A United Airlines passenger reports lucking out with an empty middle seat next them right as the doors closed before pushback on a four hour flight. There’s few better feelings, because the single greatest determinant of whether or not you have a good flight is lucking into that extra space. The food tastes better. Flight attendants seem friendlier. You’re just in a much better mood.
Except it wasn’t to be. A woman with her toddler came over and plopped themselves down in that middle seat. She explained that she didn’t have enough space in the middle seat she’d been in further back in the aircraft – so she self-upgraded to “economy plus” extra legroom seats.
That way, she said, she’d be “more comfortable” with her kid – while her husband remained in an aisle seat farther back.
- The passenger in the aisle offered to switch seats with the husband, even though it meant less legroom for him.
- That way the family could be together, he wouldn’t be seated next to the toddler, and he’d still have an empty middle next to him. Sometimes elbow room is more valuable than legroom.
- But the husband declined. He was happy sitting in back (1) with the empty middle, and (2) away from his wife and kid.
- He was literally being offered an upgrade to the extra legroom section, but “[h]e flat out refused no matter what I said or asked.” He didn’t want to sit next to his family.
Then it became clear why the husband did that,
Turns out the reason why is this kid is a nightmare…. Throwing tantrums the whole flight. Kicking, screaming, throwing things at me.
Here’s that middle seat at the end of the flight.
Comment
byu/spidermonkey2947 from discussion
inunitedairlines
Live and Let’s Fly offers several suggestions,
- Tell a flight attendant that the mother self-upgraded into extra legroom seats. United sells those for more money, and generally doesn’t permit free switching in flight to those.
- Move your own seat away from the mother and child, next to the husband. Two can play at that game!
- Actually, the wife should have left the child behind with the husband.
I disagree with the passenger’s conclusion here, though, that “Lap Babies should be banned if not just for a safety reason as we had turbulence and the kid was bouncing and flailing around like it was possessed.”
Requiring families buy an additional seat makes travel unaffordable for many families – and encourages more driving and less flying. That compromises safety because driving is far more dangerous. That sort of rule falls under the concept of ‘statistical murder’. You’re actually costing lives in ways that aren’t directly seen.
Why should I care about a rando passenger? Is it a high status passenger–not in silly marketing terms like 1K or GS, but in real socioeconomic terms like equity partner at Kirkland & Ellis?
The passenger’s conclusion reeks of ignorance. FAA and experts have closely assessed the risks and benefits of lap babies and the conclusion is obviously one that supports the viability of lap babies without their own seats.
This bespeaks a poor understanding of statistics. It’s okay, you’re a non-PhD economist. Consider the counterfactual. If families can’t afford an additional seat, do they drive? Not necessarily. Many won’t travel at all, and that’s even safer than flying. Those who will drive are, by virtue of being with family, likely to drive larger/safer vehicles such as SUVs; they are likely to drive more cautiously in the right lane rather than show off their inferiority complex in the left lane. Further, where driving is a viable alternative to flying–say, New York to DC–the routes are slower and more congested meaning any incident that does occur is much less likely to be fatal compared to, say, rolling over on a barren 80mph interstate in the middle of the country where you are hundreds of miles from the nearest trauma center.
Many will drive locally. But the signficant difference in safety in modes of transportation overwhelms especially because risk of a lap infant is so small.
And a partner at Kirkland is a 1%er but certainly not high status.
Slightly OT and a lot of people will disagree, but I value elbow room over leg room every time. I’m 5′ 9″ and like to use my laptop. I can park my legs, but my arms need room to maneuver.
Regarding the actual story – has all the markings of a made-up tale. I would bet it’s fake.
This is why you put stuff on the empty middle.
Entitled broad and her spawn.
Hey , when a person decided to go on Public Transportation , he gave up his “dibs” on an empty seat next to him . He doesn’t own the airline or the other passengers . It could have been expected that someone would occupy the seat , and in this case it was a mother with an infant . So what ?
Yes, many will drive locally, whether at their home or at their travel destination. Driving away from home, in a rental car on unfamiliar roads, is certainly less safe. In any case, there are no concrete numbers to argue here. Let’s move on.
Let’s start with hard facts. The U.S. income threshold for the top 1% is $800k (for a household). A non-equity partner at Kirkland makes that much (as an individual).
In 2023, the average income of Kirkland equity partners was $7,955,000. That exceeds the 1% threshold but it also exceeds the 10% threshold… my point here being the meaningful threshold is somewhere more rare than 1%.
How about 0.1%. That threshold is $3.3m. That’s less than half of Kirkland’s PPEP. Remember, these thresholds are household income. Kirkland equity partners are often married, and they have or had their pick of singles. Ms. “6’5, finance, trust fund, blue eyes” must not have heard of any white shoe law firms. If she had, the meme would be “K&E, P.C., corp or lit, you name it.”
If you have/had your pick of suitors, your spouse is likely of similar socioeconomic status. Say you make $20m as a rainmaker. (Several partners at Kirkland exceed even this number.) So you pick a spouse, maybe a Paul, Weiss partner, who also makes $20m. Your household income is $40m just from your partnership draws. Add in miscellany such as investment dividends and you are over the $43m gross income threshold to be in the top 0.01%.
Bottom line. To say a Kirkland equity partner is merely a 1%er is an underestimate by a factor of 10 to 100.
Addendum. Class is not determined only by income. Also important is education. All Kirkland equity partners hold advanced degrees. Hedge fund, private equity, and venture capital principals typically do not. Plus, in finance, who know if you reaped the results of luck or skill? The practice of law is unencumbered by stochasticity. Listen to oral argument; of interest to the audience of this blog, I recommend the representation of American Express by a Cravath partner in front of SCOTUS back in 2018. Cravath won for Amex on raw, dazzling skill. That’s high class.
Why the NTSA allows a kid to be in a lap in a seat on a plane but not in a car I have no idea why.
Parents who are too cheap to put their kid in a car seat in plane are the one reason why CPS was established
Why the NTSA allows a kid to be in a lap in a seat on a plane but not in a car I have no idea why.
Parents who are too cheap to put their child in a car seat on a plane should not fly nor drive
@SFO/EWR … What are you on about ?
This was merely a good mother with an infant on a means of Public transportation .
She is owed her portion of The Golden Rule , as are we all .