Typically, I don't switch if it is aisle to window in F. However, on a recent flight a much older gentleman must have received a last minute upgrade and got the window seat behind me. He politely asked his seatmate if she would switch because he uses the lav frequently and in turn, she politely declined. I felt bad for him though because he did indeed have to get up at least 5 times. In this case I probably would have switched, even though I detest the window. Of course, in hindsight now, I should have offered my aisle :(

"Serving one's own interests, especially without concern for the needs or interests of others."

I would say that is exactly what the stranger is doing. I wouldn't say I am being self serving. I ask, and if they say no that is that.

Really what is comes down to his how much someone values the unique characteristics of each seat vs. the value of sitting next to your companion. I assume those of you who refuse to switch never ask anyone else to switch then? If so at least you are consistent and to each his or her own.

You misunderstand. There is nothing wrong with asking. What is wrong is having attitude when you are turned down. In your original post, you indicated that you would decide for someone else whether a seat was "better" or not, and then judge them negatively when they didn't agree.

If you want to sit next to your companion, book two seats together. Don't expect strangers to remedy what is solely your problem.

I feel we just have a fundamental difference in how empathetic we are to a stranger's plight and how willing we are to help them out.

"I can't sit next to my wife because I couldn't be bothered to book seats together," is not exactly what I would call a plight. I am not willing to "help out" a stranger to my disadvantage when they couldn't be bothered booking together, accepted an upgrade knowing the seats were apart, or, for that matter, took the same risk we all do that flights would misconnect or that equipment might be changed. You're expecting that I be altruistic to my detriment for your benefit. Why? When I fly, I expect that passengers do their best to not impose on me and I, in turn, do my best to not impose on them. You seem to have forgotten the difference between asking a favor and demanding an entitlement.

Christian <> doormat

As for the "couldn't be bothered to book together" - usually when upgraded you have no control. I don't know if UA is different than AA, but when upgrading myself an a companion we are rarely placed together and since a bunch of upgrades clear at once, there is often no opportunity to place us together. Obviously this is a risk, and assuming no one willing to switch, I'd still rather sit apart in F than together in Y so I take the upgrades.

Thank you for bringing up altruism. The very definition is a 'selfless concern for the welfare of others'. I would consider my self quite altruistic in this regard, always being willing to switch (even at a detriment) to let a couple sit together. It seems, based on the following comment (as it applies to airline seat swapping - no comment on any other part of your life) "You're expecting that I be altruistic to my detriment for your benefit." The fact you would only consider swapping when it would be to your benefit which would be the opposite of altruism.

I never demand a seat, I am asking favor and it can be declined. All I was saying is that if a person declines (not altruistic) I would think less of them. I think I am just going to go back to my fundamental difference between us.

Of course you have control. If being seated together is critical for you, don't accept the upgrade.

On UA you can request to not be upgraded.

Fine. That's a valid option. Having attitude towards those who don't wish to switch is not.

Good for you. I don't agree.

It would, indeed. Note, however, that I didn't say I'd never switch to my detriment. I gave a specific circumstance in which I wouldn't do so. There are other circumstances in which I would and have. I didn't think I'd ever find myself agreeing with black dawn, but being altruistic doesn't mean being a doormat.

It is indeed. I don't form negative judgments about people when I am denied a favor, particularly when I don't know the reasons why.

There was one time when I was traveling from MSP - GEG where I had an isle and my friend had a window in the same row. The person in the middle offered to switch seats with one of us so we could sit next to each other and we both politely declined. As long as the airlines will let two people on the same itinerary book seats that way I will (this works well in JB's EML seats as I imagine very few people will pay extra to sit in a middle seat).

[bolding mine]

I say again, really? Any loss to you is trivial? Wow.

So for example, let's say you were flying by yourself, seated in 4A. And then the pax sits down in 4B and tells you he got upgraded but his partner didn't. And he sure would appreciate it if you could switch with his partner back in Y, because that way he and his partner would enjoy their flights so much more.

Switching would be to your detriment, but it would be the altruistic thing to do. And your in-flight experience as a solo flyer is not as important as experiences had by couples - that's your thesis, right?

Or do you too draw a line at some point? ;)

thanks :D

My husband would pay extra for a middle seat with more legroom (he's an ex-football player).

Ah, so much for loving thy neighbor.

that order applies to everyone, so the two cancel each other out when it comes to seat swapping

No, the order applies to ALL of humanity. Those who choose to disobey God will not enter the kingdom of heaven.