You provided two situations: in one, you were flying with your children in an emergency -- you had to go to a funeral. Speaking for myself, I always try to help out people in an emergency, and would have switched with you if asked . . . AND the circumstances were explained to me.

In the other, however, you were engaging in discretionary travel. You chose to fly with your kids and take the risk that previously allocated seats would not be available. You're right -- parents should not be separated from their children. That, however, is not my problem. It's yours to resolve with the airline. I wouldn't have switched seats with you. You had another option -- wait for another flight, or don't engage in discretionary travel with your young children. Thinking that you have a right to someone else's seat because you're traveling with your children is the very definition of entitlement and it cuts no ice with me.

No one owes you special consideration because you're flying with children.

I've unknowingly played this game...

Now that I know, game on ^

I find, on flights where you have to pay for snacks and drinks, it's easier for me to sit next to SO as he keeps his wallet in easier reach so I don't have to go rooting in my bag, disrupting everyone and it saves making an order and asking "him 2 rows back 1 aisle over" to pay for it LOL

If it's full service that's not an issue.

Short haul flights, i'm not so fussed about.. in fact if we can't get the 2 seats near the exit then we will purposefully pick 2 aisle seats. Close enough to chat quietly but far enough away for some 'space' but long haul, I'd like to spend the flight with SO but that's just so, like mentioned, we can share the same movies on ipad, we switch plane food round a lot between us and we use each other as a pillow prop.

I don't think anyone doesn't understand that. What you don't seem to understand is that it's your responsibility to make sure your NEEDS are taken care of, not the responsibility of strangers.

I don't see anyone being hostile about children. People are understandably fed up with "grown ups" who think everyone else should have to be inconvenienced to accommodate them simply because they decided to procreate.

(I made a mistake with my earlier post on this matter. I thought I was replying to the OP when clearly I was not.)

Let me say that I believe that people have a right to the seats which they are assigned. I certainly am not going to switch my window or aisle for a middle, not on any day.

But to answer the OP's question, on a personal level I find interaction with strangers somewhat stressful and unpleasant, and I find extended physical touching by strangers downright loathsome. I find interaction with people I like to be highly pleasurable. So maybe the reason people want to sit next to people they like is so they can have a highly pleasurable experience rather than an intensely unpleasant one.

I like the fact that more airlines are selling premium seat locations. People who want to sit together can pay a bit more and do so. And it gives a perfect excuse for not exchanging seats with the mother of a child: "Ma'am, I paid extra for this seat because of its premium location, and somebody would have to pay me an awful lot to move out of it and into a middle seat."

First of all, I would note that in this case, the passenger did take it up with the airline and the airline then forced people to move-- so if you have a problem with that outcome I suggest your problem is with the airline.

Second, as far as I am concerned no one owes me special consideration because I am flying with children. However, the child, who is a paying pax, does deserve special consideration. Just as a disabled pax is rightly entitled to a seat at the front of the plane, a small child-- who is probably in diapers much less capable of visiting the lav or managing a flight by himself/herself-- is rightly entitled to sit with one parent.

Now most airlines find ways that allow status pax to pick seats but also allow small children to sit with a parent. In cases where those systems break down for whatever reason, I think basic consideration for other travellers (which includes the small child and anyone traveling within earshot of the small child) requires that accommodations be made. That's why I suggested a private plane-- because you seemed to have no consideration for other pax, and I think consideration for others is essential when you are travelling on a flying bus. However, I don't really expect you to agree with me-- sounds like you would feel perfectly justified making a 95 yo woman, or a paraplegic pax, take a seat in the last row of the plane before you gave "your" seat up.

I agree -- if the airline forces me to move, my problem is with the airline. However, if a passenger thinks I should move to show some compassion, sorry, but that's a pretty odd definition of the word.

Sure. How is that my problem? Honestly, I'm much more inclined to help a disabled passenger -- he or she didn't choose to be disabled. You, however, chose to have children and still maintain the kind of lifestyle that permits discretionary air travel. It's certainly your right to do so, but don't expect me to inconvenience myself to accommodate you.

Not by me. That you want to travel with your children is not my problem, nor is it the problem of any other stranger. If it's an emergency, fine. If it's a visit to Disneyland, you're not asking for compassion, you're demanding an entitlement.

This, by the way, is not just true on airplanes. Having a child does not vest you with superior rights. I can't imagine why you would think it would.

You have a bizarre understanding of the meaning of consideration if you think it includes your taking what doesn't belong to you because you have a child. How about showing some consideration for me, and simply leave me alone, rather than trying to make your problem my problem? I'm not the one demanding something from someone else. That's like saying that I'm in considerate because I don't want you to punch me in the nose.

As for private planes, you're the one with the special requirements that, evidently, can't met without you imposing on strangers. Perhaps you should look into that solution.

Nope, quite the contrary. How odd that you don't see the difference between a 95 year-old woman or a paraplegic, and a parent that expects everyone to accommodate their desire to take their children wherever they want, regardless of whom they impose upon.

As I said, you have a bizarre understanding of the meaning of, "consideration." Consideration doesn't require my accepting impositions from strangers who are too selfish to take care of their own special needs. Consideration does require you respecting the privacy of other people and not imposing on them because you think you're entitled.

On most airlines, you can choose your seats in advance, and if booked far enough in advance can be guaranteed adjacent seats (a nearly empty plane at that point.)
I envision the following scenario, say a 2 and 4 year old sitting together, very bored with flying (even adults are bored), will start playing "games"--disturbing to the nearby pax; if they are separated this is less likely to occur.

I do as well. I am frequently asked to change seats to accomodate someone else (I'd saying on at least a third of my flights that I get asked by another passenger), and so after awhile it feels like no one plans in advance.

I don't care if a couple wants to sit together or not, just make those arrangements in advance when possible. And for the most part I think the airlines are pretty good about keeping very young children with at least one parent.

I enjoy sitting with my traveling companions; sometimes it's
the only time I get to talk to them, if we're on MRs, for
example.

So I have a flight this Friday with one of my regular Star
mileage hounds, and we had 3BC at booking, some months
ago. Next thing I knew, we lost our seats to 4C and
somewhere in the back of the plane. Last login I moved
us to 12BC, the exit row, which had opened up, but
apparently that didn't take ... crap on Continental,
crap on Shares.

Funny how this 'compassion' thing only goes one way: towards the parents travelling with kids.

Does a honeymoon couple trump a family with (school age) kids who want to sit together? Do the needs of someone with medical reasons for choosing an aisle seat count for nothing compared to a family that wants to sit together?

Do we distinguish between a family who 'wants' to sit together and a family that genuinely 'needs' to sit together?

When are folks (with or without families) going to learn rule number one for improving your chances at a successful seat swap: do NOT ask me to surrender what I consider a 'good' seat for a lesser one!

Example: I'm seated in the aisle seat of a 2-seat exit row. Row behind has three seats, is actually less pitch than other rows in coach (I've made the mistake of sitting there!). Rows are slightly offset, so the window seat of the full row only has 'half' a seat in front - one leg can stretch out, and the window pax can squeeze out alongside the fuselage.

Pax in row 2 window seat comes up to me. He tells me that the lady next to him is his wife and we (he and I) have to switch seats so they can sit together. I politely say 'no, thanks'. Guy goes on and on, louder and louder - she's his wife (middle-aged), they have to sit together, his seat is plenty of extra legroom (I have about 6 feet of 'legroom' in front of me, so this is a real joke). Interestingly, during the entire discussion, the wife never says a word.

Never crossed the guy's mind that he might have had much better luck asking the middle seat pax in his row to swap with the wife's exit row, unlimited leg room seat.

LOL ^

True, but on the other hand, as a seatmate I'd rather have a small kid next to his/her parent rather than on his/her own. As long as the parent makes sure that the kid behaves, of course.

With my wife and kids I like us to all sit together. But I travel quite a lot with my business partner, who always chooses aisle whereas I prefer window. Whenever anyone suggests sitting together, we say it's fine like this. When on the road we're only apart when we go to bed (fortunately!), and sitting (slightly) away from each other provides a nice break from work conversations.

My co-workers and I purposely make sure that we are not sitting together. I see them enough at work I don't need extra time with them.

Unless someone is working togehter on a specific project where they need to sit together, I don't understand why people would purposely want to sit with their co-workers.

I travel with a friend on occasion. We do not attempt to get seats together, sometimes we are lucky and get isle seats across from each other. We make no huge effort. Our thought is, as others have posted, we will see each other the whole trip, sitting together isn't important. More often than not, for at least one flight, we are on a red eye anyway, where we are both trying to get to sleep, not trying to converse with each other. So the only time I have sympathy with seating issues is by passengers who have children, who haven't booked early enough to secure seats together.

The airlines make this a problem too in that they allow "Status" flyers the option of the entire plane. It isn't unsual to find a seating plan where aisle seating is booked leaving not option for lets say families. One way to solve this would be to perhaps save 1 or 2 rows in the back for families with children and should there be none open these seats up during OLCI.