Originally Posted by
Troopers
Sure...consider the opinion that seat saving is a non-issue is (generally) being repeated by the same handful of FTers across the multiple seat saving threads whereas the opinion it's an issue is being voiced by a wider spectrum/more numerous FTers. If you ignore FT entirely on this issue, you'll find that seat saving is an issue for frequent flyers, infrequent flyers, SWA loyalists and SWA newbies; support for it's a non-issue barely exist.
Or it could be that the lack of threads that are started by people who are for seat saving means that it is, in fact, a non-issue.
Originally Posted by
Troopers
Furthermore, IMO, it's a problem when at least one other person is harmed, irritated or frustrated. An argument or altercation is not required for a problem to exist.
Well then everything is a problem as there's always going to be at least one person who harmed, irritated, or frustrated in just about every situation that involves groups of people.
Originally Posted by
Troopers
Absolutely. I do give the anti-seat savers more latitude though in your example. And the situation could have been avoided if the seat wasn't saved to begin with.
The person saving the seat did nothing wrong by saving a seat. Saying the situation could have been avoided by not saving it is like saying it could have been avoided if the other person didn't take that flight. Neither one makes much sense.