Southwest Airlines Baby Birth Certificate

[gdrj]

hmmm, lots of yea but...

If its the law, and SW decides to be uniform with the decision on how to verify they are compliant with the law, not sure what the issue is. Its their policy on what they require. If another airline chooses to verify or "eyeball" age of a child that is their prerogative. As someone above mentioned, some restaurants card every one who orders a drink, others if you look under 40 or 30. The law is 21 years of age, how companies chooses to stay compliant is their choice (within the confines of being legal).

 

[gdrj]

Not argumentative, but like you and everyone here, I can have a difference of opinion. I don't agree with the methods but if it's a rule they should stick to the rule and not bend it when money is involved. That's just my opinion. Everyone else stated theirs so I should be able to state mine. Not agreeing with someone is not being argumentative. Apparently you don't like others not agreeing with your opinion.

I could be wrong but its not a money thing. Once the child has a paid seat they are NOT a lap child, they have an assigned seat, so the regulation and requirement for proof of age is no longer a requirement. The issue isn't free or not free it is having an assigned seat.

 

[ziggystardust]

Is a photocopy of the birth certificate sufficient?

 

[Alesia]

Is a photocopy of the birth certificate sufficient?

No.

 

[KrazeeK120]

As someone who does not have children and is not around children often, I have no idea how big or small kids are at various ages. To me, an 11 month old could look how I'd expect a 2 year old to look - I don't really know the differences at those stages. If I were an airline employee, I'd be carding every kid because I wouldn't be capable of assuming kids' ages. I agree that you should be prepared to present a birth certificate or buy a seat.

Lol, I HAVE a toddler and am terrible at guessing ages. My kid is huge for his age and I often think kids several months older than him are younger as a result. I totally understand why an airline wouldn't want to take chances when it comes to kids' ages.

 

[sam_gordon]

I get not being able to tell an 11month from a 2year old. But I have a hard time believing a 6 month old (for example) can get mistaken for a 2 year old. I personally think airline employees should be able to use discretion. If it's OBVIOUS (to the employee) the child is under two, they don't have to ask for a BC. No different than a 50 year old wouldn't be prompted for ID before buying alcohol.

That being said, parents not buying seats for their children should have proof with them that they're entitled to do so. Just like the 50 year old should have his ID.

 

[rigs32]

My grocery store cards everyone for alcohol. If you're 60 and you don't have ID, you can't buy beer. SW applies the rule the same way - all must show proof.

 

[piccolopat]

Yes but the SW Rule states that in order to be a lap infant you need a birth certificate correct? But if you pay for a full seat you can be a lap infant without a birth certificate - thereby sidestepping SW birth certificate / lap infant rule by paying money. That's why I said it's about money. If the rule is birth certificate or no lap, then that's the rule. But with $$$$ you can sidestep that "rule".

I think you are misunderstanding the rule. Everyone over the age of 2 must have a paid seat. If the child is under 2 they can be a lap baby but without proof the airline is well within its rights to follow the law and require a paid seat. You are not required to then have that child on your lap (you can use the seat and have the child sleep on it) but you can do so if you want. This is no different than allowing your 3 year old to sit on your lap on the plane when they don't want to sit in their paid for seat. This isn't sidestepping the rule but rather following it. It may be easier to guess at whether a child is under 2 when they are much younger, but not so easy if the child is 23 months. It's easier for the airline to require proof of age for all lap babies so they don't risk federal fines, just as many places selling or serving liquor will require proof of "over 21" for everyone, including my 83 year old mom.

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

Really? American says nothing about a birth certificate. Here's the spot on lap infants. Not all airlines require, sorry but you are dead wrong.

Infants (under 2 years)
We accept infants as young as 2 days old. However, if you're traveling with an infant less than 7 days old, your physician will be required to fill out a passenger medical form before your flight. (A special assistance coordinator will send the form directly to your physician.) Infants must be accompanied by a person 16 years or older or by the infant's parent (any age) in the same cabin.

• Changing tables are available in the lavatories of all wide-body aircraft.
• Bassinets are available on a first come, first serve basis at the gate for travel only on 777-200, 767-300, 777-300 and 787 aircraft.
• Bassinets are not available in First/business Class cabins.

