Originally Posted by
Robert Leach
No one is saying that Delta should require two passengers on the same PNR to sit next to each other, but if they choose to do so, then let at least one person sit in the row behind them that is now empty because 2B moved to 1B to be with the spouse.
And in another scenario that I have frustratingly experienced twice now, if a couple are 1 and 2 on the upgrade list, and there is only 1 seat left in the reduced inventory available secondary to the 50% rule, and consequently only one on the upgrade list can clear because of the 50% F rule, override the rule, clear #2 in addition to #1 , with the provision that #2 sit next to #1 . That does not impact anyone else in that cabin in any meaningful way but sure rewards diamonds traveling together.
I would be furious if a GA attempted to do this. Currently, an F ticket purchase includes two adjacent seats worth of space by policy. What the passenger does with that space once onboard is up to them, but those seats are paid for and should not be resold.
I also strongly object to the concept you propose in the second scenario; every additional person represents risk, and upgrading an additional person increases the risk for all in a meaningful way (even for those who remain in coach, because it means Delta gets to sell another seat on the plane that previously couldn't be sold). There is no reason upgrades should be treated differently than paid tickets here, and Delta has currently made a clear guarantee that they will not fill the cabin past 50%, even if passengers choose to sit next to each other.
If Delta starts playing these games, they might as well give up on the distancing guarantee entirely. This is something you either commit to or don't do at all; the second people start seeing it be inconsistently enforced, it carries no value.