IAH-OIL-TRASH

UA does not guarantee seat selection, but most of the time UA recognizes the seat the passenger has indicated preference for and honors it. United charges people to sit in certain seats they want to occupy but UA is free to move them (IRROPS, FAM, bassinet, handicap, ineligibility, etc). As for the inane argument "explain to the flight attendant that there is no such contract for a seat and because it's not taken, it's my preference to sit there" - United controls the seats and a FA, as a representative of UA, can move anyone at will. Your preference holds only if UA recognizes it and decides to honor it. It's in the CoC you agreed to and still don't seem to understand.

ExplorerWannabe

No, at best you're missing the point. The couple in question aren't blocking the third customer from anything. That customer still has an option of buying a seat. Neither of them was planning on sitting in that middle seat until someone showed up. The fact that one of the couple is willing to move is a courtesy by definition -- otherwise they could let the third customer keep his/her/its middle seat.
I've given up my preferred (and usually selected at booking) seat in order to let families sit together (and on a couple occasions even accepted a middle seat to do so) -- by your definition, I kept that family from booking the flight.

The idea that couples or families should be automatically and arbitrarily squeezed into together and forced into middle seating just because they booked on a single PNR in order to "save" that window or aisle seat for someone who might book that flight later is just ridiculous -- and I don't think United is doing this deliberately to mess with the passengers. More than likely the computer system is jumped into an automatic reseating routine that uses standard "Tetris"-style optimization routines without any real thought behind them. Never assume malice when incompetence or negligence serve to explain the situation.

dilanesp

My contention is very simple- that when you pay for 2 seats, you have not purchased the right to control the third one. That third seat is the airline's property, and therefore it is not "generosity" to bequeath it on someone, it is misappropriation of something that belongs to the airline, and a rationalization for not purchasing an EXTRASEAT, which you have every right to do if it is important to you to control that third seat.

Specifically, you are focusing on the person or people you are "helping" but ignoring that there is another person on that plane suffering in a middle seat who could have flown in comfort but is instead suffering because his/her more comfortable seat was taken off the seat map by someone trying to get three seats for the price of two.

​

bocastephen

OMG are we still beating this poor dead horse? Look, no one is “controlling” a third seat by reserving a window and aisle. Again, the airline is free to assign the middle seat to a customer or a customer can reserve it themselves. There is no mechanism by which two people traveling together can influence the occupation of the middle seat.

Are you also proposing a rule that everyone traveling together must be on the same pnr to enforce your seating policy?

Why can’t two people traveling together just sit in the seats they prefer?

ryman554

They certainly can, and I don't think anyone is (or should be) disputing this. However.

There is also no question that the vast majority of folks who are doing this are *secretly hoping* that they are going to get a free open middle seat, especially on long-haul flights like the 10-across 777. (Anybody remember what those airplanes were like?). Some would say it's no different than looking at, say, any seatmap with 3 seats. If the window/other aisle seat is taken, and the other two are empty, I'm going to pick the aisle, so as to optimize my possibility of that middle seat being open. Same game, just don't know my unwitting partner in crime.

Where folks are drawing the line is when the couple decides to move *after* they don't get their middle seat. They tried to game, they lost, and now they want option B, and believe the fact that the middle guy (who may have been just assigned there because there were no other seats available) gets a "better seat" is seen as a benefit and does not see the harm for the earlier solo traveler somewhere else in the plane. Zero sum game, if you ask me, but, on-par, slightly sleazy.

You would put the true test as to two things:
1. If, instead of getting aisle-window-free middle, would the party of two get aisle-window in two completely disconnected rows? Especially if there is a potential free middle available to them in both locations? If not, why? They certainly didn't want to sit right next to each other, so it must be for some other reason they should admit.
2. What does the aisle-window-free middle seat couple do when the middle gets occupied? If they don't interact with one another (ie, don't bother even ask the middle seat guy to swap), then I am 100% OK with this. If they passively-aggressively talk through the middle seat guy and otherwise bother the poor soul, then I have a problem.

My guess is that the vast majority will answer NO to 1, and respond poorly to requests to move from the middle seat in #2. It's the #2 folks that give this game a bad-rap.

Truthfully, I'm ambivalent, as long as folks realize that if the middle seat is occupied, then they lost and shouldn't be trying to re-arrange the airplane when their best laid plans go asunder.

bocastephen

But I don't see how anyone, certainly from the thread comments, has tried to re-arrange the airplane. There are two outcomes - one, the companions keep their window/aisle, or two, they offer the window or aisle to the middle seat person, who I am sure is grateful for the offer. I know in our case the reason we reserved window/aisle is not to "game any system", it's simply the seats we want to sit in, and nothing more. After 20 years, we can handle being 3 feet apart for a few hours, sometimes I prefer it!

