Originally Posted by
defrosted
That makes perfect sense, and I agree up to the part about it being particularly egregious if it is a complimentary upgrade. Either it is safe or it isn't, who is sitting there and why is irrelevant. Suggesting that is less egregious to relax social distancing because someone forks over cash is an awful thing to say as if paying for the seat somehow makes it safer?
I see your point that if someone bought the ticket expecting social distancing and then when the flight comes they find that isn't the case. But being more ok with it if they paid to be there means it has little to do with social distancing and more about more room [for comfort] in which case the argument goes out the window.
My point is if you want social distancing, increasing capacity is just as egregious regardless of why they are doing it.
I agree with everything you’re saying and think it’s fair criticism of my thoughts. The egregious part to me comes from the other end - it’s that Delta would be breaking the promise they made to existing F passengers, and I guess my initial gut reaction is that it “feels” worse if they are compromising your safety just to restore an optional elite benefit and not even getting any additional revenue for it.
Although that doesn’t really stand up to even a cursory examination, because upgrading Y passengers frees up coach seats they can then go ahead and sell, so it affects revenue too.
It’s really just optics, and I think front line employees will have to cope with a fair amount of “you mean I paid to get my own row for distancing and now you’re going to upgrade someone into it?!” frustration, even though that’s not objectively any worse than “you mean now you’re going to sell that seat?”; it feels to the F passenger like their purchase is valued less by the company than a random elite’s loyalty, even if the underlying rationale is purely economic.