Preselecting Seating leaving Open Seat between you. Is it gaming?

[burmans]

Well the converse is to disadvantage a person who is part of a couple then isn’t it. Why is that any fairer? Bottom line is that when booking a fare and you are specific about where you want to sit then select the seat or pay to select if needed. First in best dressed. If I book early enough to grab the single seats for our booking then that is my good planning. Perfectly fair as everyone has the same chance to do so.

Well I guess most people's perspective is severely influenced by whether they are singles or couples. But yes, the current Qantas system allows couples to sit together if they seat select or not sit together if that's what they want. And similarly they allow singles to seat select if they want and choose from exactly the same seat options. If they have status that seat selection is free, regardless of whether they are couples or not.

 

[dajop]

Economy class with paid seat selection can add a significant deterrence to some passengers doing it in advance - and makes it wasy for silvers and above to select their A+C seats and chance the system.

But if you're on a carrier like Scoot or Jetstar, where everyone pays for seat selection (either as an add on or through a package), then it is fair game. If you don't want a middle seat, pay for it, and if couples want to pay for A+C or D+F or G+K then it's fair game? I don't think I've ever seen an LCC without aisle or window seats available in advance of check in opening.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

But if you're on a carrier like Scoot or Jetstar, where everyone pays for seat selection (either as an add on or through a package), then it is fair game. If you don't want a middle seat, pay for it, and if couples want to pay for A+C or D+F or G+K then it's fair game? I don't think I've ever seen an LCC without aisle or window seats available in advance of check in opening.

I know I'm repeating myself here - but for legacy carriers, the 'gamers' in A+C aren't selecting their preferred seats. They are doing it for the sole purpose of discouraging someone taking the middle seat. They have no intention of sitting apart if someone gets allocated the middle. So if their plan doesn't work, the only thing they are achieving is making someone miserable in the lead up to the flight.

And perhaps the low cost is a good example. The gamers don't pay for A+C when they think they might have to yield their paid seat to someone allocated B for free?

And i appreciate some on here will pay for A+C because that's where they genuinely want to stay, even if a stranger sits in B. That's a different scenario to the 'gamers'.

 

[burmans]

I know I'm repeating myself here - but for legacy carriers, the 'gamers' in A+C aren't selecting their preferred seats. They are doing it for the sole purpose of discouraging someone taking the middle seat.

Actually would have to disagree, A+C is definitely their preference. Yes they would also like the middle seat to be empty.

Plenty of single hope the seat beside them will be empty too, some deliberately choose seats towards the back of the aircraft for exactly this reason. Is that gaming too?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Actually would have to disagree, A+C is definitely their preference. Yes they would also like the middle seat to be empty.

Plenty of single hope the seat beside them will be empty too, some deliberately choose seats towards the back of the aircraft for exactly this reason. Is that gaming too?

A+C is only their 'preference' if they can get an empty middle though. If they can't get the middle seat free that's no longer their preference. That's the difference. Then they want brownie points for graciously offering the B seater the window or aisle.

A solo hoping for a seat in the middle isn't the same as a couple actively discouraging someone from sitting in the middle.

 

[Moody]

We seem to be stuck in a loop here.

If airlines offer seat selection then they should deliver on that promise. "Operational reasons" should be just that - the aircraft is made more operational by moving you. Some legitimate reasons include :-

• exit row suitability
• pax with young children requiring bassinets
• minors travelling alone
• disrupted pax from other flights
• tight connections

Bumping pax from their selected seat because someone was too lazy to pre-allocate their seat and relies on the DYKWIA factor - that is a failure to provide the advertised service. If the airline has has effectively "oversold" premium seating then there should be compensation paid in line with how more enlightened regions deal with oversold flights.

[Sure - this is a thought bubble generated by World Cup Insomnia, but if it has value then the airline should buy it back]

 

[straitman]

Actually would have to disagree, A+C is definitely their preference. Yes they would also like the middle seat to be empty.

Plenty of single hope the seat beside them will be empty too, some deliberately choose seats towards the back of the aircraft for exactly this reason. Is that gaming too?

A+C is only their 'preference' if they can get an empty middle though. If they can't get the middle seat free that's no longer their preference. That's the difference. Then they want brownie points for graciously offering the B seater the window or aisle.

A solo hoping for a seat in the middle isn't the same as a couple actively discouraging someone from sitting in the middle.

I just caught up with the last few pages of this and I must agree with burmans and disagree with MEL_Traveller.

In Y we will select seats across the aisle or an aisle and window. Sure we hope the middle seat remains empty but really can survive if it doesn't. We don't swap one of us and we don't chatter over the person in the middle. IF we book early enough to get what we want it is not gaming the system in any way, shape or form, it's being smart about what you can and can't do.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I just caught up with the last few pages of this and I must agree with burmans and disagree with MEL_Traveller.

In Y we will select seats across the aisle or an aisle and window. Sure we hope the middle seat remains empty but really can survive if it doesn't. We don't swap one of us and we don't chatter over the person in the middle. IF we book early enough to get what we want it is not gaming the system in any way, shape or form, it's being smart about what you can and can't do.

