Submitted by tomfoolery77 t3_11cl9et in tifu
TheMelv t1_ja6q7oz wrote
Reply to comment by deva5610 in TIFU by giving away a seat that wasn’t mine. by tomfoolery77
"I'm not seated with my kid, I honestly don't mind but whoever gets stuck next to my toddler might." There's no risk, I never pay extra to sit together, they always just fix it for you. That's a crap policy, honestly. Call their bluff every time and still get stuck sitting next to my own kid for free every flight.
deva5610 t1_ja6sth0 wrote
>Call their bluff every time and still get stuck sitting next to my own kid for free every flight.
Sure, but that's a gamble you're willing to make.
One day the airline might not have empty seats to swap you around on to, or someone might not be willing to swap and if that happens that's something you (or someone else risking the same outcome) could've prevented by choosing seats.
It's not the airlines fault is my only point.
dem0n123 t1_ja7uo7a wrote
It is the airlines fault since they are creating a problem out of thin air hoping you'll pay them to fix it.
briansaunders t1_ja9e0j5 wrote
Could you imagine booking into a restaurant and not being seated together unless you paid extra
laplongejr t1_jacl45g wrote
Tbf some restaurants advertise menu prices that always require an extra. But you know, that's called fraud.
laplongejr t1_jacl1g4 wrote
> and if that happens that's something you (or someone else risking the same outcome) could've prevented by choosing seats.
If that happens that's something the airline could have prevented by either not making it an extra option, or forcing the increased price to parents.
Advertising the low price, but expecting parents to ALWAYS pay extra "for the benefit of everybody else" is entirely the airline fault.
> It's not the airlines fault is my only point.
"I don't make the rules, ma'am. I just think them up and write them down."
deva5610 t1_jaco61l wrote
>Advertising the low price, but expecting parents to ALWAYS pay extra "for the benefit of everybody else" is entirely the airline fault.
No, because in this case we've been talking about the parents complaining about being away from their little sprogs, not about who might get stuck beside them. So in this case the fee is for their benefit.
If they choose not to pay then that is entirely on them.
[deleted] t1_jacs68h wrote
[removed]
Csherman92 t1_ja7jypi wrote
That sounds like a personal problem. If you want to sit next to your kid—pay for it. I paid extra for my husband and I to sit together on our honeymoon. No sympathy for the parent who isn’t sitting with their kid. Unless an emergency happens and they get jumbled around.
TheMelv t1_ja7qmx9 wrote
Except I don't have a problem. I honestly wouldn't mind sitting apart but I'm not a selfish monster and assume it's better for the people that get stuck next to a whiny kid the whole flight so I inform them at the gate.
It's a cash grab for the airlines.
Csherman92 t1_ja7x6ed wrote
I’m inclined to agree with you—but if I wanted an aisle seat/window and you didn’t pay for it and I did, I’d be pissed off if you asked, although if I am traveling by myself, I probably would switch. I’m not a selfish monster either, but if I pay extra for my seat and you don’t, well you shouldn’t be upset when someone doesn’t want to move.
TheMelv t1_ja8038c wrote
Yeah I would never ask anyone to switch their end seat for a middle and I would almost definitely decline if someone wanted me to switch from an end to a middle seat.
I rarely ask to switch seats personally myself, I meant I inform the airline agent and they switch things around on the computer.
[deleted] t1_jabyx5o wrote
[deleted]
Adobe_Flesh t1_jabnot8 wrote
A race to the bottom and people defend it
Csherman92 t1_jac1yab wrote
It’s just the principle of thing. If I have to pay more to be accommodated so should you . I do find it ridiculous that we have to pay to sit next to someone. It’s ridiculous
laplongejr t1_jackcd6 wrote
>That sounds like a personal problem.
Their point is that as long the kid is fine, it is NOT a problem for the parent, but for whoever ends next to the child if he misbehaves. The airline is saying "if you don't pay, we'll force you to put your misbehaving child somewhere we won't let you control him"... but "parent has to handle the child" is a benefit for everybody in the airplane which is NOT the child of the parent, so it's everything BUT a personal problem.
Basically if you pay the airline, you can still end next to the child of somebody who didn't pay extra. It's the "reverse protection" system that you can also see with Certificate Authorities : you pay to provide an advantage to another party, yet it is advertised as receiving said advantage. It only works if EVERYBODY pays extra, else nobody gets the benefit of having no misbehaving child.
Csherman92 t1_jad21x8 wrote
It's selfish and entitled. Poor planning on her planning doesn't constitute and emergency on anyone else. That's the point.
I hate entitled people, and this is the definition of it.
laplongejr t1_jad4jpl wrote
> It's selfish and entitled.
Yeah, sure.
> Poor planning on her planning doesn't constitute and emergency on anyone else. That's the point.
Except that in this case, the situation from the airline creates an emergency for everybody else but the bad parent. It literally punishes good parents and rewards bad parenting.
> I hate entitled people, and this is the definition of it.
Yeah and the airline asks extra payment for parents who don't feel entitled. We always go back to the airline for considering that normal.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments