That’s another problem that could arise by a couple using the technique to drive others away. One that more people would be sympathetic to, I would think.
I’m sure the need to sit next to another, such as when with a child, disabled adult, elderly person, etc. happens quite frequently and potentially giving folks like that a problem to solve is dickish.
I have been in that situation on an airplane. (And been screwed over to seriously worse seats than the one I gave up. Of course, the people who do it wait until the last second. Of course they lie about the seat they’re switching. And of course it is too late for you to go back and switch back. And of course, the other passengers nearby pressure you as well, because you’re traveling alone and how dare you split up some friends…)
I tell myself that next time, I’m charging $50 cash for my seat. (Actually, I’ll probably just pretend to be asleep and/or not speak the language, because I’m non-confrontational and do not want to be “the angry black woman on the plane,” but I don’t want to switch ever again.)
That said, asking isn’t dickish. Acting put-out if someone declines most definitely is. And do not enlist other passengers into trying to make that person switch.
Huh?
Anyway, here is another perspective for those still leaning toward ‘dickish’.
Imagine that you are the single traveler and, as you book your seat hoping to score a window, you see only middle seats available.
If I were that traveler, come boarding time I would be crossing my fingers that my seatmates were a couple who employed the hack.
mmm
Dicks don’t deserve my help in their schemes, and I honestly suspect all the chairs would kind of suck. (it is an airline, after all.) Plus I’d get the warm comforting schadenfreude of having helped dicks get the reward they quite literally asked for, which is worth something.
Disabled people usually get to book their seats before other people and I think staff would intervene on behalf of them or parents travelling with children. The airline’s own policies might oblige staff to intervene too (I have personal experience of this both as a parent and a disabled person). So yes, it’s a problem that would have to be solved if there happened to be no other suitable seats when they were booking, but it’s not a huge problem.
The middle seat is about 246% worse, in my experience.
If I tried this plan and the chap in the middle didn’t want to move, I’d be fine with it. Neither of us would get stuck in the middle, and we can go a few hours without talking without difficulty.
I hear ya. I feel the same way about manspreaders taking up a space big enough for two on the subway. Sure, the’re not doing it to help me out and their motives are entirely selfish, but if you’re like me and have no qualms saying “excuse me” and sitting right down. For those that think manspreading lens towards dickish, imagine that you are dead tired and there’s always someone manspreading to be found. Thanks God for dicks!
And yup, I’m aware of the non-exactness of the situations in the analogy. But I believe someone that is not married to the idea that pulling the airline seat ploy is un-dickish may be swayed by it.
“Usually” isn’t good enough and I’m positive that a lot of parents aren’t going to buy tickets in separated seats for them and their kid on the hope that the airline will intervene or even know that that’s possibly (you said “I think”) a likely scenario. The same for those flying with elderly.
It’s also not a “huge” problem for a couple to not have an row to themselves. If it is, they can pay for it. We’re talking about whether or not a ploy is dick"ish", not whether or not it causes a huge problem. But the not so huge problem is only a factor if someone with a kid, an elderly person, etc. buys the separated tickets. Some may opt for not taking the risk because of a couple;s dickish move.
I’m having to caveat my posts with usually and might because I’ve only travelled a little by plane within the US. However, for flights from the UK I can change them to “always” and “will.” Maybe someone else with more firsthand experience of flying as a disabled person or parent (or both) within the US could chime in.
So in other words, it must be dickish, because you’d react to it with hostility, and of course you’re going to react to it with hostility, because that’s what you do to dicks. Is that right?
Whereas me, I prefer to help nice people. So if they offered me this trade, I’d take it, because they’re being nice, and what they’re doing must be nice, because it’s making me happy.
It may be nice to find out for general info that may be helpful to others in the future, but it’s irrelevant to the issue of the move being dickish. If it has to be asked, it’s likely that others aren’t aware of the problem solving of airline staff (if it turns out to be something that will definitely be solved by them) and be deterred from buying tickets on flights affected by people using this ploy, which seems to be popular enough that it’s likely to be going on in more than one instance on many flights.
