Reseated due to Infant/Bassinet

Old Oct 23, 2014, 3:27 pm
  #46  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,291
Originally Posted by TomMM
Or the airport police haul you out of the aircraft.
Yup. Easy to talk tough on an internet forum
Kacee is online now  
Old Oct 23, 2014, 3:41 pm
  #47  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: What I write is my opinion alone..don't read into it anything not written.
Posts: 9,684
Originally Posted by Miles Ahead
Goalie, I see things differently. The OP didn't move because of a bassinet. He was asked to, declined, and was not reseated. So the bassinet part of the story is only background.

The OP was asked to move because another passenger didn't want to sit next to him. I think it's reasonable to discuss if there are ever any reasons where United should move one passenger because another one doesn't want them there, and if so, what those reasons might be.
Like for example the Australian carriers that make adult men reseat if they are next to an unaccompanied minor?
fastair is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2014, 3:48 pm
  #48  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: DEN/OGG
Programs: UA GS
Posts: 1,482
Originally Posted by fastair
Like for example the Australian carriers that make adult men reseat if they are next to an unaccompanied minor?
I wish UA would do that :-) I was once seated next to unaccompanied siblings that were fighting the entire flight and I couldn't get reseated.
Plane-is-home is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2014, 3:56 pm
  #49  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: EUG
Programs: UA Gold; IHG Spire Elite
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by Plane-is-home
I wish UA would do that :-) I was once seated next to unaccompanied siblings that were fighting the entire flight and I couldn't get reseated.
That is hilarious. Hidden benefit for men travelling on Australian carriers -- you don't have to sit next to an unsupervised kid! I think I'd be a little annoyed if I, as a woman, had to swap with a man next to an unaccompanied minor.

Back on topic.... No way the OP should have been pressured into moving because the mother felt uncomfortable breastfeeding. No one should infringe on a mother's ability to breastfeed on a plane, period. But, if she's not comfortable doing so? That's her problem.
jewels421 is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2014, 3:58 pm
  #50  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: UA 1K, Hilton ♦ , Hyatt Carbonado, Wyndham ♦, Marriott PE, "Stinking Bum" elsewhere.
Posts: 4,948
This happened to me in BF, row 8, a few months ago. I refused to move and nothing happened to me.

Breastfeeding wasn't an issue in my case, they just wanted my seat in the center pair because they had two babies (they only paid for two seats, but evidently wanted the use of three--something was said about there not being enough oxygen masks in the side pair as the excuse) and I said no because I am too tall for the BF seats in all but row 1 and 8.

They worked-out something where the couple was split to opposite sides of the cabin, and I felt no guilt at all. If they want to use three seats, they should pay for three seats.

Last edited by zombietooth; Oct 23, 2014 at 4:05 pm
zombietooth is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2014, 4:03 pm
  #51  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,898
I can sympathize with the OP to a point. But, thousands upon thousands of people use 15" laptops in non-bulkhead, non-E+ seats every day.
Baze is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2014, 4:09 pm
  #52  
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: NYC
Programs: AA DULtArer
Posts: 5,545
Originally Posted by zombietooth
This happened to me in BF, row 8, a few months ago. I refused to move and nothing happened to me.

Breastfeeding wasn't an issue in my case, they just wanted my seat in the center pair because they had two babies (they only paid for two seats, but evidently wanted the use of three--something was said about there not being enough oxygen masks in the side pair as the excuse) and I said no because I am too tall for the BF seats in all but row 1 and 8.

They worked-out something where the couple was split to opposite sides of the cabin, and I felt no guilt at all. If they want to use three seats, they should pay for three seats.
OT but correct. There is one extra mask per row so you can't sit 2 adults plus 2 lap kids in a 2 seat row, in general.
LaserSailor is online now  
Old Oct 23, 2014, 4:11 pm
  #53  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: IAH, HOU
Programs: MileagePlus 1K, HHonors Diamond, Marriott Titanium/Lifetime Plat
Posts: 1,073
Originally Posted by sinoflyer
Bassinet can only be placed in the bulkhead, so it's standard practice to move pax who already have seats assigned in the bulkhead in order to accommodate.

However, the woman has NO right to demand other passengers be moved in order to breastfeed. I would have stood my ground on principle.
Maybe on UA but not on other carriers. When we asked to be accommodated in this manner (i.e., to be re-seated in a bassinet location when flying Turkish when we had other seats assigned to us) they told us we had to reserve those seats in advance and they could only be assigned to us if they were empty. Go figure...
vdostoi1 is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2014, 4:57 pm
  #54  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: United Plat 2MM, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,727
Originally Posted by fastair
Like for example the Australian carriers that make adult men reseat if they are next to an unaccompanied minor?
Yes.

And I would argue that the remedy is the same in both cases. Move the passenger who is "offended" down, or move the passenger who is "offending" up.
Miles Ahead is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2014, 5:22 pm
  #55  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,866
Originally Posted by Miles Ahead
Goalie, I see things differently. The OP didn't move because of a bassinet. He was asked to, declined, and was not reseated. So the bassinet part of the story is only background.

The OP was asked to move because another passenger didn't want to sit next to him. I think it's reasonable to discuss if there are ever any reasons where United should move one passenger because another one doesn't want them there, and if so, what those reasons might be.
I'm going to allow a very brief (n.b. very brief as in this time only with anything else to be discussed in private) discussion of moderator actions as I think clarification is needed w/r/t to my moderator note.

