cmd320

If you're at that high a risk I'd suggest looking into a fractional membership.

I have no reasonable expectation that DL is going to keep the F row behind me empty. Also, what about the row in front of you and the seats across the aisle? They're just as close.

TBD

Delta is messing with their reputation now, which could have consequences well beyond the end of covid.
They need to understand that they aren't going to turn a profit anytime soon. The best thing they can do is try to preserve their very positive reputation for when covid is over. Relaxing their safety protocols is cutting off their nose to spite their face...

jamesteroh

And if someone has those expectations in F then what about Y where there is a lot less room between seats?

Justin026

An obvious problem is coming: when and how will air fares adjust to the idea of empty seating? In the case of First Class, a shift toward saying "the seat next to you will be empty" could be a refinement of the "50% reduction" idea. It would then allow some parties of two to be mixed in the cabin with single travellers. If the idea is to seat solo travellers together then it is an abandonment of their seating policy, which they are right in the middle of pushing hard as their brand/product. I left F in March prior to the new policy and started refusing upgrades, choosing the wide open coach seating available then at the back of the plane. (Now I'm happily accepting upgrades, 50% success from paid C+.)

The idea of a party of two people booking in different rows and then "creating" an empty buffer row is a clever loophole. I don't mind FT-inspired loopholes, but remember it is a game -- Delta, if they want, can play it as well as be the referee.

As to fares, why not re-introduce the old (1980's and before) idea of family fares? The second ticket receiving a discount, the third a bigger discount, etc.? This used to be common for air travel and still is with non-air travel tickets. In return for booking a family ticket, you would agree to be seated together. And some "family" rows somewhere in Y? This could be another conduit for airline revenue and an added benefit of getting a wider slice of people flying again.

cmd320

They won't. The CARES Act will end and flights will go back to being sold at 100% just like AA and UA are already doing. The idea of empty seating is a pipe-dream and it's not a long term solution to anything, it's a short term marketing gimmick.

Now, with that said I can see a business opportunity in the future to allow a customer to pay an ancillary fee to keep the middle seat next to them open. Perhaps even splitting this cost with the aisle/window seat mate.

Qwkynuf

If you are going to argue someone's point, at least make the effort to read and understand that point. Even if you disagree with his premise, the details aren't hard to understand.

The point that person made, was with 1CD blocked on many planes for FA seating, he could book 1A for himself and 2A for his companion. After takeoff, companion moves to (previously empty) 1B.

So he's in row 1 - no row in front. The seats across the aisle are empty because the FA who sat there during takeoff is presumably up & about doing FA stuff, and the row behind is empty because his companion moved out of it. So, what *about* the row in front and the seats across the aisle?

I just can't get past this notion going around that any solution that isn't 100% effective is useless and shouldn't be done. I see a meme shared on Facebook frequently that says "If masks work, then why the 6 feet? And if 6 feet works, why the masks? What are they not telling us?" Can we seriously not consider that masks PLUS distance is better than masks OR distance? Did we freak out like this when they added airbags to cars? Did people rush out to have their seatbelts removed? I mean, if seatbelts save lives, why the airbags? And if airbags save lives, why the seatbelts? WHAT ARE THEY NOT TELLING US???????

RobertS975

rylan is spot on here. I am an MD, though not an epidemiologist in any way. But what a passenger needs to be concerned with are the number of "bubbles" that they are in contact with while on their flight. A couple or a family unit travelling together are in the same 'bubble". Each of them has the same probability of carrying the virus. So if you have a FC cabin of 16 seats, it will matter little to your risk if their are eight passengers in the cabin vs. eight couples.

cmd320

This is ending/has already ended.

If the OP is at such a high risk level they need the rows adjacent, in front of, and behind them to be blocked out, they should not be flying commercially. Realistically they shouldn't be in public at all.

Yes, actually. Early generation airbags were causing deaths and serious injuries in accidents that would have otherwise likely not produced such results. Hence the innovation of next-gen and smart airbags.

Zorak

Good luck with that

I didn't see anywhere that he *expected* them to create an empty row for them; he was describing a way to leverage DL's current capacity rules to increase the chances they could do it for themselves.

1. I agree with you that, if someone needs to fly, and thinks commercial air service is unacceptably risky, then that's would probably be the next thing to look into.

2. However I think there's a middle ground of "I accept the risks of flying commercial right now, but I am still going to do things (within the bounds of the law and policy) to minimize my risk once on board." Reasonable people can certainly disagree as to the effectiveness of those things, but (2) is still different from (1).

Remember that he was responding to your question of 'what use is an empty row behind you" -- answering why you would prefer an empty row behind you in no way says you have an expectation that the airline should provide you with one. "Expectation" is something you guys seem to be projecting here.

As I said earlier -- suppose you somehow knew you could have a choice of an empty row either in front of you, or behind you (e.g. maybe you get upgraded at the gate on a flight with low loads and the GA asks where you'd like to sit in the F cabin). Which one would you choose?

IMO if transmission is primarily based on droplets and/or aerosols, and I get the opportunity (not expectation) to choose where to create extra buffer space, I'd rather put the extra buffer behind me rather than in front of or next to me.

(Plus, in BenA's scenario he said he'd be in the bulkhead row so no one in front anyway)

You keep hammering this, but "prefer" and "need" are two different things. The distinction seems pretty obvious, so at some point I have to wonder if the responses are more about posturing.

Qwkynuf

Strawman alert!!! "Need" is your word. Nobody ever said that they *need* that space. Let's be real - this is a forum where frequent flyers jockey for *every* *single* *advantage* they can find. If 12 months ago someone had posted that they had found a foolproof way to sit in first and not have anyone sit within 4-5 feet in any direction, he would be hailed as a hero. If a method like that had worked, we all would have done it every day of the week, and twice on Saturday. Is there anyone who *likes* to be crammed up against strangers, even during normal times?

Way to pick and choose what you quote - what about the 2nd part of the question? Did people have their seatbelts removed? Is it really your position that combining two protection vectors which are partly effective, is *worse* than using either one individually?

smh

Qwkynuf

You have to wonder? That ship has sailed, for me.

cmd320

I mean, sure. I'd prefer that DL block all the seats on flights I book so I'm alone on the airplane every time. But it isn't realistic just like a couple expecting six F seats be block strictly for their travel isn't realistic. Yes it might have worked for a few months but DL and all airlines are absolutely bleeding money right now and this isn't really a viable approach to mass transportation.

If OP prefers that then they should pay for the seats they want blocked in addition to the ones the actually occupy.

No clue, wasn't alive when seatbelts were implemented.

Zorak

There you go with "expect" again. Also, how are you inflating it now to 6 seats? There is one seat blocked per one seat booked, so two people booked means two blocked seats. The discussion is about, if given a choice, where a person might prefer to allocate those two blocked seats.

But if you're just going to keep accusing people of "expectations" and invent things to attack instead of addressing the responses, then I guess we're done here.

cmd320

I mean, we can get bogged down in the semantics of it as much as we like I suppose. It's pretty obvious that seat blocking has become and expectation of many to some extent.

It was in this post that Qwkynuf mentioned the OP preferring 1A/B so that 1C/D and 2A/B are both left empty. That would add up to six total seats. At this time though, I believe the blocking of 1C/D for FAs has ended or will be ending soon.

Beyond having the seat next to you blocked, I think it's pretty ridiculous to want other rows in the cabin blocked on a commercial aircraft.

Qwkynuf

Probably, we "get bogged down in semantics" because words mean things.
<snip>

Let me see if I understand your position. Delta is currently not letting people traveling together book adjacent seats in first. I understand that this is changing - I got the email last week, too. But for now, that's how it is.

So, for now, If my wife and I are traveling together, and I book 1A for me and 2A for her, then 1B and 2B are blocked/go out empty. That seems to be OK with you. But if she moves to sit next to me during the flight, filling 1B, but leaving 2AB empty, that becomes a "ridiculous demand to want other rows in the cabin blocked on a commercial aircraft"?

Are you hard of thinking?

It is really starting to look like you just want make up your own facts so you can argue against them.