right at the rear of a 747 in one of the seat pairs, couple in front in middle & aisle asked to swap with me and my (unknown to me) seatmate - we just looked at other and said do they think we're stupid :) answer was a resounding no! - who in their right mind would go for a middle unless to be next to a loved one.

I usually start with something offhanded like "Hmmm. :) Looks like Delta needs revenue so badly they sold the same seat to both of us." Then we start with the verifying and relocating and whatever happens next.

But I think it's a nice, non-confrontational way of saying "You're in my seat" that eases things somewhat.

^ I do this now if someone is in my seat. Last time it was on HNL-SFO, I board and see a guy in my seat. I hold my BP up and it shows the same seat number. I quick thought of downgrading zips through my mind, then I notice his 3H boarding pass is for the SFO-HNL...he moves to 2A and all is well.

Usually 10 I think.

It's been awhile since I have had property...my bad.

i witnessed on my ORD-SFO flight this past tuesday both a double booking and a wrong flight passenger.

there was a fella seated next to me in 11A on a 767. towards the end of boarding, another fella comes up and states that the guy is in his seat. compare BPs, which show same flight, date, seat assignment. alas, the latecomer was ushered to the back of the plane, as F and E+ had checked in full.

about 5 minutes later, an announcement comes over the PA for some passenger (forget the name) to return to the boarding area because he was on the wrong flight. not sure how he made it on or how they caught it, though.

What Totoro said.

Plus, IMO, 2-5-2 has a rather significant benefit over 3-3-3 in that the airline can fill 8/9ths of the economy cabin without there being a true "middle" seat situation (person sitting in between two other people). The 3-3-3 cabin can only be filled 6/9ths (2/3rds) before there must be at least one true "middle" seat passenger. Also, the passenger who is sitting in the middle of the 5-seat section in 2-5-2 seating has the choice of either going left or right when he or she needs to go to the lavatory, etc., and only has to get past two people, no worse than is the case for both window passenger in 3-3-3 seating. Yes, I can come up with a few scenarios in which 3-3-3 seating is better than 2-5-2 seating... but I know which I prefer if I am stuck in economy.

By that logic, we should make planes longer and thinner, so we can go with 2-4-2. That way, there's no true middle seat situation.

I used to fly SEA/PDX/SEA every week on a UA EMB 120. I always booked seat 9B, which is the best seat on the plane, IMHO.

Then at the gate I would note the size of my fellow passengers, remember the two largest guys, and make it a point to be the last passenger to board--I had no luggage. Most of the time I found another passenger in my seat. I would then show them my boarding pass and aske them to move, which they always did without argument. Then, after they were settled in their correct seat, I would go up to the largest man on the plane and offer to trade him for my wonderful seat. I am a small person so I don't need much room. These are little tiny planes so everyone on the plane was always totally aware of the exchange. It was a wonderful way to entertain myself on these little flights.

Sorry, I don't agree with your logic. All three people seated on the inside of a 5-section will be a "person sitting in between two other people" so by your own definition are in middle seats. True, only 1/9 will have "center" seats, but I consider all three interior seats of a 5-section to be inferior (sharing the armrests on both sides with other passengers, sitting in between two people, etc.).

Susan

First, I should note that seating preferences are extremely subjective, so I fully expect that there are a wide variety of opinions. It's probably more valuable to have brought that up than anything else -- the original poster should not automatically assume that 99.9% of the world agrees with him/her that 2-5-2 is a spawn of the devil.

I fully agree that in the 5-seat section of the 2-5-2 cabin, there are 3 potentially "middle" seats, but that's exactly the same number of potentially "middle" seats as in the 3-3-3 configuration, so it's a toss-up at that level of tallying goodness vs. badness.

