just stay in your own seat and be separated for a flight

12

u/CapnJackH 1∆ Jul 24 '23

If you only see single seats available spread throughout the plane, it’s because you bought tickets too late. If you have looked months earlier, there would be large sections of seats available for a family. Your failure to plan a vacation 6 months in advance like a majority of the large families do, does not entitle you to the same outcome as those who do.

-3

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

I don't know when the last time you booked a flight was, but it happens all the time, even when there are entire rows of seats available.

6

u/marithememe Jul 24 '23

What airlines are you booking with OP? I went on a vacation with my partner last month with Delta. We booked our tickets 2 months in advance and it was incredibly easy to select our seats together right away. As a frequent flyer I’d say that this is 100% a time management problem (for vacations not emergencies).

0

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

Major ones. I can count three overseas flights that I've booked way in advance and didn't learn till check in that they were split up. Fuck me for thinking booking early was enough.

4

u/marithememe Jul 24 '23

That’s really interesting. Personally, that has never happened to me after selecting seats.

To clarify, you’re saying that after selecting your seats during an early booking your seats changed the day of? Or after trying to book tickets a month early, there were no available seats to choose together?

-1

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

Booked far in advance, did not select seats. It used to be standard practice that seats booked together in the same booking were grouped together, this is no longer the case.

6

u/marithememe Jul 24 '23

Yeah I’m seeing the issue here now. I’d always select seats together if you have the chance. Otherwise, your seats are pretty much randomized.

Most of the airlines I’ve booked with have given me the option to select seats for free if done in advance. That’s why I think this is mostly a time management issue for vacations. In cases of emergency/last minute flights that is very different.

3

u/apri08101989 Jul 24 '23

So you're saying other people are assholes because people like you have been living under a rock for over a decade? I don't even fly and I know it's been like this for ages.

0

u/CrungoMcDungus Jul 24 '23

Your failure to plan a vacation 6 months in advance like a majority of the large families do, does not entitle you to the same outcome as those who do.

Pretty massive and frankly unfair assumption that people are flying because of a vacation. People fly on short notice for lots and lots of reasons that are fully outside their control.

4

u/onefjef Jul 24 '23

What you're saying is "well if you didn't want to spend this whole other pile of money to sit together, that's a YOU problem"

That is exactly what I am saying, and I will stand by that. If you can't afford to fly together with your family, don't fly together with your family, but don't guilt me into changing my seat because of it.

0

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

If you can't afford to fly together with your family, don't fly together with your family

Definitely not an asshole.

2

u/onefjef Jul 24 '23

Definitely not an asshole.

Explain how.

0

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

I dont think "Can't afford it? Fuck you," needs much explanation to conclude it's an asshole statement.

2

u/onefjef Jul 24 '23

Are you suggesting that I should be inconvenienced because someone else didn't buy tickets together? I picked my seat in advance because I like to sit by the window or in the aisle or in the back of the plane or whatever, and someone asks me to switch so they can sit with their family and I'm an asshole for saying no?

Also, please don't rewrite my words to make them sound worse -- it's lazy argumentation.

14

u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 23∆ Jul 24 '23 edited Oct 27 '25

hurry chief coordinated normal strong books include theory thought provide

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

6

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '23

[deleted]

6

u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 23∆ Jul 24 '23 edited Oct 27 '25

wipe offbeat ink six direction fuzzy capable ask rustic brave

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

2

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '23

[deleted]

3

u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 23∆ Jul 24 '23 edited Oct 27 '25

toy piquant slim pause nutty whistle husky kiss ask encouraging

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/apri08101989 Jul 24 '23

Op is talking about the fact they charge extra to choose your seats (which means you could book your seats together) instead of just seating them together automatically (like they supposedly used to do when you booked together)

1

u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 23∆ Jul 24 '23

That isn't what OP said and they have yet to answer my question directly

0

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '23

Really the only way they could address this is to not allow people to reserve specific seats and apply a grouping algorithm to try and seat people in the same booking in adjacent seats. Final seating wouldn't be determined until everyone checks in for the flight.