ExplorerWannabe

... and that is still missing the point and distorting the situation. The couple in question aren't controlling the third (middle) one. If/when they choose to offer to switch seats, they are giving up a preferred seat. They could just as easily let the middle seat passenger keep his/her seat in the middle. Are some couples gaming the system to try to get more elbow room without paying for an EXTRASEAT? Of course that happens but my impression of the responses about window/aisle seating is that the vast majority of couples selecting window/aisle seating are choosing the seats they prefer, not trying to get extra elbow room for free.

The person who claim is suffering purchased his/her ticket later. S/he is "suffering" by choice and you are misrepresenting the situation when you say the more comfortable seat was taken off the seatmap. I've rarely ever seen couples seated in window/aisle who then slide into the middle and leave one of the more comfortable seats (usually window when it does happen) empty. I would agree with you in that particular situation but like I said, I have very rarely ever seen that.

Oh, I think there is a LOT of question and dispute about that charge. I travel solo and I usually hope the middle seat is left empty but I very much question the premise that a plurality (much less "the vast majority") of couples booking window/aisle are doing so to force an empty seat in between. That kind of gamesmanship is 1) something that seems more prevalent on FT and among self-described "elite" travelers than in the general public and 2) isn't even supported by most of the posts that I've seen on FT.

Boraxo

You have zero evidence to support this assertion, which dozens on this thread have disputed. In fact my wife and I take normally select aisles across from each other. That is probably worse for UA sales as the aisles tend to be the highest demand product as evidenced by pricing and the way seat charts tend to fill as the flight date approaches.

But even assuming your argument is valid, why doesn't UA move my wife from the aisle to a middle seat next to me? The answer, of course, is that this is IT programming that is causing the issue, and not a conscious decision to enhance revenue.

Personally I rarely select a flight based on the seating, the timing, price and airline are the most critical factors. If I have a choice of 3 flights from Houston I might sometimes pick one that has an E+ aisle if another doesn't. But in the end UA is not losing any revenue - I'm not going to defect to Spirit or take a connection on WN because I am stuck in a middle seat on UA. More likely I will wait until another passenger cancels or upgrades, and then snag that seat.

This whole line of reasoning is unsubstantiated by facts and just ludicrous.

ryman554

You know, if you all don't care about not getting the extra seat AND you don't offer to swap seats with the guy in the middle AND you don't bother the guy in the middle by having a conversation when the guy in the middle refuses, then I have absolutely no problem with choosing window/aisle in the same row. You should be allowed to do this, and if United is moving your seats, I'd be a bit miffed.

One question, which I have not heard a satisfactory answer to, why choose the same row instead of any open window/aisle seat?

dilanesp

The last 2 sentences contradict each other. If they were really your preferred seats you would sit in them, whether someone is in between you or not.

If your preference is instead that the seat remain empty, the airline sells that product. You should buy an EXTRASEAT.

And you seem fixated on how grateful the person who receives the property of the airline that you appropriated is. But it wasn't yours to give, and thus, their gratitude is irrelevant.

​​​​

dilanesp

And to be clear, I think a lot of times these debates get hung up on people arguing what they could be doing rather than what they are doing. If I run a red light, I could be taking someone to the hospital. But if I am actually doing something else, that's not relevant.

Back in the days of mistake fares, there was a United $200 international business fare that you could only get by specifying the payment in Danish currency. There were all sorts of claims about how the airline should honor the fare because people "could" have been paying in a weird foreign currency for legitimate reasons. But what matters is what people were actually doing, which was gaming the software.

In this case significant numbers of people are gaming the seatmap. It doesn't matter that there are theoretical reasons to reserve seats like this. Because in actuality people are gaming the map.

Boraxo

And again, I ask, "Where's the beef?"

Just repeating the lie does not make it true.

bocastephen

I really don't want to keep going around in circles with this, you're just wringing your hands over something that does not exist. I like the window seat, period, my other half like the aisle seat, period. We reserve what we want. If the middle seat remains open, then great, if it doesn't then too bad. There is no gaming of the system, and at this point we stopped swapping seats anyway, but you're incorrect in claiming our aisle or window was not ours to give or there is some phony notion of 'gratitude' that we're expecting - it's our seat so it's most definitely ours to give if we want to offer a seat exchange within our group of 3 seats. Not sure why you're not grasping that.

WineCountryUA

This discussion is beginning to sound like a few people repeating the same thing over and over and over.
Does not appear any in this small group having this déjà vu discussion is going to change their mind,
so is not it time to agree to disagree and walk away??

Especially since there is no clear evidence that UA is actively attempting to enforce such a policy? Perhaps that is a more useful subject to the community.

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

SPN Lifer

Help each other with overhead bag stowage and removal. Depart aircraft together to facilitate connection for next flight.