Comments were made w/r/t breast feeding (pro, con, do it/don't do it at the seat, do it/don't do it in the lav, it's gross, it's natural and etc) and that is not part of this discussion-discussing what happened to the OP as a result of the action/inaction of UA employees is what this thread is about.

goalie
UA Forum Co Moderator
goalie is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2014, 6:34 pm
  #56  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: BOS
Programs: UA MM
Posts: 1,575
As with FlyingTin, I often make my booking decisions (and try to book early) based on which specific seats are available, especially on longer flights. Doesn't seem to make a difference to me whether you want E+ bulkhead because you want to use your laptop, have long legs, be close (or away from) the lav, sleep, whatever. While there may be good reasons for the carrier to deny you the seat you reserved, this doesn't sound like one.

I can't imagine asking a pax to swap to an inferior seat, unless I'm willing to offer them a bit of cash for their inconvenience. Many comments here on the board over the years suggest that we're generally happy to consider seating alternatives when politely asked, and rarely will move gracefully when forced, especially for what seems to be specious (or manipulative - trying to get an extra seat) reasons.

In this case the couple was given an extra seat because they were "uncomfortable" sharing with the OP. Frankly I am almost always "uncomfortable" when someone sits next to me on crowded planes. I'm
"uncomfortable" sitting next to someone who is obese, or uses a lot of
fragrance, or flops all over me when they sleep or...

But back to the OP's question, it seems to me that as long as the crew have
the "interfering with crew" trump card, it is hard to fight back these days. Maybe OP would have had a chance if the FA was on his side; don't know what clout the GA has with the cockpit. But perhaps digging in your heels a bit more would make them hassle someone else and try to keep you up front in E+
MojaveFlyer is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2014, 7:29 pm
  #57  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bangkok or San Francisco
Programs: United 1k, Marriott Lifetime PE, Former DL Gold, Former SQ Solitaire, HH Gold
Posts: 11,886
Originally Posted by Kacee
Total non sequitur. Whether it is a "criminal violation" was not the question. Suggest you re-read the thread.

It is in fact beyond reasonable dispute that disobeying a flight crew member can get you tossed off the aircraft. That was the question we were responding to.
And you're 100% right. Fair or unfair, it can get you thrown off a plane. Keep your dispute with a FA civil and polite. Weigh the advantage of the seat you choose with the cost of waiting for the next flight.

If you get forced to change, take it up with the airline when you get home.
Tchiowa is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2014, 7:42 pm
  #58  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,898
Originally Posted by MojaveFlyer
As with FlyingTin, I often make my booking decisions (and try to book early) based on which specific seats are available, especially on longer flights. Doesn't seem to make a difference to me whether you want E+ bulkhead because you want to use your laptop, have long legs, be close (or away from) the lav, sleep, whatever. While there may be good reasons for the carrier to deny you the seat you reserved, this doesn't sound like one.

I can't imagine asking a pax to swap to an inferior seat, unless I'm willing to offer them a bit of cash for their inconvenience. Many comments here on the board over the years suggest that we're generally happy to consider seating alternatives when politely asked, and rarely will move gracefully when forced, especially for what seems to be specious (or manipulative - trying to get an extra seat) reasons.

In this case the couple was given an extra seat because they were "uncomfortable" sharing with the OP. Frankly I am almost always "uncomfortable" when someone sits next to me on crowded planes. I'm
"uncomfortable" sitting next to someone who is obese, or uses a lot of
fragrance, or flops all over me when they sleep or...

But back to the OP's question, it seems to me that as long as the crew have
the "interfering with crew" trump card, it is hard to fight back these days. Maybe OP would have had a chance if the FA was on his side; don't know what clout the GA has with the cockpit. But perhaps digging in your heels a bit more would make them hassle someone else and try to keep you up front in E+
I think you have your last paragraph backwards. It was the GA that caused the problem and the FA was on the OP's side. So no interfering with the crew card to pull. And I don't think there is an interfering with the GA card.
Baze is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2014, 8:22 pm
  #59  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,320
Originally Posted by Miles Ahead
Goalie, I see things differently. The OP didn't move because of a bassinet. He was asked to, declined, and was not reseated. So the bassinet part of the story is only background.

The OP was asked to move because another passenger didn't want to sit next to him. I think it's reasonable to discuss if there are ever any reasons where United should move one passenger because another one doesn't want them there, and if so, what those reasons might be.
When the passenger is doing something that offends the other person. I would have no problem with the FAs moving someone who wouldn't take no for an answer in a pickup attempt.

However, his mere existence isn't offensive even if she wants to breastfeed.

Originally Posted by zombietooth
This happened to me in BF, row 8, a few months ago. I refused to move and nothing happened to me.

Breastfeeding wasn't an issue in my case, they just wanted my seat in the center pair because they had two babies (they only paid for two seats, but evidently wanted the use of three--something was said about there not being enough oxygen masks in the side pair as the excuse) and I said no because I am too tall for the BF seats in all but row 1 and 8.

They worked-out something where the couple was split to opposite sides of the cabin, and I felt no guilt at all. If they want to use three seats, they should pay for three seats.
Yeah--you can't have two lap babies in one row unless the other seat is empty. It's not legal to fly without one mask per passenger. They tried to game the system, the system should never have allowed it, good for you for standing up to them.

Last edited by FlyinHawaiian; Oct 25, 2014 at 7:08 pm Reason: multi-quote should be used
Loren Pechtel is offline  
Old Oct 23, 2014, 9:45 pm
  #60  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: IAH
Programs: UA Mileage Plus
Posts: 160
We had bought some E+ seats at a bulkhead a few years ago on a flight down to Rio. the original tickets were FF tickets. Some lady came up to as just as we sat down and asked if we could switch for a baby she had(bassinet). I said sure but we paid for these and my price to sell them is 1000 cash(no checks). She walked off to wherever her seats were. I wouldnt have sold them anyway. i just quoted a ridiculous price and wasnt interested in a refund of what I paid. People need to plan in advance. i have no sympathy for the people wanting to switch who said " they put me here".
leiserom is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.