When travelling with a colleague (especially my boss) I will go out of my way not to sit together. Short Haul isn't too bad but on LH, I really want to do my own thing (drinking and sleeping, mostly) and not get stuck into a long conversation about ongoing projects.

Welcome to FT, TheOfficeAdmin13B.

To clarify, I will stay put. The child of the parent seeking the free babysitter will be moved (unless we're talking about a legitimate emergency, in which case I will move and help in any other way that I can).

The point is this: If you want to engage in discretionary air travel with young children, you do it at your own risk. You have a special need: adjacent seats. That's no different than the obese person who needs two adjacent seats, or someone like me who used to have a terrible flying phobia and needed a window seat. It's not the responsibility of strangers to see that your needs are met. If discretionary flying with young children is so difficult, don't do it.

Pretty much agree. But with friends and family I would rather sit with them. I've been stuck on international flights not sitting with friends and it can get really lame. Recently on a virgin airline transcontinental flight and used their text feature on the screen to talk to friends since we weren't sitting next to each other. Was rather fun but those buttons are hard and hurt my fingers after a while.

My (adult) son and I vacation together sometimes. We might get upgraded and thus may not have seats together. I'd prefer to sit with him. We share food, drink coupons, sleep meds. We rarely talk. It's just more comfortable (for me) sitting beside someone I know. I had a flight last week and the guy next to me talked the entire flight. I'd much preferred reading, but I couldn't figure a way out. I've sat beside some really crazy people who wanted to talk about UFOs and secret cabals. I've sat beside people whose political views were offensive to me. I never ask for an unlike exchange. Sometimes people don't want to switch and that's fine with me.

I've chatted extensively with PTravel about this in a couple of different threads.

To be so bold as to summarize his position -

1) He will stay put in his assigned seat (ergo he will not leave the aircraft nor move seats.)

2) He will not sit next to an unaccompanied child.

After that, whatever else happens is not his responsibility. It is up the parents and the airline to work it out.

Actually, if the parent is willing to sit separate from the child, and the child takes the assigned seat next to him, then it most certainly
*is* his responsibility if he refuses to sit there.

If someone said this to me, I would call for the FA/GA/pilot and explain that the child is too sick to travel. Vomit is a biological hazard and results in the need for an expensive and time consuming cleaning of the plane.

I don't think any airline is going to allow a small child to sit separately from his/her parent. If the child is young enough, the airline will do whatever it takes to make sure that at least one parent is sitting in the next seat. There is simply too much risk of things like sexual harassment of children, and they don't want the liability. Remember that the airline has the authority to assign you to a different seat for any reason.

So take your pick. Either move when the parent asks you, or wait for the FA to come and force you.

Nope -- there's a third choice. Wait for the FA to remove parent and child, as no one will voluntarily accommodate them.

I'd just say the kid isn't sick problem solved.

Ha ha I hope one day you refuse to move when an FA tells you to. You do know that's a crime right?

I've had this happen twice, both times I refused to move (I explained to the FA, calmly and quietly, why I was unwilling to do so) and both times the parent and child were removed. It is not a crime to refuse to switch seats while on the ground.

We had a saying in aerospace: The lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.

Take care of you own special needs. Don't expect strangers to inconvenience themselves for you.

^^^ your last sentence sums things up very well.

And if a FA decides to move you from bc/fc to y, and you balked, it would be a crime:confused::confused:--airlines sell seats in advance and pax are allowed to choose seats (in many instances paying extra for "premium" ones); pax should therefore expect to be sitting in the seat marked on their bp--otherwise stop allowing advance options.

I think if you study the situations where people recount being asked to trade seats, being asked to trade seats from 31A to 29F is rarely a problem. It's being asked -- or bullied -- to trade from say 7C to 33B, where C is an aisle seat and B is a middle seat, that causes tempers to flare. So now you are talking about trading a seat that will allow one to have a fairly comfortable flight for one that will force one to spend hours in abject misery.

You don't understand why it's a big deal? It's a huge deal. Most airlines sell this seats for very big money unless one is an elite. And now you expect someone to just give up a seat worth $25 or $50 if paid up front for free in order to sit in a torture chamber? Anyway, maybe now you understand now why it is a big deal. Very few people have a problem with exchanging similar seats on airplanes; it's only when they are asked to exchange a premium seat for an inferior seat that they refuse and are a bit taken aback that someone would ask.