By fat? Or just sitting halfway in it?

Sitting halfway into the seat, as in sprawled out.

Wow!

1. It is the parent who decided to fly with a lapchild, not the aisle passenger. If anyone is "hurting" a child, it is the parent and not the aisle passenger.

2. Psychological problems? Really? Tell me, [personalized reference deleted by Moderator] what does it say about someone who assumes that, because they have had a child, their needs trump everyone else's?

3. The concept of karma is simply magical thinking. There is no such thing as karma, except as literary and entirely fictional irony.

4. I didn't realize this was a religious issue. I don't know which concept I find more offensive; that everyone owes some sort of obligation to parents flying with lap children, or that everyone subscribes to a belief in a score-keeping, vindictive big guy in the sky.

I agree with all sides of the argument here... with a twist...

the spare middle seat is not 'community/shared' space per se - it is nobobdy's. No-one has any more entitlement to half of it or all of it.

however in ordinary circumstances (with just two pax and a spare middle) - the space is, by convention, shared. It makes the experience more comfortable for both pax.

On the otherhand, while not a 'karma' or moral issue - it could well be an issue of good manners to allow the other passenger, who would be far more comfortable placing the lap child in the middle seat, the use it. (That concept of being kind/considerate to others.)

So, if it is "community property", could aisle pax have refused letting a third party switch his seat and move into that aisle seat?

For example, a pax may have had a much less desirable middle seat elsewhere on the plane - perhaps between two POS. If that pax sought to move to the middle seat, can aisle pax call over the FA and prevent the other pax from moving into the seat?

BTW, with respect to the original question, I think any reasonable person would let a parent use the middle seat for the lap child. Common decency, really.

Depending on the age of the child, I may well decide to 'share the middle' seat as the parents, budging my butt and arm over into it and putting the child in between me and the window. That way they can be propped up (as I said age is a factor) and not spit up on / scream in the ear of a stanger. Me + lap child is less than 1.5 seats IMO, thus entirely fair.

Because it can be very uncomfortable holding a lap child the entire flight, and it would be more comfortable for the child as well. If an empty seat is available, and the child doesn't disturb the aisle passenger, why not let the child use the middle seat?

In my own experience - the airlines I flew when my daughter was young enough to be a "lap child" went out of their way to ensure that, apart from take off and landing when she HAD to be on my lap, there was an empty seat next to me and I was actively encouraged to use it for her in flight by the cabin crew.

The only time there was a pretty full flight, they actually apologised to me at check in that they couldn't give me a seat for her. However - when the middle seat passenger arrived on board and saw us seated by the window , he threw a complete tantrum, refused to sit down and demanded another seat well away from us. I have no idea where he ended up - but I did in fact end up with a free space to put her beside me while I enjoyed my drink and meal.

I can also honestly say that not one of the aisle seat passengers I travelled with on those flights ever raised any objection to the baby using the empty seat. Maybe it was because the crew made it clear that I was to use it and came around asking if I needed bottles warmed etc, or maybe it was because as a reasonable human being, they didn't expect me to sit for several hours with a child on my knee when the seat was available and a child had more right to a bit of comfort than their books, bags or newspapers did.

I flew each flight in the knowledge that I COULD end up with her on my lap for the duration, unless i bought her a seat - but as I said - it was the airline and aircrew who offered the space - I never asked for it or expected it as my right, and I don't think that MOST parents travelling with "lap children" do either. If there is an empty seat - fine - if there isn't that's fine too.

It can also be very uncomfortable to work in a middle seat or, for that matter, sit next to a small child. Again, I don't understand why the comfort of the parent with the lap child trumps the comfort of the other passenger. Why is it "good manners" to defer to someone with a lap child? Why isn't it good manners for the parents of young children to buy a seat for their child?

When I started reading this thread, I initially sympathized with the aisle passenger and the community/common area argument. Upon further thought, IMHO the aisle passenger was in the wrong.

Obviously anyone would prefer sitting next to an empty seat than an occupied one 99.9% of the time. But for me--and I would assume for a lot of people--that's because I'd rather have (1) two armrests for myself, (2) more shoulder room and (3) shared use of the underseat storage area in the middle to clear up my own footspace. I just don't see a lap child being big enough to impact any of those factors. Sure, the kid could throw an hourlong tantrum in the middle of the flight, but it's not going to be that much less disturbing if the kid is 17.5 inches farther away. And sure, the kid could spit up on me, but anyone next to me could get airsick on any given flight.

In this case it seems like the aisle passenger didn't care about any of those things, and just wanted more seat space--hence sprawling out over the middle seat (and I presume raising the armrest to do so). So if he/she just wanted a wider seat, he/she should have paid for F in the first place, instead of trying to get something for nothing while trying to bully others out of doing the same.

Like I said, as long as the child doesn't intrude upon the aisle passenger, what's the harm to the aisle passenger? The child is not going to take away the arm rest of the aisle passenger, and as long as its well behaved, the aisle passenger is no worse off with his aisle seat. However, the kindness of allowing the parent to take advantage of the middle seat is a minor act of decency.

The parent chose to take a risk of having the child on his / her lap for the flight, but if an empty seat is available, why not let the child or the parent take advantage of it?

It's similar to the Person of Size policy on WN. If a plane is full, then the P.O.S. pax must buy two tickets. But if a plane is not full, the the P.O.S. pax is allowed two seats free of charge.

I originally thought the aisle person could have been generous and said yes but given the kind of response you just wrote, I'll now assume most parents who ask such a question are just like you and thus I now think the aisle person was justified. ^

I don't mind sitting next to children or passengers of size as long as they dress appropriately for the flight and don't recline their seats.

(seeing if I can fit every hot-potato FT topic into a single post )

AA many years ago would block out the middle seat for it members.

I gave up an empty seat on a Paris flight, and never again...The kid was all over me and the dad did nothing to quiet the kid...

If they don't wan't to pay,and they lap it that is their business...Easy to find empty seats in the back of the plane...

With all due respect, I don't think that's responsive to my questions. When there are empty middle seats between myself and my row-mate, we generally share the space, putting our coats, reading materials, etc. in the seat, using the middle tray to hold our beverages, etc. Sharing the unplanned windfall makes sense. Automatically deferring to the passenger with the lap child doesn't.

Well, I'd appreciate it if you explain that. Why is it decent to do this, rather than share the space? I'm still trying to understand why some people believe that parents traveling with children deserve special deference or, to phrase it somewhat differently, have some sort of implicit entitlement to such deference?

The aisle passenger chose to take a risk of having a pax next to him in the middle seat. If an empty seat is available, why not let that pax take advantage of it? As I said, sharing the space makes perfect sense to me. Simply assuming an entitlement on the part of parent does not.

Oh, I'd be fine with a policy that says, "Parents of young children must buy two seats, but if there is an extra seat available, the additional seat charge will be refunded."

Aside from my usual displeasure with entitlement-demanding parents on aircraft, I have had the misfortune of being stuck next to a lap child, with me in the window seat and the parent in the middle. It was a miserable flight for me -- the child wouldn't sit still and was "handsy," constantly slapping and kicking me and, other than apologizing, the parent did nothing to prevent it (nor do I think it's reasonable to expect a child that age to sit perfectly still). I don't blame the child for acting like a child. I absolutely DO blame the parent. I despise the concept of lap children because of the imposition on other passengers. For that reason, I don't think it's "moral" or "decent" to defer to the parents of lap children who already made the decision, by not buying a seat for their child, to risk the near certainty of making a stranger miserable. Personally, I will do nothing that encourages, aids or abets people to fly with their children on their lap.