Plane passenger defends not swapping seats so mum could sit beside her toddler

A plane passenger has defended their decision not to move seats on an aeroplane to let a mother and her toddler sit together.

It’s entirely based on whether the person actually minds moving or not, which is perhaps an oversight on the part of the airline companies.

In the instance we’re about to discuss, the passenger who was asked to move couldn’t believe the ‘audacity’ of the woman on her flight.

This latest story came – as so many of them do – from a Reddit thread about aeroplane seat etiquette.

Basically, the anonymous poster was asked if they’d swap seats with a mum so she could sit next to her toddler.

The passenger was sat in a bulkhead window seat, whereas the mother was sat in a middle seat behind, which they didn’t see as a fair trade.

So, they refused and remained sat beside the toddler in their allocated seat.

The mum allegedly didn’t ask anyone else to move seats, despite seeming to know them, but seemed bent out of shape that she hadn’t agreed to swap.

The post explained: “Had a woman ask me to change on a TPAC [transpacific] flight from Japan.

“I was bulkhead window and her toddler daughter was in the middle next to me while she was in the middle seat in the row behind me.

"She asked me - and just me - to switch with her so she could have my window seat (next to her daughter) and I’d take her middle seat a row back.

"Hell to the f*** no.

“Not my problem they didn’t book together.

“Worse is we were surrounded by others from her tour group that she could’ve asked for a three-way trade instead. Or the tour operator.

“The audacity to ask just me and expect an inferior trade on my side."

Many asked whether it would really have been better to sit next to a toddler, but the passenger responded: "The combination of a sleeping pill and the fact that she was very well behaved made it a very pleasant trip.

“The mother made a nuisance of herself a bit, likely as punishment for me not moving.

“But once the pill kicked in it was smooth sailing."

Some seemed to agree with her, but – as ever – it’s a divisive call.

One said: “If someone pays extra for a seat, that seat is off the table for negotiations.”

Another wrote: “Piss poor planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine.”

However, another said that the passenger was ‘rude to them for making an earnest request’.

There is another third opinion though, as one comment read: “This encounter would be so irrelevant to my life I'd forget it ever happened.”

Still, it’s a difficult one to call – what would you do?