He got the advantage because he was a nice, not racist person, not because he was black. The lady was not nice and was racist, so she didn't get the advantage. He didn't get the advantage because he was nice, he got it because of she not being. He was just standing there and, if he was white, he wouldn't get a better seat. I don't think it was fair that she kept her place without the black man to "injure her heritage" and he got a better place. Both got what they wanted, instead, the lady should be penalized and kicked from the flight, and the man was supposed to stay on the seat he bought. I still fail to see how that's reverse racism. She didn't upgrade him because he was black, she upgraded him to spite the racist white lady. But if he wasn't black, he wouldn't be upgraded. Now imagine that same attittude on other enviroments, like companies, universities and any competitive situations. That would be an unfair advantage, pretty much the same (or worse, because it would be politically correct attittude to take) as the white have gotten for the last hundreds of years, which is considered racism. Get my point? jeeeeeeeeeeeeez....... and no i dont get your point the way i see it is he got upgraded because she wanted him to (she didnt care where he went) it fit the flight seats so he got in its merely a stroke of luck for him (and her?)