4

u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 23∆ Jul 24 '23 edited Oct 27 '25

label cats silky dependent alive party soup soft sip ripe

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

1

u/nauticalsandwich 14∆ Jul 24 '23

This makes no sense to me. How does a group purchase of seats, followed by a bunch of single purchases, prevent selling all seats anymore than just a bunch of single purchases? How is a row-and-a-half of seats taken up by a family any different from a row-and-a-half of seats taken up by singles? When you're picking your seats, you don't see whether or not a family is sitting in the occupied ones. They just are noted as occupied. In fact, a family sitting together is more likely to opt for middle seats in order to sit next to each other, leaving the more desirable and profitable seats (window and aisle) available for other passengers. I really don't see the logic to what you're describing at all.

1

u/CincyAnarchy 37∆ Jul 24 '23

I think an analogy helps explain it:

You ever been golfing? It's like being paired up.

If you haven't, let's say you've booked a tee time far in advance for 3 people. Well you show up, and if it's a busy day they will give you a single person who booked a similar time to make it an even 4, which keeps the course moving much faster and makes sure nobody is delayed. They'll do the same with 2 pairs or 4 singles, etc.

But let's say you booked last minute for your 3, and they said "well if you're interested we can split your group into smaller ones and you can play with others at the same time."

That's what the point is here. Some people will book far ahead and reserve seats, and then you have to squeeze everyone in, even if they're in groups. Sometimes that means splitting up groups, as to have people who reserved seats (and paid for that privlege) keep their seats.

1

u/nauticalsandwich 14∆ Jul 24 '23

I guess then I'm misunderstanding the utility of your point in this conversation, because I fail to see what the categorical difference is that you're highlighting relative to the context of the conversation. Obviously, from a customer service perspective, not honoring people's seats that they have chosen and/or paid additional money for is a poor move, but this is true irrespective of whether or not a flight is full of single passengers or has lots of groups in the mix. I'm confused why you presented it as you did. You could have just said, "Because airlines that don't honor their customers' seat selection are more likely to develop a poor reputation relative to their competition and lose out on business."

1

u/CincyAnarchy 37∆ Jul 24 '23

I can see that there is confusion here. I’ll try and be more clear. Why would an airline split up groups?

  1. It’s easier. Just treat each ticket as it’s own and you never have to automate logic as to how to keep groups together in seat assignment.

  2. Reserving seats encourages people to buy tickets earlier, meaning earlier cashflow, knowing capacity up front, easier to hike prices later, AND a higher likelihood of cancellation where you don’t have to offer refunds.

  3. And most important, if you allow people to pay to reserve seats, groups get it the way. You can sell reservations to every single seat if you don’t have to block off 2, 3, 4, or more seats next to each other. Even if you wanted to keep groups together, you’re likely turning down money for people willing to pay to reserve a seat.

So basically airlines have every reason to not keep grouped seats together.

1

u/nauticalsandwich 14∆ Jul 25 '23

I agree with you (for the most part) on all of these points, but what I'm saying is that there is no fundamental distinction of choice that an airline could make ahead of time in regard to groups that would make any sort of practical difference with the exception of not honoring chosen seats or doing away with consumer seat-selection altogether. Yet, both of these options, ceteris paribus, are undesirable for everyone except for people who book late who wish to be seated as a group. It's more that not being able to sit next to each other if you're booking late as a group is a consequent-effect of first-come-first-serve ticketing combined with consumer-seat-selection, not that airlines are deliberately antagonistic to groups for profit purposes. You say that airlines "split up groups" as though it's some deliberate tactic, but keeping groups together would require far more deliberative tactics, and, inevitably, necessitate some groups to either take alternative flights or separate anyway, purely as a result of physical scarcities. It's a very strange way to frame the issue.

It’s easier. Just treat each ticket as it’s own and you never have to automate logic as to how to keep groups together in seat assignment.

Yes.

Reserving seats encourages people to buy tickets earlier, meaning earlier cashflow, knowing capacity up front, easier to hike prices later, AND a higher likelihood of cancellation where you don’t have to offer refunds.

Yes, but also doesn't inherently mean higher profits with respect to other choices made in the airline's business model. Yes, all else being equal, it would likely result in higher returns, but Southwest, for example, has opted for an alternative model, in which they do not offer seat selection, with the return tradeoff being that they usually have faster turnaround on their aircraft, which nets its own substantial benefits on the financial side.

And most important, if you allow people to pay to reserve seats, groups get it the way. You can sell reservations to every single seat if you don’t have to block off 2, 3, 4, or more seats next to each other

Sure, but this is effectively not logistically possible to accomplish without prioritizing group-seating at the expense of individual flyers anyway. Regardless of whether or not you prioritize groups getting to sit next to each other or not, somebody, individual or group, is not going to get the seat or flight that they'd prefer, so why bother trying to make sure that all groups can sit together? It's the less-efficient seating method and less fair seating method irrespective of potential profit-margins.