If I go into a more detailed level of tallying, and use "0" to mark a good seat (no neighbor on either side), "1" to mark a decent seat (only 1 neighbor who doesn't themselves have a neighbor), "2" to mark an uncomfortable seat (not "middle" itself, but sitting next to somebody who is a "middle"), and "4" to mark an awful seat ("middle" seat), and "*" to designate an empty seat, then here's what the 2-5-2 configuration can yield vs. 3-3-3 at different levels of cabin fullness:

6/9ths full:
2-5-2: 0*-11*11-*0 (cramped index = 4)
3-3-3: 0*0-0*0-0*0 (cramped index = 0)

7/9ths full:
2-5-2: 11-0*0*0-11 (cramped index = 4; though this isn't quite fair, since that middle-middle seat clearly isn't as good as the middle section aisle seats....)
3-3-3: 0*0-242-0*0 (cramped index = 8)

8/9ths full:
2-5-2: 11-11*11-11 (cramped index = 8)
3-3-3: 242-0*0-242 (cramped index = 16)

9/9ths full:
2-5-2: 11-24442-11 (cramped index = 20)
3-3-3: 242-242-242 (cramped index = 24)

How many different levels of distinction there should be, and exactly what numbers should be assigned to each level to calculate this cramped index, is certainly highly subjective. The above numbers roughly reflect how I feel about economy cabin seating scenarios. (An example of levels of distinction I didn't go into is that I'm not claustrophobic; for those who are claustrophobic, they might prefer being closer to the center of the cabin with its higher ceiling.)

Looking at the numerical results, which I hadn't worked through before giving my intuitive feeling about preferring 2-5-2 seating, I'd be willing to assign the middle-most seat in the 2-5-2 scenario an even higher cramped index, say "6" instead of "4", because he or she is not only stuck between two people, those two people are themselves middle seaters and therefore they cannot freely lean outward the way that the two people flanking a middle seater in 3-3-3 seating configuration always can freely lean outward a bit. And the two middle seats that aren't middle-middle seats :) I could see giving a higher score, too, maybe "5" instead of "4", for similar reasoning... the person in the middle-middle seat can't really yield space, only the person on the aisle can yield space. That would give the 2-5-2 seating configuration a cramped score of 24 for a completely full cabin, same as 3-3-3.

My subjective numbers, therefore, which I don't claim to be superior to anybody else's subjective view, indicate that when the cabin isn't very full (6/9ths), 3-3-3 is slightly better than 2-5-2, but it doesn't matter very much. When the cabin is completely full (9/9ths), there's no difference in crampedness. It's when the cabin is noticeably full but not completely full that 2-5-2 works out better in my opinion than 3-3-3.

This level of analysis also doesn't take into account that there are many parties of 2, parties of 3, etc., and not just solo travelers, and the cramped index score should take into account that people traveling together generally don't object as much to be seated next to each other as strangers. But extending the analysis to that level is way beyond what I'm interested in doing on a Sunday morning.... :)

Looking at these numbers, another reason for me to prefer 2-5-2 over 3-3-3 seating is that on an airline which gives preferential assigned seating to its frequent flier program elite members, the elite members can get seating with lower cramped index scores in 2-5-2 configuration than in 3-3-3, even if totaling the crampedness across the entire row, you get the same total cramped index score. E.g., if elites get seated in the two-seat sections, and the non-elites get seated in the 5-seat section, the elites are noticeably more comfortable. "Hey, it's all about me, right?" ;)

There was a story some time back in (I think) Conde Nast Traveler about some people who were designing a radically different airplane seat, much thinner than the standard ones. It looked more like a modernistic office chair. The claim was that despite its thinness, it was just as safe and comfortable as the current standard seats, but there was worry that passengers wouldn't accept such unorthodox seats, even if it meant they could have more room.

Although actually, no doubt if the airlines installed these thinner seats they would just use the space gained to sardine more of us in the plane, so we wouldn't be any better off.

Incidentally, I've also read that installing all airplane seats facing backwards would reduce injuries and save lives, but nobody does it because people would think it's weird.