Involuntary seat change

[legroom]

Did I ever imply that you should? Read my posts and you might get an idea if my way of thinking, but to make it easy for you - I don't believe anyone should be forced to move from a pre selected seat, except for GENUINE operational reasons. But I'm also fine with being asked to move, as long as I can simply decline and that's that.

Could someone like MileHighClub shed light on this issue of "operational reasons" to move pre-allocated pax ?



PS: I will PM MileHighClub inviting her to read this thread

 

[BadgerBoi]

It could be argued that you being singular, and they being 2 or more, then simply head to head, the wishes of the more numerous might carry weight.

Then let one of them move, and I'll stay where I am. The one who moves can have the pick of any vacant seat on the plane.

 

[harvyk]

I have to admit this raised a smile with me.

Hands up everybody participating on this thread who would give up an aisle seat in the front to move to a middle down near the toilets so that this family of four can enjoy an extra turn on the Wet&Wild Slide at WallyWorld.

(I'm really not being snarky to you, Harvyk!)

It could be said that if a person/family cannot afford such an expense then they probably shouldn't be flying.. or shouldn't be having kids.
Just sayin'...

Why shouldn't a family be able to put the money towards a good use when most of the time the airlines do actually get it right and place people together?


(The following is not directed to you Kangol / BadgerBoi but to the general forum)

<RANT>
I do sometimes think some on this forum forget that there are little people who do not have an unlimited budget and something as small as $200 can be the difference between a family on a moderate income been able to do something and a family on a moderate income not been able to do something, especially once you factor in other living costs, such as mortgage and school.

Most people don't have the luxury of traveling J / F all the time, most people don't even have the luxury of traveling. Most people don't have the ability to blow hundreds on a 5 star hotel per night, most people do have to "put up with Y" and only dream of what it is like up the pointy end.

Now as for kids been "lifestyle choices" I will respectfully disagree, apart from the basic biological urge aspect, we also need kids around to become future generations which will keep the human race going (plus they will be the ones looking after you in your nursing home). With exception to the parents of kids who have DOCS knocking on the door, parents will have given up tons of other "lifestyle choices" to have the kids. Telling a parent that they should suck it up more because it is their choice is not going to win you any friends. As a basic list of things I've given up off the top of my head...

- Frequent nights out with friends
- Frequent nights out with just the mrs and me
- Freedom to travel whenever we like, we're now restricted to school holidays only
- The freedom to travel where we like, we now need to consider what the kids will be doing as well
- Breakable things around the house, everything breakable at home has either now been broken or packed away
- The majority of my free time at nights and weekends
- Money in my wallet which has not been earmarked for kids needs

I would consider us one of the luckier ones in that I am in a well paid job which allows my wife to be the stay at home mum, and we are still able to get away from it all from time to time, and I can assure you that we budget down to the last dollar, and look to squeeze as much value from our holiday budget as possible.

I'm sure I've forgotten something in this rant, however I do now feel a little better
</RANT>


So you where saying something about people without money shouldn't travel?

 

[JessicaTam]

I am wondering if some on this thread have read a recently out of print novel:

"50 Shades of Feper"

 

[SeatBackForward]

Why shouldn't a family be able to put the money towards a good use when most of the time the airlines do actually get it right and place people together?


(The following is not directed to you Kangol / BadgerBoi but to the general forum)

<RANT>
</snip RANT>
</RANT>


So you where saying something about people without money shouldn't travel?

HarvyK,

I completely empathise and agree with you, I would've said exactly the same things myself. Being a parent, or at least a good one, in my opinion, is about making sacrifices so your children can benefit. I proudly say to those who I work with "I have no social life" because I'd rather not be having after work drinks, or going on some team bonding event on Sunday, because my kids, my family *are* my social life now.

I am luckily able to travel mostly in J for international trips, or high fare economy for domestic trips, and I see this is as compensation for the work I am required to do, so someone else makes a profit...I'm in the process of planning an overseas trip for three adults and two kids under 4, trust me, I will be saving every $ I can, the last row of seats are fine by me

 

[JohnK]

You have to remember that not every family that travels has the luxury of status, and that selecting and paying for seats for a return trip for a family of 4 would cost an extra $200. (Trust me, as a family an extra $200 can go along way to other things such as attractions at the destination)
You also need to remember that automatic seat allocation sometimes makes mistakes, and thus they need to be fixed. Something which has happened to me is the person who did the check in couldn't care less and allocated seats all over the plane, we needed to go to another check in agent to fix the problem, and this is after I had pre-allocated seats.

