Shabbat and my United Flight

[shulem92]

The airlines don't verify passengers' religion. Any action taken, by the airline or a passenger, would be based on good faith and nothing else.

But if it were indeed true, and not just alleged, you would be fine with it?

[jsk173]

Do you have specific quotes?

I'm not going to go dig around FlyerTalk, but there have been cases of people being forced to switch seats in order to get planes off the ground. As you yourself pointed out, passengers' rights are few in this area. A seat assignment can be changed by the gate agent for just about any reason, with a refund in the case of a change of class perhaps the passenger's only recourse.

[jsk173]

As I stated before:Once that changes, you might be talking differently about who "deserves" what. (Hint: marriage is not about figuring out who deserves what, but rather that one's spouse is always and at all times entitled to be treated as royalty).

I don't understand your point here. Your spouse literally insisted on not being seated next to you?

[jsk173]

But if it were indeed true, and not just alleged, you would be fine with it?

I'd be fine with what? A passenger being forced to switch from an aisle seat to a middle?

Absolutely not.

[shulem92]

I'd be fine with what? A passenger being forced to switch from an aisle seat to a middle?

Absolutely not.

So why did you write alleged? Even if it is a legitimate religious need, you wouldn't switch. So stop hating on the people who have different religious views/requirements

[ad120]

popcorn...

[ExGingi]

I don't understand your point here.

That too might change with time.

Your spouse literally insisted on not being seated next to you?

Absolutely.

Wouldn't you expect one to be like minded in certain areas with their spouse?

[jsk173]

So why did you write alleged? Even if it is a legitimate religious need, you wouldn't switch. So stop hating on the people who have different religious views/requirements

I wrote "alleged" because the so-called "needs" are ... alleged. There's no way to establish, while standing in an aircraft aisle, whether a claimed "religious need" is really a religious need or if the person — like countless other passengers do every day in other contexts — is simply trying to pull a fast one.

[shulem92]

I wrote "alleged" because the so-called "needs" are ... alleged. There's no way to establish, while standing in an aircraft aisle, whether a claimed "need" is really a need or if the person is trying to pull a fast one.

Hypothetically if you were able to establish that it is a legitimate religious need, would you switch? You already answered that you wouldn't, so why do you insist on writing alleged when you don't care about someone else's religious need. I agree that you're scared for the long run that people will start abusing the system, but right now we are discussing theoretics

[jsk173]

Wouldn't you expect one to be like minded in certain areas with their spouse?

Niddah requires spouses to only sit in aisle seats?

You said you approached the situation as if it was aisle seat or bust, but it seems like hundreds of middle/window seats would have accommodated your "need" as well.

[shulem92]

@jsk173 You're basically discrediting a persons religious needs. Therefore its impossible to discuss anything past this step, if you agree though that a person is entitled to a *legitimate* religious need, then we can move on. Otherwise I'm through here.

[shulem92]

Niddah requires spouses to only sit in aisle seats?

You said you approached the situation as if it was aisle seat or bust, but it seems like hundreds of middle/window seats would have accommodated your "need" as well.

But that also would have required someone moving, so what do you gain? And you yourself agreed that someone has a right to sit next to their spouse

[jsk173]

Hypothetically if you were able to establish that it is a legitimate religious need, would you switch? You already answered that you wouldn't, so why do you insist on writing alleged when you don't care about someone else's religious need. I agree that you're scared for the long run that people will start abusing the system, but right now we are discussing theoretics

I said upfront that people shouldn't be forced to move due to religious needs, and I'm not going to apologize for accurately using the term "alleged" in this discussion.

[jsk173]

@jsk173 You're basically discrediting a persons religious needs. Therefore its impossible to discuss anything past this step, if you agree though that a person is entitled to a *legitimate* religious need, then we can move on. Otherwise I'm through here.

No, you're claiming entitlement where there is none. People are free to have whatever religious views they want so long as those views don't inconvenience someone else. This isn't hard. Other than having an outsized sense of entitlement, not sure why you (and some others) are making it so hard.

[jsk173]

But that also would have required someone moving, so what do you gain? And you yourself agreed that someone has a right to sit next to their spouse

I didn't agree to any such thing. There's no such thing as a "right" to sit next to anyone on a plane. Seat assignments are a courtesy, and that's it.

[ExGingi]

Niddah requires spouses to only sit in aisle seats?

You said you approached the situation as if it was aisle seat or bust, but it seems like hundreds of middle/window seats would have accommodated your "need" as well.

I've already ended my comments on that conversation above. Any comments of mine past my ending comments only address forks in the conversation.

You have yet to respond to my question/challenge to you above, as to a different hypothetical situation and where you would draw the line.

Here's another one for you after you answer my questions to you above. Have you ever studied game theory?

[mmgfarb]

popcorn...

This was inevitable popcorn from the first post.

[ExGingi]

This was inevitable popcorn from the first post.

+1

[jsk173]

Here's another one for you after you answer my questions to you above. Have you ever studied game theory?

I have, and the fact you so shamelessly deployed it to get your way is why passengers rightfully would have been upset at you, not your imagined "jealousy."

[ExGingi]

I have, and the fact you so shamelessly deployed it to get your way is why passengers rightfully would have been upset at you, not your imagined "jealousy."

I said

Here's another one for you after you answer my questions to you above. Have you ever studied game theory?