Seating options for infants:

1. Held by an adult (lap child): A parent or any person 16 years or older may hold the infant in their lap, the infant must be included in the reservation by calling American Airlines reservations. International taxes and percentage of adult fare may apply.
2. In a reserved seat: If your infant will travel in his or her own seat, you must buy a ticket and bring a safety seat approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Selective reading has occurred

https://www.aa.com/i18n/travel-info/special-assistance/traveling-children.jsp
Directly above the quoted section JimmyBean42 posted is this gem

"Traveling with children and infants
You may be required to present proof of age (such as a birth certificate) for any children under the age of 18.

Traveling internationally? Children or infants traveling outside the U.S. are required to have the same documentation as an adult. If anyone under 18 is traveling internationally without both parents, they may be required to present a Letter of Conse"

 

[JimmyBean42]

Selective reading has occurred

https://www.aa.com/i18n/travel-info/special-assistance/traveling-children.jsp
Directly above the quoted section JimmyBean42 posted is this gem

"Traveling with children and infants
You may be required to present proof of age (such as a birth certificate) for any children under the age of 18.

Traveling internationally? Children or infants traveling outside the U.S. are required to have the same documentation as an adult. If anyone under 18 is traveling internationally without both parents, they may be required to present a Letter of Conse"

Condescending post has occurred.

"May be" is not the same as "required". Selective understanding of definitions of words huh?

 

[JimmyBean42]

I think you are misunderstanding the rule. Everyone over the age of 2 must have a paid seat. If the child is under 2 they can be a lap baby but without proof the airline is well within its rights to follow the law and require a paid seat. You are not required to then have that child on your lap (you can use the seat and have the child sleep on it) but you can do so if you want. This is no different than allowing your 3 year old to sit on your lap on the plane when they don't want to sit in their paid for seat. This isn't sidestepping the rule but rather following it. It may be easier to guess at whether a child is under 2 when they are much younger, but not so easy if the child is 23 months. It's easier for the airline to require proof of age for all lap babies so they don't risk federal fines, just as many places selling or serving liquor will require proof of "over 21" for everyone, including my 83 year old mom.

I 100% agree. My biggest issue is that 1) the rule is not consistent across all airlines. I think it should be, then these misunderstandings don't happen. 2) The SW application of the rule seems inconsistent. There were several posts here where people said they were able to get to their destination without a birth certificate but then were challenged on their way back. That should never happen. I 100% support SW having this rule, but if some employees are going to use discretion and some aren't, so that's what I'm saying. If some are using discretion (which some are) then they really are breaking their own rule. See what I mean? If it's a rule fine. But then don't let some employees break that rule.

 

[sam_gordon]

Condescending post has occurred.

"May be" is not the same as "required". Selective understanding of definitions of words huh?

Pretty hard to have selective understanding of this statement...

American says nothing about a birth certificate.

 

[JimmyBean42]

Pretty hard to have selective understanding of this statement...

And it didn't say it was REQUIRED under that section did it? Please read the full post, that was the point that it didn't say REQUIRED under lap infant. I can piece little bits out of a post to help my argument too.

 

[sam_gordon]

I 100% agree. My biggest issue is that 1) the rule is not consistent across all airlines. I think it should be, then these misunderstandings don't happen. 2) The SW application of the rule seems inconsistent. There were several posts here where people said they were able to get to their destination without a birth certificate but then were challenged on their way back. That should never happen. I 100% support SW having this rule, but if some employees are going to use discretion and some aren't, so that's what I'm saying. If some are using discretion (which some are) then they really are breaking their own rule. See what I mean? If it's a rule fine. But then don't let some employees break that rule.

Think about this for a moment... you take your <2yo child to the airport. Let's say the airline rep did "break the rule" and not ask for proof of age. What would you have done if they DIDN'T break the rule? Shouldn't you have proof of age with you? Or do people have the proof of age, find out it's not needed and take it back to their car?

Employees at MANY businesses "break rules" for the benefit of the customer.

 

[JimmyBean42]

Think about this for a moment... you take your <2yo child to the airport. Let's say the airline rep did "break the rule" and not ask for proof of age. What would you have done if they DIDN'T break the rule? Shouldn't you have proof of age with you? Or do people have the proof of age, find out it's not needed and take it back to their car?

Employees at MANY businesses "break rules" for the benefit of the customer.