Good point.

Some families cannot afford to preallocate seats and mistakes happen.

Dislodging a single traveller from forward bulkhead is not the solution to either of these issues.

And if a check-in agent, gate staff or FA have to start dislodging passengers from forward bulkhead in order to accommodate families at the last minute then there is something seriously wrong and they need retraining.

It is much simpler to move 75D to 52C and 75G to 48D and seat family in 75DFG than it is to move 43H to 52C and 43K to to 48D to accommodate family in 42HJK.

 

[harvyk]

I hope the last comment wasn't directed at me, because I never said that, and I don't think anybody here did. I think that everybody should travel as much as they can as long as it doesn't break the bank. And if $200 makes all the difference, then that's fine - decide where the money is better spent for you: on the extra ride or two at Wally World, or for the bonding experience of sitting together as a family on the plane. But there's really no need to involve unrelated people in your decision, or to make them become an unwitting part of your solution.

It wasn't exactly directed to you, as I mentioned at the start most airlines do try and put families together full stop. It's not so much that a family wants to specific sit in 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D, it's more than they don't want to sit in 4A, 13E, 9C and 22B. (and in my case, add 2 extra seats to that).

and $200 is more the difference between a night at greasy joes vs a decent restaurant or actually going to "Wally World" vs missing out, and in some cases it can even be the cost of an extra day and night in the destination, as families on a budget with small kids can often be the masters of finding cheap / free attractions (eg beaches).

 

[mannej]

Good point.

Some families cannot afford to preallocate seats and mistakes happen.

Dislodging a single traveller from forward bulkhead is not the solution to either of these issues.

And if a check-in agent, gate staff or FA have to start dislodging passengers from forward bulkhead in order to accommodate families at the last minute then there is something seriously wrong and they need retraining.

It is much simpler to move 75D to 52C and 75G to 48D and seat family in 75DFG than it is to move 43H to 52C and 43K to to 48D to accommodate family in 42HJK.

No arguments there on that on - sounds much like the KISS principle!

 

[legroom]

It wasn't exactly directed to you, as I mentioned at the start most airlines do try and put families together full stop. It's not so much that a family wants to specific sit in 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D, it's more than they don't want to sit in 4A, 13E, 9C and 22B. (and in my case, add 2 extra seats to that).

and $200 is more the difference between a night at greasy joes vs a decent restaurant or actually going to "Wally World" vs missing out, and in some cases it can even be the cost of an extra day and night in the destination, as families on a budget with small kids can often be the masters of finding cheap / free attractions (eg beaches).

Granted, many families are doing it tough as Harvyk noted.

However, that family sitting together in row 70 or 75 has nothing to do with spending extra money.

Plus, it does not dislodge anyone else - at least those in the know who had pre-allocated seats away from 75 DEFG.

It would not upset anyone if the dislodged pax is offered an equivalent or better seat IMHO.

It's when the offer consists of an inferior seat, then the issue of "why me" needs to be considered (Mind you - CLs included - I am saying it should be considered, not rejected outright. Have I shown sufficient respect to others yet ?)

 

[BadgerBoi]

It wasn't exactly directed to you, as I mentioned at the start most airlines do try and put families together full stop. It's not so much that a family wants to specific sit in 4A, 4B, 4C and 4D, it's more than they don't want to sit in 4A, 13E, 9C and 22B. (and in my case, add 2 extra seats to that).

and $200 is more the difference between a night at greasy joes vs a decent restaurant or actually going to "Wally World" vs missing out, and in some cases it can even be the cost of an extra day and night in the destination, as families on a budget with small kids can often be the masters of finding cheap / free attractions (eg beaches).

Apologies, after I posted my rant I re-read your post and deleted my message, but you were too quick off the mark.

Wally World can be very expensive, so people on a budget really do have to prioritise. If it's the difference between sitting apart for 90 minutes on a plane or missing out on the fun at the amusement park, I think it's a bit of a no-brainer. If you can't afford both, please don't try to make me part of your solution.

 

[RooFlyer]

Communism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?