I’m not of the opinion that random strangers suddenly up and decide to trade for the middle seat out of the blue, which means that when this occurs it yes indeed must be dicks trying to pull this trick.
As for the hostility, other than refusing to play along I don’t really have enough personal energy to bother with it; I doubt I’d do much more than squish my large self into my chair and open up the book I brought. If they try to talk over me, though, I’ll not be having that. It they wanted to chat they should have gotten seats next to each other after all.
How did you conclude he thinks an act is dickish because of how he’d react? I’d give him the benefit of the doubt that he determines dickishness based on evaluating the actions of others and not how an act effects his behavior.
They are not being nice. They tried to drive others away from their row with a plan on getting to sit together if it doesn’t work. They’re not being nice; they are choosing to have one sit in the middle because it’s better to sit together then for each to be in an aisle or window seat with a stranger between them. That’s obvious, and more importantly, written in the premise given in the OP.
If they weren’t employing the hack, they’d be booked in middle + window, or middle + aisle, and you’d just book the good seat straight off.
The hack is designed so that late booking single travelers are more likely to get a middle seat and you are more likely to get an empty seat, but I see no reason late booking single travelers should get deference in this, so I voted not dickish.
My reference was to the hypothetical guy who avoided window and aisle seats in “bad” rows in favor of a middle seat in the good row. The guy who buys a middle seat because nothing else is available is certainly not a clown. Some people were coming up with bizarre scenarios.
Someone else did upthread. It was another example of bizarre scenarios being proposed.
I know people have preferences front of the plane or back, but this is one specific row we’re talking here.
The vanilla case is that the couple get window and aisle, someone gets middle because that is what left, and when their hope for an empty seat between them does not come to fruition, they offer to change.
Their preferences are:
I see nothing at all dickish about trying to maximize their seating.
I don’t understand how they are plotting to have no one else in their row. Assuming all the window and aisles are taken, they have an equal chance of getting a middle person between them as anyone else. Nothing on the seating chart gives the identity of the people who have reserved seats before you.
They are hoping no one sits between them, but they are not actively doing anything to keep someone from sitting between them - unlike the subway guy.
A person who wants to avoid sitting next to the subway guy has options, including standing. A person who feels unwanted in the middle seat has no options.
And maybe I ride the wrong subways, but I’ve noticed a lack of attendants who could tell the guy to move his feet to where they belong.
So I don’t understand what your problem is.
That I get - but remember the manspreader paid for 1 seat and is taking up two while the couple if taking up one each.
But I’m all for your subway strategy.
Also irrelevant to the analogy and not true. You don’t pay for a seat on the subway, at least in NYC. You pay for a ride. And not all cars have separated seats, but more like a shared bench. If a fat ass takes up a spot that would fit two smaller asses, he’s not breaking a rule or policy. Likewise, if there are no seats, you stand, as it’s not a seat that was paid for.
I’m looking at a seating chart. One row has someone in the window seat, no one in the aisle. I take that. Am I trying to drive away someone else from the middle seat?
Sure the couple wants to sit together in a filled row, but they want to have an empty seat more - and I’d bet that neither of them moves to the center in case they get it.
And remember, the person between them would almost certainly not get the aisle seat if it were open - the first person forced to take a middle seat would have. So our middle friend winds up with a benefit though he started with no worse a seat than if they did not do the hack.
You mean, after all of this, you don’t understand what the plot is? They are planning on making their row less attractive buy leaving the most unwanted seat available. It’s part of the premise of the OP:
If the flight is not fully booked, it is unlikely that anyone would select the middle seat between them. There is a small chance they would have the row to themselves.
If it wasn’t likely to be found less attractive, they wouldn’t bother. They’d just buy two tickets for seats next to one another and have the same odds of having the row to themselves.
:rolleyes: