The airlines have engineered this situation in order to extract some extra money out of you. They are inflicting a social externality (annoyance) on both you and other passengers in order to upsell you and profit from the arrangement. That’s why this law is needed.
/shrug
I disagree it is them at the root cause of this inconvenience.
If I were implementing a seating algorithm, my instinct would be to sit members of the same booking together. Presumably members of the same booking are family or friends.
However the actual algorithm the airlines chose to use do not do this. This must be a conscious decision. And the reason for that is they want you to pay extra to sit together.
They have decided to make the deliberate choice to not seat families together.
They have decided that their profits are more important than your annoyance.
Imagine going to a restaurant and they say they are out of steak but here is a burger, but we won't give you the difference because that's what you originally ordered.
What the rule should be is airlines can't charge for seats in the back half of their airplane.
Just take that opportunity. That’s why they’re asking!
Again, it's entirely different if it's a toddler/small child vs a teenager; teenagers are probably happy to be away from the parents for awhile.
It sounds almost like you think a multi-billion dollar company is more important that regular old families.
I know I'm old now because I shake my head at the world we have created with sadness and disgust.
The decision they made was putting the onus on a multi-billion dollar corporation to respect and be kind to families!
The fact they hadn't already done-so is entirely on them, not OP.
If you think there is another decision to be made, you are sorely mistaken.
- OP made the decision to put the onus on a multi-billion dollar corporation to resolve the issue and respect families - good for OP, hell yes, I agree!
- OP also made the decision to inconvenience everyone boarding behind them
Both of these things can absolutely be true at the same time.
Edit: Going further, this is actually a really great way of highlighting how bullshit this policy is. A family, like OP, will make what they view as the best path forward for themselves in this situation, at the expense of inconveniencing everyone behind them. If the root cause is the airline's policy, then this is a great example of how this policy can inconvenience everyone on a plane.
No, the airline did that when they didn't seat the family together.
If a bank has so many convoluted steps it takes me 10 minutes to withdraw cash from an ATM, am I at fault for holding up everyone else waiting to use the ATM? Should I simply not use the ATM at all in fear of delaying others?
The billion dollar corporation did a stupid thing, it is THEIR fault boarding was not as fast as it otherwise could have been, NOT the paying customer's.
The airline gave them the option of sitting together, and OP chose the option that will inconvenience others.
>If a bank has so many convoluted steps it takes me 10 minutes to withdraw cash from an ATM, am I at fault for holding up everyone else waiting to use the ATM?
No, but you are at fault if they give you the option for instant withdrawal for $0.25.
>The billion dollar corporation did a stupid thing, it is THEIR fault boarding was not as fast as it otherwise could have been, NOT the paying customer's.
Did you happen to miss my edit? The one where I highlight that the root is the policy, and the fallout from OP's choice between the two options given to them is a great example of why it's bullshit?
You can stick that.
What if the "instant" option was $25? What if it was $250?
Your logic falls down completely.
I am genuinely horrified you think it's OK for a multi-billion dollar corporation to charge customers - who are already paying for a service - MORE money for a faster service.
That's super kind of you, thanks for the level-headed discussion.
>What if the "instant" option was $25? What if it was $250?
>Your logic falls down completely.
Sort of, I suppose. Again, not saying the policy is OK, just saying that there are different kinds of fallout based on the decisions we make within a fucked up system. You're taking my comment a lot further than you need to be.
>I am genuinely horrified you think it's OK for a multi-billion dollar corporation to charge customers - who are already paying for a service - MORE money for a faster service when it used to be included as part of the original payment for services, and we know very well they could if they wanted to, but they're just gouging customers for every increasingly more money
Please take a deep breath and chill out on the "horrified" and "stick that" rhetoric, and then begin to patiently read through all of my comments on this thread. I have VERY SPECIFICALLY said in this thread that I don't like this policy, either. I have VERY SPECIFICALLY said in this thread that, as a parent, I'm glad that this rule is being proposed. Perhaps they're in response to other people, but they're all in this chain.
