that's the part I don't understand...what are you people so afraid of ? The only time I've had a POS situation, the lady announced as she sat down that she was going to lift the armrest, and did so. I immediately responded as I put it back down that I preferred to keep it down. She pretended to be insulted, and was reseated in the back. Problem solved.

If you're too afraid to stand up for yourself, go up front and inform the FA of the POS situation and insist that they enforce their POS policy. Or enjoy your 3/4 of a seat. Confrontation is not really necessary.

Well, all this POS problem can be solved if the airlines just made the damn seats wide enough for everybody.;)

Like most people, I do not like uncomfortable confrontations, particularly when flying (which I try to do to relax.) People may be of massive size because of medical issues or that they eat more than Bessie the Cow. Either way, being a POS is not an easy thing and I personally do not want to add to someone's anguish.

I have a system when flying in Y that prevents a person from overflowing into my seat without saying please refrain from putting your skin onto my person. Yes, you can go up and demand to be reseated. But lets be realistic, what will await you as an alternative such as a middle seat in the very back.

Also in perfect world, the GA would stop a POS from boarding and demand that he/she buy another seat (assuming that the flight is not full). But we know that is not going to happen. So to anyone unlucky enough to be squeezed (and its happen to me) its a case of only really bad options.

It seems neither many passengers nor many flight crew are provided with a good degree of assertiveness (not aggressiveness, not passivity). OK, I can understand not many of us get this from our caregivers, much less come by it naturally, but as I have said before, it's truly a deficiency of AA that the beancounting approach denies their employees the tools to do the job (e.g. "Verbal Judo" training, customer-centered service, etc.)

Yes, some here have suggested there is a certain level of assertiveness or self-advocacy (knowing how to advocate one's needs, and differentiating between them and our "wants") can work wonders - most of the time - and this is one of those times (particularly if it involves safety and someone "of considerable size" seated in an exit row or blocking a passenger's egress from a seat), and I do believe that works best.

what you've described is not AA's policy as linked upthread. The policy would require the POS to be reseated to a location where there are 2 adjacent seats, or buy an F seat, or be given the opportunity to purchase 2 seats on a later flight. Nothing in there about reseating the non-POS. Doesn't mean the FA or GA won't try, but if you know the policy (which this thread has done a great job of demonstrating), you simply insist that they enforce their own policy. Again, don't allow them to take the path of least resistance and make them do their job, even if it's uncomfortable for them. AA's policy is clear that the POS should proactively plan for their needs by puchasing 2 adjacent seats. If they fail to do that, there are certain consequences, none of which include inconveniencing the non-POS.

Right on, CynicAAl. ^

Yes I agree with you. However, in reality the GA or FA are going to want you to move and its going to be something like 32E on an MD80. Yes, one could pull out the rules and say reseat the POS. But very likely there would not be two open seats and therefore the POS would be told he that he/she could not fly and would need to deplane. Needless to say, you are likely looking at quite a bit of drama and if the POS reacts badly well then it really gets ugly. Most people really would rather try to avoid "such a scene" at all costs.

Like I said, just a bunch of bad options.

No argument there. Given the potential for drama (ie, lawsuits), I'm guessing FAs and GAs have been trained on these procedures. I would have no problem escalating to a higher decision maker if FA/GA are trying to inconvenience me by taking the easy way out. Once they realize you're serious and not likely to back down, I'm thinking they'll eventually do the right thing.

If the FA is going to insist I move to a less valuable seat (middle, etc), and permit the POS to then occupy 2 seats, while paying for one, then I will escalate my complaint. If I am forced to move, then the FA has given the POS a free second seat, which is contrary to AA policy.

I was thinking something along the same lines....

While I agree 100% that your position is right from the standpoint of what should happen, I suspect from a T&C's perspective AA could in fact just move you. The T&C's are clear that no specific seat assignment is guaranteed, so if AA needed to swap you with someone else for any reason (operational, parent next to child, POS, etc), they are allowed to do so.

The policy is clear (IMO) that they can't deplane you if the flight is full to open up a seat next to a POS, but they can rearrange people (including you) to create a situation where the POS has a seat next to them that is empty and still comply with their stated policies.

Whether they should do so is a different question, and as I said I agree with your point about what they should do, but AA has no official concept of "a more valuable seat". A Y seat is a Y seat.

Gets a little more interesting these days if you paid for one of those "better" Y seats, though ...

AA definately has an official concept of "a more valuable" seat. In my instance (upthread - full fare Y and all other legs in paid J and next to a POS on my flight) I was told at the time of reservation, check-in and in the AC that I had a "preferred" economy seat (12A) for my flight SCL-DFW.

Agreed. Plus, AA also charges non elites a premium if they want to sit in some seats. This isn' one of those things were there is an equipement change and the computer places me in another seat. In this case it would be the FA or GA telling me to move to a "less preferred" seat because the POS needs to also use my seat, when the policy says the POS is supposed to book 2 seats on the next available flight. That is, they have to book 2 together, not wait until they are on the plane and then offer to pay for the one I have selected, or have an FA/GA just give it to them for free.

AA has seats that are reserved for elites (which I think are called "preferred" seats), and exit seats, and seats that they sell for an additional charge (which may also be called "preferred" seats these days).

But on the Conditions of Carriage page here, AA says:

American does not guarantee to provide any particular seat on the aircraft.

However, rereading the POS policy, it does say that the other seat must be available "without downgrading or unseating another customer". So, for this situation, AA's policy doesn't allow moving people around to accommodate the POS (and my original reply was incorrect on this). For other situations, AA does reserve the right to reshuffle people, the obvious example being an equipment change, and the less obvious and more annoying example a change from say 757 to 767 back to 757, but you lose your favorite seat in the process.

What triggered my reply was mvoight's statement that "the FA has given the POS a free second seat, which is contrary to AA policy." A free second seat is not contrary to AA policy, if one can be found without "downgrading or unseating another customer". It is the "unseating another customer" that is contrary to AA policy, whether to a better or worse seat. A "free second seat" is only contrary to AA policy if there is no seat left on the aircraft, i.e. needing to VDB or IDB or (perhaps?) refusing a standby to make the seat available.

OK, but I wonder how AA reconciles charging someone a premium with the statement that no seat assignment is guaranteed.

Bear in mind that the policy says nothing about seats being guaranteed unless they have a good reason to change them. Of course, simple customer service says that, but the policy doesn't.

We're in agreement about what should happen, and what AA should do, perhaps I'm just nit picking about the difference between what the policy actually says and what actual practice should be and in fact is.