dilanesp

There are two differences:

1. Collusion. In one example, it's simply random and fortuitous that the two people reserve those two seats. In the other situation, they are intending to do it. Which means that while it is X% likely in the one situation, it's 100% likely in the other. Which means good seats are being taken off the map more often by couples.

2. Having said that, again, if the FA's were complete authoritarians and forced couples to sit in their assigned seats when they did this, the needed deterrence would be attained. But in the real world, couples are doing this with the intention of taking what they appropriated and giving the aisle or window seat away to the hapless basic economy passenger who gets assigned the seat between them. So the airline has to deal with what people are doing in the real world, and not what people in theory could be doing but aren't all doing.

LifetimeGS

Every non basic economy passenger is equally entitled to chose an available seat of their choosing - there should be no couples penalty that determines what seat one of a couple may choose - so suggest otherwise is simply flawed logic.

Boraxo

this is 100% nonsense with zero logic or supporting evidence.

in the real world most of us actually prefer window or aisle and nobody in my family wants to “take one for the team” by switching to a middle seat. We are Perfectly content to have a stranger there and it make sense that somebody who paid less (BE) and is nonelite should sit there.

also in the real world many BE passengers would be delighted to switch to the aisle or window if offered the choice.

dilanesp

You can't view the "choosing a seat" as a separate issue from "depriving another traveler from choosing a favorable seat" or "giving the airline's property away to the middle seat holder on the plane". Those two things are what make the practice wrong, and the airline should definitely do everything it can to deter it.

That's the point! The airline would rather one of its best customers get the opportunity to get that aisle or window seat rather than the property being appropriated by 2 travelers who are not willing to pay for the EXTRASEAT to be "given" to some BE passenger.

I really don't understand why, if having that middle seat is so important, travelers can't just pay the airline for it. Airlines are selling products like rows of economy seats on international flights. There's an option for travelers who want an empty seat in between them, and it is fairly priced. Travelers should buy it.

jmastron

This thread was idle since May with no new reports of seats being rearranged just before the flight this way. My strong suspicion is that United is no longer running whatever process was doing so. I still think this stems from the pretend middle-seat blocking that was in place from around March-July 2020, which resulted in lots of bookings from couples, families, etc. that were spread out because the middles had been X-ed out at the time. The latest of those reservations would have been for flights around May (330 days), and I'm pretty sure that's when this particular reseating stopped. There are plenty of other reasons seats get reassigned, but this was pretty specific.

rittenhousesq

The issue is not trying to prevent the middle seat from being booked, but two travelers on the same PNR being able to choose a seat based on their preference. I prefer window and my partner prefers aisle. So when we are in economy we book our usual seats 21AC. Yes of course we *hope* that the middle seat stays empty but there is nothing ethically dubious about simply siting in your preferred seat. In recent flights, if the middle seat became occupied, we still kept our original assignments.

trm2

By this logic one should always pick the stink shield seat because someone else might want that window or aisle seat.

SPN Lifer

This argument would get laughed out of court, and UA Executive Offices as well.

Why are solo travelers not buying that EXTRASEAT? For the same reason as those on a two-person Passenger Name Record (PNR) — they are willing to accept a middle seatmate if UA so assigns.

UA knows the revenue generated from each customer. The persistence of this absurd claim that selection of an aisle and window seat should be charged more on a single PNR than if on two separate PNRs is absolutely hilarious.

bocastephen

Indeed, this constant braying about gaming the system is really getting old. Some of us simply prefer different seats, and if someone is assigned to the middle, we almost never offer them a window or aisle, we keep our seats because that's exactly where we want to sit. If I preferred an aisle seat, we would just choose opposite aisles, but I just prefer a window, and that's that. After 20+ years together, it's surprising that we can tolerate 3 feet of separation for a few hours, but we actually can, and sometimes prefer it.

rittenhousesq

The other flaw in that argument is the idea that UA would rather a couple on the same PNR pay for the extra seat than leaving it empty. I'm sure UA would much rather have a paying customer purchase that middle seat that they could potentially make ancillary revenue off with baggage fees, BOB beverages and snacks and so forth. I don't think Mr. EXTRASEAT would be interesting in paying for a bag of chips or a beer! I was also wondering what Mr. EXTRASEAT might be like? Definitely not a hint of a sense of humor! ;-)

WineCountryUA

Yes, with no recent posts this thread has outlived it's useful.
Recent post are mostly repitive posts by a small group, with little new contributive value.

Time to close
WineCountryUAUA coModerator