5 ms·

> 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 res

by 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 ago
I 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.
  - jjulius 2y ago
    >No, the airline did that when they didn't seat the family together. 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?
    - grecy 2y ago
      > No, but you are at fault if they give you the option for instant withdrawal for $0.25. 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 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
      - jjulius 2y ago
        >You can stick that. 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.
        grecy 2y ago

by grecy 2y ago

jjulius 2y ago

I 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.
- jjulius 2y ago
  >No, the airline did that when they didn't seat the family together. 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?
  - grecy 2y ago
    > No, but you are at fault if they give you the option for instant withdrawal for $0.25. 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 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
    - jjulius 2y ago
      >You can stick that. 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.
      - grecy 2y ago