dilanesp

Couples who do this certainly are taking something from the airline and other passengers without paying for it, although it takes some thought to define what it is.

What they are taking from the airline is an empty desirable seat on a seatmap. That can be the difference between a purchasing decision and a decision not to purchase. Obviously the amount that it costs the airline isn't huge, but it isn't zero either. And importantly it is something they charge for (EXTRASEAT). So it is correct of the airline to try and prevent it from being taken without paying for it.

In addition, though, EVERY time this is done on a reasonably full flight, it is also a direct theft from another passenger. Because had the couple reserved aisle-middle or window-middle, that preferential seat would be available for another passenger. Now, people say "well we give it to someone if the middle is filled". Yes, but that person you give it to may be on a basic economy ticket while you stuck some passenger on a more expensive ticket in a middle.

The central point is it isn't yours to give. The airline gets to decide who sits in that seat.

Three cheers for United for trying to stop this.

Lefleur

Whaaaat?!

Under your logic, every person should buy the first available seat (regardless of window, middle, or aisle and their preference) in their assigned cabin, whether traveling solo or with others. After all, even if you are traveling alone and purchase a window and/or aisle, you are (in your words) taking from the airline an empty desirable seat on a seatmap.

There is no difference in these scenarios:

1. Person A and Person B are traveling together and buy tickets together on one PNR, book Window/Aisle Seats
2. Person A and Person B are traveling together and buy separate tickets, one books Window, one books Aisle
3. Person A and Person B are wholly unaffiliated with one another and buy tickets on the same flight, happen to buy at a similar time on the same row - one books Window and one books Aisle

In all of the above scenarios no one wants to buy the middle seat.

I like windows. A friend I often travel with likes aisles (and has personal needs why aisle works better). When we fly together we buy A/W seats. It's not about "stealing an extra seat." It's about our individual flying needs. Even if I was traveling alone, I'd buy window. Even if friend was traveling alone, they'd buy aisle. So when we travel together, we are no longer allowed to have preferences or needs?

I assume you buy the first available seat you find - whether aisle, middle, or window - every time you fly? Because after all, you'd be taking from the airline otherwise...

Or are you suggesting that solo travelers, who bring in less revenue for the airline (after all, solo travelers are buying 1 ticket...), should be treated preferentially?

SPN Lifer

Is the aisle-aisle combination safer, in recent experience?

dilanesp

If you reserve the seats intending to sit in them even if someone sits between you, there is no theft. Then you are just reserving the seats you prefer.

If you reserve the seats because you are trying to keep the middle open, and intend to give a window or aisle away if the middle fills, then it is a form of theft of services, because you are not paying the required fee (EXTRASEAT) for the right to do that, and you are taking from the airline the ability to sell the seat so you can give it away yourself on the plane if necessary.

Boraxo

With all due respect this makes no sense.
If you buy 2 seats you are free to select your preferred seats. If you have elite status then the airline lets you select certain seats without paying another fee. If not you pay extra for E+ or certain aisle seats, etc.

The airline is free to sell the middle seat, which is usually the least desirable. You have not deprived the airline of any revenue from that seat. If you decide later to request a "trade" with the person who bought the middle seat that does not deprive the airline of any revenue. The airline was already paid for all 3 seats and received any associated seat rez fees.

If the airline wants to force couples to take an aisle/middle or middle/window it can implement policies to do so. Of course that will cause many of its most profitable customers to bail as we value advance seat assignments. Why should my wife be forced into a middle seat if she wants an aisle, too? Why should we have to book separate tickets to achieve that? No logic there.

fumje

The nominally-final tail assignment is at about 3 days out, but when might subtle changes like A319-19F to A319-19G occur? At any time?

I felt quite sure this happened to me once or twice late last year without any change to aircraft config, schedule. I think once was 739 and once was a 772, so there could have been changes to the configuration version that I missed. (Too bad I didn't post while my memory was fresher.)

dilanesp

It would appear that the airline rejects your logic. I suspect the airline's most profitable customers are either (1) up front or (2) are harmed occasionally by people who do this, because they book late at a higher fare and have to take a middle seat because of people who do this.

