Originally Posted by
weero
The way I read it, the conflict only exists if one takes the agent's wording - as narrated by the OP - as the OP's own version.
I found the OP's account quite clear and easy to follow.
What would be the agent's motivation for creating more work for herself and doing such a thing as changing a seat assignment for no good reason just to make a customer angry?
Doesn't make sense to me.
I always take FT posts at face value. That is until they run into a contradiction. So far I see no reason to doubt the OP's account but of course I too would like to hear both sides if available.
But there
is a contradicion, at least the way I read the thread.
In Post # 1, the OP stated she encountered "a rep who decide[d] to change m[y seats] against my will." This implies the agent changed the seats during the phone call (apparently just to make the OP angry?).
Then in Post # 9, the OP said that the agent stated, "Oh you have no seats!" This implies something else happened before the phone conversation that resulted in the seat chage, and the rep just notified the OP that her seats had been changed.
If the rep hand't booked Row 31, the OP likely would have shown up at the airport with no seat assignments and virtually no chance of getting four adjacent seats for the flight.