I completely understand that. And when I mentioned earlier that I thought maybe the airline employee could use discretion, I got hammered saying "no the rule is the rule and you follow the rule". Ok, then the application of the rule needs to be consistent everywhere by SW at all airports. Know what I mean?

 

[sam_gordon]

And it didn't say it was REQUIRED under that section did it? Please read the full post, that was the point that it didn't say REQUIRED under lap infant. I can piece little bits out of a post to help my argument too.

You said "not all airlines require". What OCC posted doesn't dispute that. Nothing in his post says that's what he's arguing. I read his post and assumed he was taking issue of your statement that "American says nothing about a birth certificate" which is FAR from the truth.

Do I think it should be obvious and at the employees discretion to let a 6month fly without proof of age? Sure. But I'm not going to assume that will happen.

 

[sam_gordon]

I completely understand that. And when I mentioned earlier that I thought maybe the airline employee could use discretion, I got hammered saying "no the rule is the rule and you follow the rule". Ok, then the application of the rule needs to be consistent everywhere by SW at all airports. Know what I mean?

Why does it matter whether they're consistent or not? If you're travelling with a lap child (no seat purchased), bring proof the child is eligible to fly for free. Period, end of story. If the proof isn't needed, it doesn't take up much space, no harm no foul. If someone asks for proof (either on the departing flight or the return flight), you have it.

 

[kamik86]

This rule is really exactly the same as buying alcohol.

• Just because some stores don't aways card doesn't mean they shouldnt. They are risking huge fines.
• Just because stores have policies to card everyone, some employees don't always (there are a few employees at a nearby store that is supposed to card every 60 year old that if they are busy will start skipping it. Since the store is busy no manager is watching them they are serving other customers... these employees probably won't be caught until someoen complains (but really most wouldn't bother) or they screw up and serve to someone they shouldn't.

My assumption is those of you that managed without a birth certificate had an employee that looked and said "That kid is clearly under 2 I'm not going to take the time to bother with this". That is probably against policy at least for SW, but like the alchol no one is going to complain about it. Until the airline is caught letting a too old child on in this situation southwest probably isn't even going to realize it and find out.

However some employees will follow policy to the letter to cover their own butts and no matter how sure they are your kid is under 2 is going to require the certificate. Some employees will just have no idea how old kids are supposed to look (DH has no idea, he has gotten kids wrong by huge amounts trying to guess because most babies he has seen have been on television, where they try to use older children.) so they follow the policy because to them it isn't obvious.

AS for the "May be required..." phrase. That to any smart consumer means you have to show up assuming your required because if the employee that day decides your required then it goes from may be to just required and your not getting on that plane without paying (and that assumes there is a seat available... if not you may just not be flying). The "May be" is in the control of the airline. I don't see any way to read that where it isn't incredibly risky to not show up with the certificate in hand.

 

[kamik86]

I completely understand that. And when I mentioned earlier that I thought maybe the airline employee could use discretion, I got hammered saying "no the rule is the rule and you follow the rule". Ok, then the application of the rule needs to be consistent everywhere by SW at all airports. Know what I mean?

SW policy probably IS to require it at every SW in all airports, however just like I know of employees at certain liquor stores that soemtimes skip carding people I'm sure there are SW employees that sometimes skip asking for birth cerificates. When SW gets caught letting someone on that is too old due to this that person will be fired but until then they are very unlikly to get disciplined as those at the company that know the impact of this rule and would be impacted by the enforcement of it aren't there to see them break policy... and no one is going to report an employee for not making them show a birth certificate.

 

[piccolopat]

I 100% agree. My biggest issue is that 1) the rule is not consistent across all airlines. I think it should be, then these misunderstandings don't happen. 2) The SW application of the rule seems inconsistent. There were several posts here where people said they were able to get to their destination without a birth certificate but then were challenged on their way back. That should never happen. I 100% support SW having this rule, but if some employees are going to use discretion and some aren't, so that's what I'm saying. If some are using discretion (which some are) then they really are breaking their own rule. See what I mean? If it's a rule fine. But then don't let some employees break that rule.

Since the rule indicates a birth certificate is needed, it shouldn't matter if some employees ask for it while others don't. The parents should have proof with them every time they travel with a child who does not have their own seat.