Originally Posted by
rjque
I guess all I can say is that you also don't know why 6B didn't switch or even why anyone in this thread would hesitate to switch. To you, a window on a mid-con is not a big deal. To me, it makes the difference as to whether I will fly or not. I should not need to explain why it makes such a difference, nor should Mr. 6B. I wouldn't automatically assume this is simply an "entitlement" issue.
My entitlement comment is not about the pax in 6B. You're right I don't know the reason there so I cannot comment and won't. I will assume and give that pax the benefit of the doubt that there was a very valid reason he could not switch. Perhaps he was travelling with someone in 6A.
My comment is directed at other posters who seem to hesitate or not switch for a, as the OP stated, SEVERELY HANDICAPPED child's parents, for seemingly no other reason than a small amount of additional personal comfort during a 3.5 hour to 4 hour flight. If you have a medical or other such reason for HAVING to be in an aisle seat, then obviously this categorization is not accurate. However, if your reason is simply for the slight increased level of personal comfort, then I stand by my accusation of entitlement.
Again, please note that I would completely defend the fact that you should have no obligation to switch seats. That is entirely your perogative. Just as it is mine to feel that your actions are that of a selfish person if in fact the only motivation is for a small amount of additional personal comfort... ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF A DISABLED CHILD.
Also, for nearly all of my associates and colleagues that are truly frequent flyers... most on FT, I would imagine... LAX-HKG, SFO-NRT, MIA-GRU and the like are long hauls. LAX-ORD is a milk run.