Thank you both. I had the worst time coming up with examples of what would be dickish. These are much better than mine.
But it’s not making their row less attractive. When only middle seats are left, their row has exactly the same attraction as every other row.
Those who are arguing for dickish seem to fall into two camps:
(1) The couple is trying to control where others may sit.
(2) The use of knowledge to confer any benefit upon oneself is automatically dickish.
In the first case, the couple’s only ability to control the situation is in slightly increasing the chances that a given empty seat will fall in a given spot. They can not increase the chances of someone having to sit in one place or another.
Late bookers on full flights don’t get much choice. That’s how it is. Anyone accepting that middle seat was going to get -a- middle seat; the couple has not increased the chances of that happening. They have only increased the chances of a last minute reprieve.
There’s really no arguing the second case. These folks tend to believe that luck, left unadulterated, will even out the benefits over a lifetime. So from their perspective hacking the rules is stealing lucky chances from somebody else. To some of us, there’s a wide grey area wherein knowing the rules is useful and rewarding. To others, there is only black, white, and accepting what befalls you. You either think hacking is fair or you think it is cheating.
Any way you look at it, empty seats are mostly a thing of the past. The couple will very seldom gain from their strategy these days.
Then what the hell do they think they’re doing? Are they insane? Why are they doing this?
Most of us in this thread recognize that this trick has a very specific reason and goal: they want to have they row to themselves with the middle seat remaining empty. This is not hard to realize - it’s not only explicitly laid out in the OP, it’s also the only possible reason to engage in this approach at all. There is literally no other reason to do it. I defy you to come up with a reason a pair of people would do this trick other than to make their row less attractive to others. Go on, I’ll wait.
Also, I’m amused that you consider my choice to remain in my assigned seat and not want to have people talking across me to be a dickish action. As for taking both armrests, well, I’m a big guy. I don’t have much choice.
It is the only reason the strategy is employed and it of course works.
Yes, if or when it happens.
I don’t fall into either of those camps (depending on how “control” and “may” are defined) and it isn’t apparent to me that anyone else does. Especially #2. I doubt anyone thinks every time someone does something that benefit their self they’re being dickish. What was said that lead you to believe people here fall into camp #2?
I don’t understand what that means.
Again, it’s the reason for employing the strategy.
Not all late bookers. Some of the earlier late bookers would have had a choice of either an aisle or window seat for every couple that decided against employing the strategy. And the strategy is used because of a chance the flight won’t be full. You’re also ignoring how it affects groups of two or more as brought up by others.
Not dickish. I travel mostly with my brother or alone. We have perfected our preferred method. If it’s assigned seats, we book window and aisle. If it’s SW we sit where we find a place. We don’t especially try to sit next to each other because we also agree that conversation on a plane is annoying as hell. It’s too loud on the plane anyway. Earphones on, books up, and we’ll talk when we land.
The person in the middle gets BOTH armrests. That’s the only polite thing to do. My favorite people to sit next to are surly teenagers. They want to be left ALONE. So do I.
Is the “ploy” to deny someone a window or aisle seat in that row? Well, if you call it a ploy, yes, but then so is the ploy of getting a window seat by yourself.
If it is a ploy to keep someone out of the middle seat so they can have the row to themselves, definitely not, since the person stuck with the middle seat sees no difference between their actions and the actions of two unrelated people who choose window and aisle in a row.
Are you saying there is some ethical imperative for one of them to give up the possibility of the best outcome for the benefit of a random stranger? That I’ll have to disagree with, especially since they are willing to give that stranger a better seat if he appears.
If that would be your biggest disappointment on a flight, you are luckier than I am.
But it gives me an idea, which I hope people from airlines never see. Anonymously connect people who are booked on a flight, and give those with window or aisle seats the opportunity to trade with a middle seat for a market value - with a chunk going to the airline, of course. The it would all get sorted before anyone got on the plane.
That’s almost evil enough for airlines to actually do.
As I said, when my wife and I chose window and aisle, we did not intend to offer one to someone sitting in the middle. Is the person who was stuck in the middle somehow better off than in the hack case? We’d have the same effect on larger groups. Or should one of us have sat in the middle anyhow to free up the seat?
They are doing this to allow the possibility that their preferred configuration can happen. Which would be near zero if they left a window or aisle open.
Their middle seat has the same chance of being taken as any other middle seat. If they did something to reduce this chance, then it would be dickish. But they aren’t.
Unless you are a claustrophile you are making everyone happier.
BTW, if I’m on the aisle, I’m happy to let the person in the middle seat have the armrest. Making him more cramped when I have room to spread out into would be dickish.
Nope. And in some sense we are worse than the couple in the OP, since the person in the middle stays stuck in the middle.
If sitting next to one another were so important to a couple, they’d book that way to eliminate the chance that someone would sit between them and not switch. Some do. Certainly a parent with a kid does.
Attn Flyers! Take your airline seating hack/scheme/ruse/ploy to the next level with this. Useful on airlines like Southwest with no assigned seating. Guaranteed to keep that middle seat open until the gate closes or your money back!
I haven’t been in a 2 seat - 3 seat configuration for a while, but in that case not taking the 2 seat row would be if not dickish kind of stupid. Taking the 2 seat row guarantees that you are together, and couples need less personal space than someone next to a stranger, so in a sense they have more space.
Higher loads and airline booking policies have screwed up the chance of large groups sitting together. If that was really important, they should book early, and beat our couple to seat selection. But if you book late and expect a large party to be able to sit together, you might as well expect a steak dinner in coach.
Bolding mine. If your statement remained true without the extra qualification then you’d have a point. It doesn’t and you don’t.
I’m not sure you’re using ‘claustrophile’ correctly - that, or I’m missing your point.
In any case, regarding letting the poor sap in the middle have your armrest because you can lean into the aisle, good for you! Even better for you if you’d do that as the window seat guy, because that’s straight-up generous.
Well, they’re not being deceived. That’s worth something.
It’s probably worth noting that the dickishness in this ploy doesn’t come from the latecomer actually being hurt, in the sense of them being stabbed to death or something. It has to do with the collective mass of people coming after the poly-users being led to make worse decisions because the ploy-users are straight-up lying to everyone about their intentions. The ploy-users want people to think the row is undesirable due to a latecomer being forced to take the middle seat, when in actual fact the latecomer would be allowed to take a better seat if they chose the row. The couple is of course concealing this fact, due to them being dirty liars.
When we talk about the case when a person does take the middle seat, the ploy has already failed, and the couple find themselves scrambling to try to get the seating arrangement they actually want - one where there isn’t a stranger sitting between them. The ploy relies on the ‘generous’ offer of a better seat to cover for the fact that the ploy-users, in their gambit to deceive other boarders about the availability of the better seats, have signed themselves up for the seating situation they least want. All as part of their ploy to deceive others.
Of course, if you and your wife are all like “who cares who’s sitting between us; we just want the better seats”, then you’re not actually deceiving anybody, and aren’t dirty liars. You just wanted the better seats. Any person surveying the seating options later will correctly determine that only the middle seat is available in your row, and will be able to use that accurate information to make their optimal decision in an informed manner. That is what we call “a good thing” - and what the ploy actively seeks to prevent.