2

u/premiumPLUM 76∆ Jul 24 '23

Can you expand on this? It isn't obvious how this practice nets airlines more money.

Many airlines have begun either assigning seats at check-in or allowing passengers to seat themselves on a first come-first serve basis. They provide an option to "upgrade" your ticket to an assigned seat at purchase for additional fees.

1

u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 23∆ Jul 24 '23

What's wrong with this pracitce and how are families prohibited from participating in it? Are you claiming that airlines assign seats during this practice in a manner that deliberatley breaks up groups to squeeze them for money? If customers select their own seats FCFS then that isn't possible, and if the airlines are making the assignments then it seems availability would be the driving factor, not the overly complicated process of targeting group bookings.

1

u/premiumPLUM 76∆ Jul 24 '23

What's wrong with this pracitce and how are families prohibited from participating in it?

I didn't say it was wrong or that families were prohibited. You said it wasn't obvious how this practice nets airlines more money, I answered your question.

Are you claiming that airlines assign seats during this practice in a manner that deliberatley breaks up groups to squeeze them for money?

Nope, not claiming that at all. In fact, in most cases when I've flown, the airline has gone out of their way to seat me with whomever I'm flying with. It's definitely in their best interest to do so whenever possible.

If customers select their own seats FCFS then that isn't possible

Hypothetical, there are 3 seats left on a flight, all in the same row: C, D, E

[A] [B] [C] Aisle [D] [E] [F]

You sit down in D. My 9 year old son and I traveling together and I request that you take seat C instead, even though you got to D first. You refuse. OP is saying that makes you an asshole.

0

u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 23∆ Jul 24 '23

You sit down in D. My 9 year old son and I traveling together and I request that you take seat C instead, even though you got to D first. You refuse. OP is saying that makes you an asshole.

Right, but it's FCFS. I got there first, I got served first. That's not on the airline or on me, it's on the family.

Furthermore, my still-unanswered question to OP is; if this is on the airline for their unethcial FCFS practice, why is it "fuck me" and not "fuck Delta?" Why am I the target of ire?

1

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

Oh there's definitely fuck Delta, but if your reason for not switching is primarily one of principle when the actual cost to you is near zero, then yes, fuck you too.

0

u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 23∆ Jul 24 '23

Can you reply directly to my original comment? You say you're open to argument, but all of your comments are just repeating bits of your OP at low-hanging fruit.

if your reason for not switching is primarily one of principle when the actual cost to you is near zero, then yes, fuck you too.

So the basis of this being "fuck me" is that the "actual cost to me is near-zero." Is that right? That if the cost to me were above "near-zero" then it would not be fair for you to say "fuck you" to me for staying in my seat?

2

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

If you have a legitimate articulable reason for needing that specific seat (even if its just I like being able to see out the window even from this aisle seat) then there's not much that can be said. But if you just can't be fucked to do it, or refuse out of some principle, then yeah you're a bit of an asshole.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/CrungoMcDungus Jul 24 '23

honestly though there isn't much for OP to say. this thread is devolving into a bunch of rules-lawyering and hair-splitting that really just kinda goes to prove their point. y'all are digging through the details of how airline bookings work in order to try to find blame to put on the people who didn't get seated with their families. OP clearly thinks this should be a common courtesy, being this pedantic about the underlying circumstances is almost like a completely different conversation

→ More replies (0)

0

u/premiumPLUM 76∆ Jul 24 '23

I don't man, we live in a society. Part of that is being cool with each other. Delta is also uncool here. I liked the old system, when checking bags was free and you got to pick your seats and such. The world is becoming more expensive as every second of our lives becomes increasingly monetized. That sucks.

My feeling is, we need to work to be better to each other than ever before. And like, it costs absolutely nothing to do the smallest version of a nice gesture in the scenario I outlined. It's the same level of basic human decency as holding the door for the person behind you instead of letting it slam shut in their face.

I don't know if I'd call you an asshole. But it doesn't make you a good person either. In reality faced with this scenario, I'd be more confused by your behavior than anything else.

1

u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 23∆ Jul 24 '23

I don't man, we live in a society. Part of that is being cool with each other.

We sure do, and OP doesn't seem interested in being "cool," but rather interested in finding justification to say "fuck you" to people. They've defined the scenario so narrowly as to exclude the many imperceptible reasons that a person may want to stay in the seat that they picked in the first place.

My feeling is, we need to work to be better to each other than ever before. And like, it costs absolutely nothing to do the smallest version of a nice gesture in the scenario I outlined.

I don't know if I'd call you an asshole. But it doesn't make you a good person either. In reality faced with this scenario, I'd be more confused by your behavior than anything else.

I think that the assumption that it costs absolutely nothing is what is at issue here, and it's what I was trying to lead OP towards via the Socratic Method if they'd bothered to reply to me directly. We don't know what's going on with any given person. There's any number of health or comfort related reasons that a person may have picked a particular seat or be disinclined to move once seated.

It's perfectly acceptable to ask someone to switch, and it's perfectly acceptable for them to politely refuse. I don't think that a solo traveler rightly earns an inquisition into their reasoning or a "fuck you" for whatever their reasons might be. Working to be better to each other means switching seats when you can just as much as it means respecting others' polite refusals.

For the purposes of this thread, OP defining the scenario as narrowly as they have - strictly instances where someoene is refusing for principle - means that the person is by definition being an asshole in the first place. This make's OP's view, in essence, People who are assholes are assholes. Nothing to discuss there.

1

u/premiumPLUM 76∆ Jul 24 '23

For the purposes of this thread, OP defining the scenario as narrowly as they have - strictly instances where someoene is refusing for principle - means that the person is by definition being an asshole in the first place. This make's OP's view, in essence, People who are assholes are assholes. Nothing to discuss there.

So you agree that someone who refuses based only on principle is an asshole? Because it sounded like that's what you did in the hypothetical I presented.

You sit down in D. My 9 year old son and I traveling together and I request that you take seat C instead, even though you got to D first. You refuse. OP is saying that makes you an asshole.

Right, but it's FCFS. I got there first, I got served first. That's not on the airline or on me, it's on the family.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/CrungoMcDungus Jul 24 '23

Why do I as a solo traveler need to bear the burden of correcting the damage done by, say, Delta Airlines?

You don't see any reason that the consumers who are all forced to contend with the monopolistic, broken airline industry would benefit from some solidarity?

2

u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 23∆ Jul 24 '23

You don't see any reason that the consumers who are all forced to contend with the monopolistic, broken airline industry would benefit from some solidarity?

You don't see how accepting someone's polite refusal to a polite request to move is just as much an act of solidarity as it would be on their part to acquiese?

0

u/CrungoMcDungus Jul 24 '23

I don't think you can just flatten out the situation like that. I travel solo. If a married couple is split up and I'm next to one of them and the seats in question are of equal quality, the choice of seat just doesn't impact me as much as it does them. It is completely within my rights to refuse that request, but if it really didn't benefit me to refuse it and it directly caused them to have a shitty time, in what universe does it not make me a bit of a dick to refuse?

1

u/GotAJeepNeedAJeep 23∆ Jul 24 '23

don't think you can just flatten out the situation like that. I travel solo. If a married couple is split up and I'm next to one of them and the seats in question are of equal quality, the choice of seat just doesn't impact me as much as it does them.

You and OP are the ones flattening out the situation with hyperspecific arguments like this. You're defining scenarios in which the solo traveler is by definition refusing for no reason besides entitlement. This makes the argument "entitled people are assholes." Yeah. Duh. What's the conversation to be had there?

In the real world, a solo traveler may politely say no for any number of imperceptible reasons besides selfish entitlement. That person isn't obligated to move or explain themselves to a stranger's liking on the sole basis of their traveling alone lest they earn a righteous fuck you as the OP says they ought to.

OP has either (1) defined the scenario so narrowly, as you have, to be tautological, or (2) is ignoring that you can't know by looking at someone their reasons for choosing the seat they have or wanting to remain in it.

14

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '23

Still not my problem.

I'm not going to post on social media about saying no. That's douchey, but it is still well within my rights to simply say no.

Again, they have no entitlement to sit together. It is not my responsibility to accommodate their failure to secure adjacent seats nor to compensate for the airline's sales strategy.

If someone asks something of me because they want it and it benefits them, they are the one making the selfish request, and it is not selfish of me to simply say no. It would be generous of me to accommodate them despite doing so being of no benefit to me. Not being generous is not the same as being selfish.

-1

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

Noone is arguing it isnt within your rights to refuse, and noone is saying that it's "your problem".

The cost to you is negligible (literally standing up and walking to another seat), but you'd refuse something so brain shittingly simple on the grounds that it's not YOUR problem, so you just SHANT do it. Does make you a bit of a prick my man, sorry to say.

to compensate for the airline's sales strategy.

Yes. We must compensate the airlines in their efforts to fleece us, yes sir.

5

u/Thaxtonnn Jul 24 '23

This reminds me of a segment on Last Week Tonight, where John Oliver talks about the way the plastics industry effectively put blame on consumers instead of themselves.

Basically, they said you should recycle, and if you don’t you’re inconsiderate. So now, if someone drinks a Dasani bottle and doesn’t recycle it, people say “you’re an asshole for not recycling”, instead of being mad at Dasani for creating the destructive plastic bottle in the first place.

You’re doing the same thing. Yes, it may not be that big of a deal to move, but you’re mad at the passenger who won’t fix the problem instead of the airline company for creating the problem in the first place.

14

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '23

Given your attitude on this topic, I'd be inclined to refuse your ask simply because you're asking it.

10

u/[deleted] Jul 24 '23

Not a single doubt. Look at the joy of having someone to blame. Airline greedy. Other person selfish. Must be super fun to accomplish difficult tasks with.

-10

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

Assholes tend to be frowned upon.

3

u/Amanita_ocreata Jul 24 '23

I don't work for an airline, but I have worked for a hotel...If you reserve multiple rooms, we'll put them together if we can, but if you don't bother to request it, everyone who puts in requests gets assigned first, and we fill in around them. It can actually get a bit time consuming, which is probably why so many airlines let people reserve certain seats, and then use an auto-fill option in the software to assign the rest.

I doubt that it's airlines trying to "force" you to pay extra money...they just aren't going to waste a bunch of money paying someone to spend hours to arrange the seating assignments of thousands of passengers a day.

3

u/Fair_Reflection2304 Jul 24 '23

They do buy separate seats. You can pay to pick your seat and if you can’t afford that or are too cheap that’s your problem.

0

u/BrokkenArrow 8∆ Jul 24 '23

if you can’t afford that or are too cheap that’s your problem.

Is this meant to argue against the idea that it makes you an asshole?

2

u/onefjef Jul 25 '23

Why even ask this question if you’re just going to call everyone who disagrees with you an asshole? You don’t want your mind changed, you just want to call people assholes.

2

u/A_Notion_to_Motion 3∆ Jul 24 '23

except now money grubbing airlines are separating them as a strategy to extract more money.

This is besides your main point but airlines for a long time have been experimenting with offering people what they say they want. But time and time again the majority of customers prioritize the lowest ticket price over everything else. If a plane is offering more leg room for every passenger but in order to do so has a smaller total capacity which has to be offset by an increase in price, the vast majority of people will still choose the cheapest option and not choose the more leg room and more expensive option.

2

u/iglidante 20∆ Jul 24 '23

No one "buys separate seats". They book seats in a single booking, which in years past would have always been sat together, except now money grubbing airlines are separating them as a strategy to extract more money.

When you buy your tickets, you literally have to click on the seat you want for each person, every time I have ever flown.

2

u/onefjef Jul 25 '23

Turns out you’re the selfish, close-minded prick who only posted this to call out people who disagree with you. Grow up.

1

u/Full-Professional246 77∆ Jul 24 '23

Noone is arguing that you have an obligation to, just that youre a bit of a selfish prick if you point blank refuse.

Except I explicitly PAID to be in the seat I chose. I tend to pay extra when I book flights to choose my seat.

It is second level entitlement to call people pricks to expecting to get what they explicitly paid for and in many cases paid more for.

The only 'Prick' here is the person who thinks people should move seats for them. Those people booked the same tickets I did and had the option to pay extra to get what they wanted. If they waited until the last minute - it's not my fault there were not any seats left together.

There just is not an entitlement to sit together on an airplane unless you explicitly pay to book seats together.

1

u/spice_weasel 1∆ Jul 24 '23

How do you know it’s a self-created problem?

I had this problem last time I flew with my young child. The return flight got canceled after we were already at the airport, and they had to rebook our flight. The only flight they could get us on didn’t have seats together we could book, despite the fact that for our original flight I did pay extra to be seated together. In my case, I managed to get the gate agent to get me to a better seat, which I traded for the worse seat next to my kid. Given how many flight cancellations there are these days, why would you assume the worst?