Originally Posted by
NickB
You are engaging in the very same non-sequitur as a consequence of your confusing better and good. The fact that a previous policy was worse tells us absolutely nothing as to whether the current policy is good. It just tells us that it is better.
If it takes me 15 minutes to run 100 meters, that is not very good. The fact that it used to take me 30 minutes changes nothing to that. It might be better than before but it is still not good.
So telling us that BA used to have a worse policy does not, and cannot, tell us that the current policy is good. The current policy may or may not be a good policy but knowing that the previous policy was worse does not help us one iota in determining whether the current one is a good policy or not.
It is not non-sequitur; and if you forgive me I have no interest in arguing with you, it adds nothing useful to the discussion so this will be my final response to you on this subject. I simply point out that before the change in policy those without status, or those who chose to purchase tickets from the lower fare buckets, were unable to select a seat in advance of check-in. The current policy at least provides an opportunity for those who really need/want to select a seat in advance. The policy was changed to provide a choice that was simply not available prior and to:
Originally Posted by
Tobias-UK
... dissuade those who really don't mind where they sit and to provide those who do mind an option (that was hitherto unavailable) to choose at a price if it really is that important for them to have a specific seat. I see it not about committing daylight robbery but about dissuading uptake to allow greater choice for those on higher fares or with status.