You're very right to be passionate about this, but I have a feeling that your emotions are preventing you from having a level-headed discussion at this point. I say this because I've repeatedly told you I don't like this policy, and that the fallout from OP's actions highlights why the policy is bullshit, but you're still telling me that you're horrified that I think this policy is OK. That's not at all what I'm saying, and it seems that others in this chain have understood that fairly well.
If you want to have a good discussion, this, right here, IMO is the reason we have to make decisions "within a fucked up system" (as you put it).
You are letting these companies push you around. You accepted the $0.25 "instant" fee at the ATM, and in fact said I would be an a-hole if I didn't and held other people up because of it. At that point you are a very big part of the problem, because you are not just allowing them to get away with it, you're actively encouraging it, and saying anyone who doesn't is actually the problem.
Stand up for yourself. Stand up for others. Don't take the BS. Don't blame regular folks for what the big corporations are doing, make noise about the corporation is very obviously at fault here and they are the problem making our society worse.
> I've repeatedly told you I don't like this policy
But you clearly don't feel that way strongly, otherwise you wouldn't be saying I'm the bad guy for not paying the extra $0.25 (or $25) "instant" fee at the ATM and holding others up.
Not really. I pick my battles - there are places I fight back, and other places where I may opt not to pick a fight for the sake of convenience. But just because I'm willing to pay a fee within a system that currently exists doesn't mean that I haven't actively worked to elect politicians who have stated that they want to make these changes. There are plenty of other exorbitant fees that airlines charge that I have refused to pay and have worked around on my own, but sometimes I may bite the bullet for the sake of my own convenience while the politicians I supported work to put these proposed rules in place. And wouldn't you know it, this thread is literally about them doing that. Huh...
>You accepted the $0.25 "instant" fee at the ATM, and in fact said I would be an a-hole if I didn't and held other people up because of it.
My exact statement was, "No, but you are at fault if they give you the option for instant withdrawal for $0.25.". At no point have I called you an asshole.
>... and saying anyone who doesn't is actually the problem. ... Don't blame regular folks...
I truly do not understand how I can make what I have repeated about who's truly "at fault" here any clearer than I already have. Good gracious.
>But you clearly don't feel that way strongly, otherwise you wouldn't be saying I'm the bad guy...
Again, with the emotionally-charged rhetoric. Just because one is "at fault" doesn't make one "a bad guy" or an "a-hole". I've never insinuated that you would be a bad person for choosing that option, just like I've never said that OP is a bad person - again, I applauded them for being aware of the impact their decision causes while still being willing to take what they chose as the best path forward for them and their family. Causing people to wait ten minutes because you opted not to pay a fee doesn't make you a bad person - I'm not going to cast judgement because I don't know if the person at the ATM simply doesn't want to pay it, or can't afford it, or what. But that doesn't mean that they're not at fault for making people wait - and that's OK.
Life's fairly nuanced, bud, and sometimes we have to make crappy decisions within a shitty system that we're currently working to fight. That's capitalism for ya, and it sucks. Again, I truly think that you need to go outside and get some fresh air. I'm an outdoorsman myself, and I've stumbled upon your content from time to time - maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to put HN down, hop in your Jeep and go for a drive?
Much love, bud. Hope you and yours enjoy the rest of your day. :)
The OP is acting like parents and kids are the only people who will ever want to sit together.
What happens when OP’s kid is sitting next to another family? You gonna pull off your swap then?
Airlines suck don’t get me wrong. This is someone blaming an airline for bad parenting and/or poor planning ahead.
There you go, algorithm geniuses
Instead the airline makes people pay, or they'll break up a family. That includes the lack of a guardian if there are issues.
100% the airlines' purposeful fault, attempting to extort cash or everyone is in a bad situation. Even the poor flight attendants, their own employees.
As a single dude, I applaud this law, and buddy's attempts to not pay extortion.