6 ms·
It is interesting you make it sound like it is that person's fault the airline did not seat their family together. It sounds almost like you think a multi-bill
by grecy 2y ago
It is interesting you make it sound like it is that person's fault the airline did not seat their family together.
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.
- enthulhusiastic 2y agoSeat booking is hard. If a parent chooses the option of unattended seating, that’s just the reality of limited resources. 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.
- enthulhusiastic 2y agoOh… hackernews…
- metabagel 2y agoSeat booking isn't hard. It's a solved problem, for decades.
- enthulhusiastic 2y agoTwo seats are free on a plane, but each is in a row of three, and each of those rows already has a couple. Book 2 seats side by side. There you go, algorithm geniuses
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Scoundreller 2y agoThen why do airlines keep fiddling with it?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- frumper 2y agoTo get more money from passengers.
- jjulius 2y agoI never said that it's OP's fault that airlines don't seat families together, I just highlighted the impact of the decision OP made in that moment. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I (as a parent of kids) am completely onboard with this proposed rule and have wanted it for a long time.
- grecy 2y ago> I just highlighted the impact of the decision OP made in that moment 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.
- jjulius 2y agoI don't think there's another decision to be made - I'm fine with them making the decision, especially because they're self-aware (hence my saying that I appreciate them admitting that fact). - 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.
- grecy 2y ago> - OP also made the decision to inconvenience everyone boarding behind them 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.