Shabbat and my United Flight

[joe1234]

Huh?  There was a mistake.  It's not a clear Halachic issue, so deal with it and don't impose on others.  Same thing.

If you order a steak and you get fish, also a mistake do you deal with the fish and eat it or you make a fuss until you get your stake??
It makes a big difference who's at fault for the mistake...

[joe1234]

But the other passengers don't know....

Don't quite understand

[ExGingi]

Huh?  There was a mistake.  It's not a clear Halachic issue, so deal with it and don't impose on others.  Same thing.

I am not going to argue halacha here. We can leave that for a different thread. However in that specific case I stated that I am willing to go off the plane if that was the alternative. I didn't raise my voice, act violently or anything of the sort, I simply stated that I insist on having the seating arrangement I was promised or would not sit down. IIRC we eventually ended sitting behind each other.

And unlike the situation in the OP, I didn't board the plane based on Halachically questionable assumptions. I boarded based on an understanding of a certain seating arrangement that was promised and supposedly verified. Had they told me at check-in that aisle seats across are not available, I would have opted for a different seating arrangement.

[jsk173]

If you order a steak and you get fish, also a mistake do you deal with the fish and eat it or you make a fuss until you get your stake??
It makes a big difference who's at fault for the mistake...

Unless BA and/or El Al have different policies than U.S. carriers, seat assignments are a request/courtesy and not a right.

[YOSEF]

If you order a steak and you get fish, also a mistake do you deal with the fish and eat it or you make a fuss until you get your stake??
It makes a big difference who's at fault for the mistake...

+1

He was told he'd get something. They didn't deliver. Who cares why he made a fuss? What if they were coming back from a business meeting/negotiations and were from different sides of the table, needed to work, and didn't want the other one reading off the laptop? Who cares? They arranged it.

If 3 hassids buy a row of 3 seats so they won't need to sit next to women, and then the airline changes things, is that also okay?

If you want to get into airline policy, that's a different discussion, but if you care about halacha vs optics...

[jsk173]

I am not going to argue halacha here. We can leave that for a different thread. However in that specific case I stated that I am willing to go off the plane if that was the alternative. I didn't raise my voice, act violently or anything of the sort, I simply stated that I insist on having the seating arrangement I was promised or would not sit down. IIRC we eventually ended sitting behind each other.

Did you have checked bags? If so, deplaning would have caused a delay, which qualifies as "imposing on others."

[Aaaron]

If you order a steak and you get fish, also a mistake do you deal with the fish and eat it or you make a fuss until you get your stake??
It makes a big difference who's at fault for the mistake...

Wow, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.  When you don't get what you order and demand a change, it's only imposing on the chef, the guy who made the mistake.  Here it's imposing on un-involved third parties.  Capisce?

I am not going to argue halacha here. We can leave that for a different thread. However in that specific case I stated that I am willing to go off the plane if that was the alternative. I didn't raise my voice, act violently or anything of the sort, I simply stated that I insist on having the seating arrangement I was promised or would not sit down. IIRC we eventually ended sitting behind each other.

That's completely reasonable.  I misunderstood your post where you stated you were "(seemingly) obnoxious."  My apologies

[joe1234]

Wow, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.  When you don't get what you order and demand a change, it's only imposing on the chef, the guy who made the mistake.  Here it's imposing on un-involved third parties.  Capisce?

That's completely reasonable.  I misunderstood your post where you stated you were "(seemingly) obnoxious."  My apologies

Doesn't matter whoever is at fault for the mistake is considered at fault for the imposing on 3rd party's...

[ExGingi]

That's completely reasonable.  I misunderstood your post where you stated you were "(seemingly) obnoxious."  My apologies

Accepted.

Though I think there's a lesson to be learned here about tolerance, open mindedness, and not rushing to judge others, even if they see things differently than we do, or follow a different shita.

[Aaaron]

Accepted.

Though I think there's a lesson to be learned here about tolerance, open mindedness, and not rushing to judge others, even if they see things differently than we do, or follow a different shita.

Where's the fun in that? 

[Yammer]

Don't quite understand

To the majority of the other passengers it looks the same.

[ExGingi]

Where's the fun in that? 

We leave the fun for DDF and DDF DOs.

I was not offended one bit by what you or anyone else wrote, so we can always keep the fun alive.

[jsk173]

Neither intending nor taking offense? What kind of weird site is this?

[henche]

Wow, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.  When you don't get what you order and demand a change, it's only imposing on the chef, the guy who made the mistake.  Here it's imposing on un-involved third parties.  Capisce?

The thing is,  that I assume if there was a nred that you agreed with,  then you'd be ok with it.   But you don't see religious  needs as legitimate.  But they are.

[ExGingi]

Unless BA and/or El Al have different policies than U.S. carriers, seat assignments are a request/courtesy and not a right.

Actually if you read the contract of carriage, you might realize that you pay the airline for their option to take you where you want to go, they are not really obligated to do much, and you have very few rights.

[ExGingi]

Neither intending nor taking offense? What kind of weird site is this?

Thick skin and dull forks.

[jsk173]

The thing is,  that I assume if there was a nred that you agreed with,  then you'd be ok with it.   But you don't see religious  needs as legitimate.  But they are.

I don't think that's a fair reading of his comment(s). Situations like this are a matter of balancing competing interests, not a matter of seeing religious needs/preferences as illegitimate.

[Joe4007]

Wow, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.  When you don't get what you order and demand a change, it's only imposing on the chef, the guy who made the mistake.  Here it's imposing on un-involved third parties.  Capisce?

That's completely reasonable.  I misunderstood your post where you stated you were "(seemingly) obnoxious."  My apologies

The thing is,  that I assume if there was a nred that you agreed with,  then you'd be ok with it.   But you don't see religious  needs as legitimate.  But they are.

Exactly. How would you feel if you booked a business class seat and upon boarding they realized they overlooked and you'd need to fly economy. Would you just take it and not even get off the plane because you'd cause a delay to others?

FTR, personally, I actually would just fly economy, but I'd totally understand someone that wouldn't.

[JTZ]

I am not going to argue halacha here. We can leave that for a different thread. However in that specific case I stated that I am willing to go off the plane if that was the alternative. I didn't raise my voice, act violently or anything of the sort, I simply stated that I insist on having the seating arrangement I was promised or would not sit down. IIRC we eventually ended sitting behind each other.

You had me until this part. Doesn't seem like an incident you wouldn't be sure about.

[henche]

I don't think that's a fair reading of his comment(s). Situations like this are a matter of balancing competing interests, not a matter of seeing religious needs/preferences as illegitimate.

Except that if you see the religious need as illegitimate,  it will always lose.