Originally Posted by
fastair
True, but everything we say, except 1st hand, non-cross examined statements from the OP is hearsay. I have no reason to doubt anything he says as 100% accurate, but unexamined one sided testimony reminds me of Rick, from History Channel's "Pawn Stars" favorite lines: "It's not that I don't trust you, it's that I don't trust anybody. Let's get an expert's opinion."
The OP has a reason for adding details of his 1st post, (iPhone) but he has added/changed details. I buy his story, but possibly there are more details that might be missing (such as maybe he can testify that he saw the mechanic fix the chair.). Still the SW was most likely over the top, but a new dimension to the tale has been uncovered.
To answer your question, Me personally, I would comply and deal with the complaint later. Just like at work, if a mgmt employee gives me a directive which is invalid (due to my contract, or UAL rules,) we "comply now and grieve later" unless it is safety or security related. Someone else may look to fight instead of cede their assumed rights. I would weigh the potential consequences vs the potential reward. If the negative consequences for failing to comply, even if one believes they are not legit, exceed the immediate benefit, then I believe it is best to comply, and follow up when the negative consequences can no longer be applied. Civil disobedience to a law that one feels is unjust can change the laws, but usually, the immediate effect is very dire. Ask Steven Biko, ask Martin Luther King... In the end, their causes were just, and the world was changed, but the immediate consequences were to dire for me. Now being yanked from a flight and possibly arrested isn't as dire as those examples, but the reward isn't as great as them either for success. To each his own,but Tacitus said it best IMHO, when he wrote "He who fights ad runs away, may turn and fight another day; but he that is in battle slain, will never rise to fight again." I don't need to be a hero if the price is too high.
There have been more details added - yes. I would disagree with you that any of them change the dynamics of the event which I detailed in a more abridged version originally via my Iphone.
As I stated in previous posts I had work to do on my laptop and the original seat 18F would have been fine with me. I fully expected the mechanic to fix the seat while I stood in the aisle and for me to be in that seat for the flight. Since I travel quite a bit as a non rev I know the value of 1 seat and I was hoping he would fix it so a standby wouldn't have to be removed. The GA apparently did not want to wait. Fortunately there was an eligible jumpseater in 11E and she had arranged his move to the cockpit on her way back to my seat. As a result, nobody had to be offloaded. The GA didn't give me a choice in the matter...she had a plan and she was executing it. That plan was sensible and solid and I'm sure she didn't intend for the FA to change it for her...even if they did ever fix that seat. In fact as she left me at the exit row the look of disappointment in seeing a center seat must have been showing on my face...she said "they will take good care of you". Boy that couldn't have been more ironic in the end.
I understand what you are saying about two sides of a story but my story sticks and tidbits added are not intended to change anything. In this case the facts are somewhat clear. The operational reason may apply but it was obvious that the other FA's that were in the know didn't seem to see any reason to move me back. No one else was boarded and the jumpseater came out of the cockpit on arrival so the seat must have flown empty. Was it broken? Who knows and what would it matter? To make a customer move again would have been a lousy move. If that's the string you are holding out for the offending FA as her possible defense that is a really thin one.