After all this time, I think only one poster has managed to hit the nail on the head:
Originally Posted by
ChrisVJ
"Every passenger shall sit in his/her assigned seat."
"Passengers shall obey the instruction of the crew."
Simple. CC assign that passenger to that seat and the swapper to theirs. Passengers sitting in assigned seats and following instruction of CC.
Simple fact (from evidence available) is that the CC refused a perfectly reasonable request for a mutual seat swap. That was the totally avoidable issue here. People talk about respect - it goes both ways. Passengers need to respect the crew, and the crew need to respect a father's desire to be sitting next to his wife and infant, and accommodate if possible.
Refusing a reasonable request which had no safety grounds for refusal would absolutely make my blood boil if it meant I would spend the next 4 hours sitting away from my wife and infant for no bloody reason.
Hopefully I wouldn't end up full-on Michael Douglas Falling Down, but I would be very pissed off. Keep in mind that a father of a new-born has an elevated protective instinct over the average male - human nature.
For all of you arguing aviation law - it's irrelevant. He's been charged with resisting arrest. Nothing to do with aviation law. However, an interesting point has been raised in the process: that annoying word "safety" keeps appearing. What was unsafe about this mutual seat swap?
One poster continually implies that the CC are powerless to authorise such a seat swap, in which case the inflexibility lies with the Airline - I'm not sure whether to believe that. I've swapped seats many times over the years - sometimes with CC approval, sometimes without their knowledge, sometimes at their request so two family members can sit together!
So, I don't get why it was a problem on this occasion.