Well, THAT's a truly bizarre riposte. I'll have to leave you to that strange view of the world.

 

[zachary.august]

I do not think that there is anything wrong with a CL/WP1 requesting that lower status level members be bumped provided that it doesn't result in a middle seat allocation etc I also think that there is some point in having families seated at the back. I have come to see this now personally

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

I'm with JohnK, there are plenty of opportunities to sit together at the back of the cabin. Individual WP travellers have earned their status and deserve premium first-in-best-dressed seat selection. They should not be displaced for anyone other than P1/CL IMO.

 

[QPProletarian]

I do not think that there is anything wrong with a CL/WP1 requesting that lower status level members be bumped provided that it doesn't result in a middle seat allocation etc I also think that there is some point in having families seated at the back. I have come to see this now personally

I'd rather 4B than 7A or 9C on a 737... So what's the best way to avoid this? Pick 4F instead of 4A?

 

[legroom]

I do not think that there is anything wrong with a CL/WP1 requesting that lower status level members be bumped provided that it doesn't result in a middle seat allocation etc ....

With respect, I beg to disagree.

Firstly, I am not aware that P1 has this unpublished benefits. Stand ready to be corrected if that's incorrect.

Secondly, the concept of bumping others to satisfy one's own desires is not at all different to that of a family wishing to sit together - at the front.

Granted, a CL is judged by QF to be of more value than a garden-variety 'family'.

Ask yourself this question:

After you have quaffed a few glasses of bubbles in the lounge, smug in the warm glow of having dislodged a lowly pax from his/her pre-allocation, you are then discretely advised by the lounge manager that your recently allocated seat is now no longer available as someone else has requested that specific seat (think Miranda Kerr, Neil Perry....).

I doubt if you would jump up shouting in joy having been ejected from your requisitioned seat.

Now, if you do have a fleeting moment of dejection, then would you still eject someone else just 'because I can' the next time around when you decide to travel with 2 weeks' advance notice ?

'Do to others what you want others do to you' someone more famous than all CLs combined once said that, IIRC.

Now, that is about respect in theory and practice.

Anyway, as long as the corporate allows it, some would 'see nothing wrong'.

But, with respect I do.

 

[JohnK]

They should not be displaced for anyone other than P1/CL IMO.

In my opinion someone with a pre-allocated seat should not be displaced for anyone. Including Platinum One and Chairmans Lounge.

 

[Awesom Andy]

I think we should all agree to disagree on this topic. In the end, it can never be fair because there will always be someone who end up in better seats than others. So let's forget about it, move on, and we'll all arrive to the destination in some hours.

 

[zachary.august]

With respect, I beg to disagree.

Firstly, I am not aware that P1 has this unpublished benefits. Stand ready to be corrected if that's incorrect.

Secondly, the concept of bumping others to satisfy one's own desires is not at all different to that of a family wishing to sit together - at the front.

Granted, a CL is judged by QF to be of more value than a garden-variety 'family'.

Ask yourself this question:

After you have quaffed a few glasses of bubbles in the lounge, smug in the warm glow of having dislodged a lowly pax from his/her pre-allocation, you are then discretely advised by the lounge manager that your recently allocated seat is now no longer available as someone else has requested that specific seat (think Miranda Kerr, Neil Perry....).

I doubt if you would jump up shouting in joy having been ejected from your requisitioned seat.

Now, if you do have a fleeting moment of dejection, then would you still eject someone else just 'because I can' the next time around when you decide to travel with 2 weeks' advance notice ?

'Do to others what you want others do to you' someone more famous than all CLs combined once said that, IIRC.

Now, that is about respect in theory and practice.

Anyway, as long as the corporate allows it, some would 'see nothing wrong'.

But, with respect I do.

Personally, I would be happy to accept being bumped by someone of a high status or a family since for me personally that seems fair. I guess it is all subjective.

 

[SeatBackForward]

I think we should all agree to disagree on this topic. In the end, it can never be fair because there will always be someone who end up in better seats than others. So let's forget about it, move on, and we'll all arrive to the destination in some hours.

No, you don't understand. Its imperative that we re-arrange the deck chairs before.....

 

[BadgerBoi]

No, you don't understand. Its imperative that we re-arrange the deck chairs before.....

Actually I'm perfectly happy with the deck chair that I selected online when I made my booking...