I suspect as well that travelers who pay for an EXTRASEAT are also more profitable to the airline than people who do this.

Having said this, at this point we are rehashing the other points so I won't go further. Like in many things, situational ethics reigns here, and people who like doing something are unlikely to credit the ethical argument against what they want to do.

fumje

Although I don't think you're wrong in your logic philosophising about potential theft, I do think you're focusing too narrowly with that argument to form a sound conclusion.

The airline grants advance seat selection to some passengers/tickets, and it has no stipulations attached that multi-passenger parties must seat themselves together. Thus, there is no imperative to choose seats together, whether paying for the selections or not, nor is there an obligation to only ever choose the seat you will ultimately fly.

When I am travelling alone, if loads are light, I may choose a seat in some relatively forward row (E+ seat selection fee maybe $40, but I don't have to pay). However, if someone else then later chooses a seat in the same row, I may move farther back to another row without seats chosen yet (E+ seat selection fee maybe $30). In that case, potentially I have blocked a higher-priced seat for some time, and the airline may have lost the differential amount for anyone who purchased another farther-back row because I was occupying the forward row. Have I really stolen $10 from the airline? I don't think so, because I am adhering to their stated terms, and I have acted in good faith at all times. I always intended to sit in the seat I chose; it is only that something changed externally, and that caused my desire to change.

Notably also, if I select aisle + window, and no passenger selects this middle, then my companion and I do actually sit aisle + window, i.e. we have sat in the seats we selected, as we intended to do, which meets the criterion you proposed earlier.

dcpdxtrans

Dead wrong on theft. There isn't any. If UA wants to change its rules, it can. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason why a couple cannot choose a window aisle combo, esp in F!!! Notably, my wife likes window, and I like the aisle.

And here is another thought: when sitting in F and there are only window seats, I never have an intention to stay in that window seat even though I select it. Does that mean I am committing theft since I have no intent? The original logic is flawed.

WineCountryUA

As there are no middle seats (except the 772HD), not sure of the applicability of this discussion to any F seating. This discussion is about the practice in economy and UA's actions of changing seat assignment in these cases.

dcpdxtrans

I was making a joke about F. However, same logic applies to E+ (or E for that matter). There is no (legal) theft for engaging in conduct that is allowed pursuant to the rules. If one wants to call it unethical or more likely, lacking good faith, that is a different argument.

dilanesp

​​​​​​
That point is banally true about the law, but "are you depriving the airline of something of value?" is also a definition of theft.

Boraxo

What is unethical about buying a ticket where the price includes selecting the seats that you are entitled to select? If both my wife and I paid for aisle seats across what is unethical about selecting them? Or changing seats later when other people cancel their tickets or change their seats?

Similarly what is unethical about selecting an aisle and a window seat if each person prefers those seats? Putting aside COVID risks (which can be debated in that forum) what ethical tract requires travelers to select a seat that they don't want?

If anything the airline has an obligation to act in good faith when - for whatever reason - it is unable to honor the original seat selection and must assign new seats.

Do I have some ethical obligation to save a prime aisle or window seat for a stranger? Do I have some obligation to ensure that UA maximizes revenue on every flight? (If so we all better start buying unrestricted economy fares).

The whole premise is absurd.

bocastephen

This makes absolutely no sense. No one is depriving the airline of anything, if they want to sit someone in the empty middle between other traveling companions, who is stopping them? Let's be realistic and not randomly throw the "T" word around. I like the window, my other half like the aisle, we book window/aisle, that's how we roll. If no one is assigned to the middle, we win, if someone get assigned to the middle, sorry for them, neither of us are moving our seats.

dilanesp

One indicator that this may actually be depriving the airline of something valuable is that they are trying to stop the practice.