To most passengers, unlike the regulars on FT, a request by the FA to move carries weight. It may not have seemed like an entirely voluntary choice to the lady. I once had an FA ask me if I would move to solve a seating problem created by someone else and I did not move, but it was enlightening. I asked her why ask me, why not him, and she said because I was the more cooperative person. FAs are just motivated to solve the problem the easiest way for themselves.

Yeah, and asking someone to move can also have connotations that the person is considered to be a less important customer than other passengers. Sometimes when others see someone moving, they assume that the person being moved did something wrong (such as the walk of shame when someone tries to steal a FC seat and is sent back to coach). Another example could be an overbooked premium cabin and the airline booting the person with the lowest status or the person who paid the least for the ticket.

What bothers me is that it is always the woman who is asked to move. (It happened to a friend of mine last year.) I don't understand why the man is never asked to move. Why does he have a right to his seat and a right of refusal for whoever is seated next to him?

Also what I don't understand is that the last time I flew to Israel, I was seated in the exit row with a fairly large space in front of me. The orthodox who used that space to gather to pray had absolutely no objection to stepping on my feet.

It sometimes is the man. My FIL was once in Y on LY when FA asked if he would switch with a man in C who refused to sit next to a woman. He of course obliged!

Seriously though, they do initially try to move the man to an open seat. It's when they don't have an open seat that they need to move someone, and it usually involves both a man and a woman from each seat switching. At least when it makes the news. Often, the man is moved with another man who was sitting next to a man where the second man has no objection sitting next to a woman.

What airline was this on?

In all the coverage (media) and commentary I have seen about this story there is a detail that seems to be assumed, and I'm not sure why.

If a person asks to be seated specifically next to a man or specifically next to a woman is that a problem?

What about if they doesn't ask that the person assigned to the seat next to them be relocated, but rather asks if they can be seated elsewhere? Is that OK?

Did the passenger in this story ask that the woman be moved?

Or did he ask for an accommodation, hoping to be moved himself, maybe even asking specifically to be moved, and there was no open seat next to a man, but the was an available seat next to a woman? This sounds like a likely, or at least possible scenario to me.

All the commentary I have seen seems to assume that he asked that [U]she[U] be moved, but I have seen no basis for that. (I have seen it assumed, not reported.)

In my opinion, to not tolerate such a request is inappropriate. Does a person not have the freedom to have a preference of seatmates? ("tolerate" does not mean to fulfill.)

Of course a person is entitled to their own preferences, and a person is entitled to ask someone to switch. Many here are debating whether the airline should be allowed to ask as well which is different than a private person asking.

Because it was a polite request only on the surface. The request itself was rude in that the airline made an authoritative note of the woman's sex. A firm has a moral obligation to be blind to every customer's sex/gender/religion/race/ethnicity/country-of-origin/etc. The moment that it it takes an official notice of any of these irrelevant characteristics it engages in profiling. That person is offered another seat owing to that person's sex.

Additionally, while the other passenger (the one who demanded a new seatmate) - in his personal capacity - assumed another passenger's sex based on that person's physical appearance, it was wrong for the airline to accept that person's ascription of female to the person who was asked to move. It is entirely possible that a person who appears to be of one sex may not, in fact, be of that sex. There are, indeed, far more than simply XX and XY sexes. Moreover, with the advances in social and scientific understandings trans-gender and trans-sexual people it is all the more important for the airline to refuse to take part in accepting anyone's description of one's sex or gender; the airline must each person to define one's own sex and gender.

Indeed, when the a passenger makes such a request she/he is simply rude; when an airline makes such a request it is overstepping its required neutrality towards all customers.

Indeed, if one doesn't like who one is sitting next to, one should get up and go about the aircraft looking for empty seats.

Far too many people are blinded by religion and step on the toes (rights) of others for no reason other than they think that religion is a license to abuse others' rights.

It seems the ultra orthodox men think that the plane is basically FOR MEN and so if a woman is seated next to him, he expects her to be REMOVED.

If you are the one with the problem, it is you who should move.

Don't be ridiculous.
Political correctness gone wild.

Saying nonsense like that is just as bad as the guy in the original post.

I guess we will have to wait for the court case to understand fully what the man actually asked, what the FAs role was, etc. For now I guess we don't have much additional information.

There is nothing ridiculous about acting rightly nor is there any nonsense whatsoever in my post. There is, however, something ridicules about thinking that an airline ought ascribe to a person that person's sex, gender, or identity. It is nonsense to think that an enterprise (or a person) ought not be aware of its responsibilities to act correctly in respecting others.

We should all want El Al to operate with the highest of integrity and respect to its customers no matter their sex or gender.

This is major generalization of ultra Orthodox, not to mention that it's a stretch to say they expect women to be removed.

Much closer to accuracy, they don't want to sit next to a woman, even if it moves they move or get booted to Y.

I've even seen one get off a plane. Fine, his choice.

Some of the responses on this thread are way past inane into I do not know what. My comments are that in business you are NOT really next to anyone. So I don't get the big deal. That being said, I've been asked to move ( when sitting in coach and when sitting in business) Sometimes I say yes, and sometimes I say no. It depends on where they want me to move to. I've also sat next to some very well known Orthodox men with out any problems.

My feeling here is that they asked the women to move because she had the aisle seat and it was just easier. I also think that had Anat Hoffman not decided to get involved there would be no court case.

I understood the guy wasn't seated yet. He could have moved, ops, walked to the other seat.

so whats the solution?
Mens only row?