Several posters have stated their preferred seating is aisle and window, and they specifically want those seats even if someone comes and sits in B. That’s perfectly fine and doesn’t meet the ‘gaming’ scenario.

That’s totally different from those selecting A and C but have no intention of sitting in those seats if someone comes and sits in B. It is this category that is gaming the system. Because A and C are not their preferred seats, their only motive is to try and secure an empty middle.

There was a post about this just the other day where a fellow AFFer was looking for an aisle seat but all that was left were middles. Wonder how many of those middles were artificially created because of the A+Cers?

People can’t have it both ways... they complain if an airline doesn’t sit them together when they’re on the same booking, but then complain when the airline does (by removing the middle).

 

[mannej]

Clearly you cant read. I initially took them to a "tribunal" and they successfully argued that VCAT, as a tribunal, didn't meet the requirements of the Act, that a claim be brought in a "court". Hence I had to discontinue one portion of the VCAT action, and recommence it in the Magistrates Court.

But thanks for your valuable input.

Pot Kettle black? I clearly acknowledged it a few posts later. I'd consider snipy remarks to be of less value in this forum...

Ooops - I must have lost that in the waffle amongst other things.

 

[straitman]

Several posters have stated their preferred seating is aisle and window, and they specifically want those seats even if someone comes and sits in B. That’s perfectly fine and doesn’t meet the ‘gaming’ scenario.

That’s totally different from those selecting A and C but have no intention of sitting in those seats if someone comes and sits in B. It is this category that is gaming the system. Because A and C are not their preferred seats, their only motive is to try and secure an empty middle.

In your opinion. Not everyone agrees with that opinion.

There was a post about this just the other day where a fellow AFFer was looking for an aisle seat but all that was left were middles. Wonder how many of those middles were artificially created because of the A+Cers?

People can’t have it both ways... they complain if an airline doesn’t sit them together when they’re on the same booking, but then complain when the airline does (by removing the middle).

Some do and some don't. You assume that everyone whinges whereas I believe that many don't and it's only the minority that do.

ie IMHO your whole summation is incorrect.

I think the issue of refund is a bit tricky. If a passenger breaches the terms and conditions such that they are deemed not fit to fly, that’s potentially lost revenue to the airline (who could have sold the seat to someone else). Why should the airline be out of pocket?

However, the decision to refuse carriage may be subjective. If the airline want to rely on that there should perhaps be the requirement for an independent third party opinion, for example the police, who could confirm the facts (for example use a breath test for intoxication, or have witnessed aggressive behaviour, or viewed it on CCTV).

I fully agree with this post.

 

[Pushka]

People can’t have it both ways... they complain if an airline doesn’t sit them together when they’re on the same booking, but then complain when the airline does (by removing the middle).

That oversimplifies the issue. If airlines offer the option to status passengers or those who pay to select their seats, then those seats should stick unless there are true operational reasons for change. And by that I don’t mean a CL tramps your seat but the plane configuration itself is changed.

I would be one of those that selects aisle and window and we stay there regardless of whether someone else is in the middle.

However if an airline changes our pre selected seats without asking us first ( and that might be to separate us or conversely puts us together) without any rationale other than they think we want to sit together or conversely, for some weirdness, decide to separate us then of course I’ll speak up. And have had to do so several times. If you don’t bother to pre select seats then you can’t expect to be seated together.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Some do and some don't. You assume that everyone whinges whereas I believe that many don't and it's only the minority that do.

I have yet to read a where a family or couple has been happy being involuntarily split up by an airline when it comes to seating! Here’s an example:
Ryanair investigated by BBC over claims it is deliberately separating families who refuse seating charge

 

[Pushka]

I have yet to read a where a family or couple has been happy being involuntarily split up by an airline when it comes to seating! Here’s an example:
Ryanair investigated by BBC over claims it is deliberately separating families who refuse seating charge

I think that’s a media beat up. Don’t pre select and you get what you get

 

[straitman]

I have yet to read a where a family or couple has been happy being involuntarily split up by an airline when it comes to seating! Here’s an example:
Ryanair investigated by BBC over claims it is deliberately separating families who refuse seating charge

I hope that was a deliberate play on words: 'happy being involuntarily split up'

In any case I know of several cases.

 

[Pushka]

What happened there?

 

[mannej]

What happened there?

Thread split? Not all posts in the correct thread?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Don’t pre select and you get what you get

For a family of four to the USA that’s what, $280 return now? If these occasional travellers even know they need to select seats, i wouldn’t blame them for baulking at that price.

 

[straitman]

Give it time

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I hope that was a deliberate play on words: 'happy being involuntarily split up'

I don’t get what you mean? I’m sure there will be instances where an upgrade request might come through where the couple is happy to be split up (= voluntary). But in other cases where couples expect to be seated together they wouldn’t be happy to find themselves seated rows apart.

 

[Pushka]

For a family of four to the USA that’s what, $280 return now? If these occasional travellers even know they need to select seats, i wouldn’t blame them for baulking at that price.

It’s all about priorities then isn’t it.