Delta basic economy?

[GrnMtnMan]

It is not discrimination if the practice applies to everyone equally and you are informed of it before making your purchase.

Not sure this is true/enforceable/allowable legally, but I'm not a lawyer.

It is not more discrimination that it would be for a family of 6 to rent an economy car and then complain they don't fit. You need to know what you are buying and if it will work for you or not.

This isn't hypothetical.

We're talking about airlines being *required* to make all practical efforts to seat a parent adjacent to a child. If they passed a law that required rental car companies to rent different car sizes for the same price, the rental car companies would comply.

The law passed requires airlines institute "policies that enable a child, who is age 13 or under on the date an applicable flight is scheduled to occur, to be seated in a seat adjacent to the seat of an accompanying family member over the age of 13, to the maximum extent practicable and at no additional cost, except when assignment to an adjacent seat would require an upgrade to another cabin class or a seat with extra legroom or seat pitch for which additional payment is normally required."

 

[wilkeliza]

It will be interesting to see what the final rules are.

From the language of the bill, I don't interpret different fare 'classes' to be the same as the physically different 'classes' on an airplane. The bill's language differentiates along physical characteristic of the seats, not the idiosyncratic fare class individual airlines sell. I bet the airlines are feverishly lobbying to have things interpreted the way you have, but it seems the intent of the law was to get airlines to seat parent/child pairs together without parents having to pay more.

Well interesting the language of the bill doesn't even make it a law. It just says that a year from signing of the bill and agency must investigate and if they find it necessary then establish a policy directing all airlines to do it. It doesn't make it formally a law. Section C basically says if a family has the ability to sit together based on the airlines current policy then the secretary can't force that airline to do anything differently. On reading this particular bill it is all lip service and I bet nothing changes because Delta is considering basic economy a discount not their actual base fare.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

It doesn't make it formally a law.

Are you a lawyer or a legislator? I ask because I thought a lot of 'laws' were like this, meaning congress passes a bill, the president signs in, and that legislation has directives in it for executive branch departments to to research matters and implement reasonable rules based on that research. I was under the impression that these rules (aka regulations) have the force of 'law'. If I'm wrong, please let me know.

Section C basically says if a family has the ability to sit together based on the airlines current policy then the secretary can't force that airline to do anything differently.

I assumed this was a Southwest airlines exemption, since they have no pre-assigned seating.

Has anybody seen how the airlines plan to implement the requirement that they seat children 13 and under next to a parent?

I'm assuming that since nobody has pointed me anywhere that the rules haven't been released, nobody has seen plans for how the airlines plan to (or plan to avoid) implementing the requirement, assuming it gets implemented as intended.

 

[wilkeliza]

Are you a lawyer or a legislator? I ask because I thought a lot of 'laws' were like this, meaning congress passes a bill, the president signs in, and that legislation has directives in it for executive branch departments to to research matters and implement reasonable rules based on that research. I was under the impression that these rules (aka regulations) have the force of 'law'. If I'm wrong, please let me know.
I assumed this was a Southwest airlines exemption, since they have no pre-assigned seating.I'm assuming that since nobody has pointed me anywhere that the rules haven't been released, nobody has seen plans for how the airlines plan to (or plan to avoid) implementing the requirement, assuming it gets implemented as intended.

I'm neither. The difference here is it only calls for a group to investigate and come up with a decisions in roughly a year. To my knowledge that decision hasn't been made. The wording does not actually make it a law just yet since the board could decide that there is no regulation that could be put forth.

Here is a quote with the important portion bolded that shows it didn't actually make a law.
"
SEC. 2309. FAMILY SEATING.
2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the
3 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transpor4
tation shall review and, if appropriate, establish a policy
5 directing all air carriers providing scheduled passenger
6 interstate or intrastate air transportation to establish poli7
cies that enable a child, who is age 13 or under on the
8 date an applicable flight is scheduled to occur, to be seated
9 in a seat adjacent to the seat of an accompanying family
10 member over the age of 13, to the maximum extent prac11
ticable and at no additional cost, except when assignment
12 to an adjacent seat would require an upgrade to another
13 cabin class or a seat with extra legroom or seat pitch for
14 which additional payment is normally required.
15

 

[GrnMtnMan]

shows it didn't actually make a law.

Again, I think many pieces of legislation have wording similar to this, delegating the final rule making to the administrative agency. But I could be wrong and it could turn out differently this time.

But I don't think I am and I don't think it will. The Transportation Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives summarized the directive this way: "Requires airlines to generally ensure that children 13 years of age or under are seated adjacent to an adult or older child traveling with them." - from the third bullet of the Additional Provisions section on page 2. I live in DC, have friends and family in government, and have known a few Capitol Hill staffers in my day, and I don't think they highlight things that are unlikely to happen in their press releases, unless they're looking to lose credibility.

But I could be wrong.

 

[bumbershoot]

I don't know a single person who willingly books that last row since it they usually can't recline.

I do! I can't stand reclining. My height is in my torso and I can rarely put my feet flat on the floor when the seat is upright. Reclining it makes it so much worse and so uncomfortable for me. Especially if it's a leather seat I just slide.

And I like being near restrooms on a longer flight.

 

[wilkeliza]

I do! I can't stand reclining. My height is in my torso and I can rarely put my feet flat on the floor when the seat is upright. Reclining it makes it so much worse and so uncomfortable for me. Especially if it's a leather seat I just slide.

And I like being near restrooms on a longer flight.

that totally makes sense. So basically what it comes down to is there isn't really a way to make everyone happy haha. Someone is going to lose out. I mean I like to know I'm going to have a seat next to my fiance so guess what we pay to make sure we have a seat next to each other. We both have anxiety (mine is really bad when it comes to flying) and I do not like to move. I have when we are allowed to stay together but if we get split up across several rows (we'll sit across the aisle form each other) but if he gets moved up front and me to the back I would not be too happy about it.

 

[OrangeCountyCommuter]

The airlines will not be required to comply with the "law" until the FAA passes the enforcement regulations

So don't depend on any "law" to defend your demand to be seated with your child. And if this does become a requirement what Delta and others will do is just "abandon" the cheaper airfare options so everyone can pay more.... there's no free ride!

(And your new President does not want more regulation, but less so..... you may never see regulations)

As for "I don't think they highlight things that are unlikely to happen" Thanks for today's laugh.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

As for "I don't think they highlight things that are unlikely to happen" Thanks for today's laugh.

You're confusing elected officials with typical staffers. Staffers are working stiffs like you and me (at least me). They care about their reputations.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

(And your new President does not want more regulation, but less so..... you may never see regulations)

This is a kink that could change things. But most of the work is probably already done by career civil servants, just waiting to be approved by appointees.

The bill that included this was bipartisan (rare) with the primary sponsors being both a democrat and a republican, so I don't think it was controversial.

 

[ZellyB]

I do! I can't stand reclining. My height is in my torso and I can rarely put my feet flat on the floor when the seat is upright. Reclining it makes it so much worse and so uncomfortable for me. Especially if it's a leather seat I just slide.

And I like being near restrooms on a longer flight.

I don't necessarily seek out the last row, but I'm generally perfectly content to be there. I never recline my seat anyway (the recline anymore is so tiny you can barely tell you did anything) and I also like being near the restrooms. I only try to avoid the back if I know I have a tight connection to make and don't want to wait for the time to deplane.

 

[supersnoop]

I'm neither. The difference here is it only calls for a group to investigate and come up with a decisions in roughly a year. To my knowledge that decision hasn't been made. The wording does not actually make it a law just yet since the board could decide that there is no regulation that could be put forth.

Here is a quote with the important portion bolded that shows it didn't actually make a law.
"
SEC. 2309. FAMILY SEATING.
2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the
3 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transpor4
tation shall review and, if appropriate, establish a policy
5 directing all air carriers providing scheduled passenger
6 interstate or intrastate air transportation to establish poli7
cies that enable a child, who is age 13 or under on the
8 date an applicable flight is scheduled to occur, to be seated
9 in a seat adjacent to the seat of an accompanying family
10 member over the age of 13, to the maximum extent prac11
ticable and at no additional cost, except when assignment
12 to an adjacent seat would require an upgrade to another
13 cabin class or a seat with extra legroom or seat pitch for
14 which additional payment is normally required.
15

It provides the department with "rule-making" authority, which means whatever they develop will be a "law" in a practical sense. But until they establish a policy, the "law" is that they have to do something, not enforce something. There are lots of different types of "laws."

 

[wilkeliza]

It provides the department with "rule-making" authority, which means whatever they develop with be a "law" in a practical sense. But until they establish a policy, the "law" is that they have to do something, not enforce something. There are lots of different types of "laws."

That's what I was getting at. Thanks for summing it up better.

 

[rwdavis2]

this. I also would not expect the kindness of strangers to get you to seats near each other.

Exactly. If I paid more than someone to get an aisle or window seat I'm not giving it up.

 

[Gracie09]

Again, I think many pieces of legislation have wording similar to this, delegating the final rule making to the administrative agency. But I could be wrong and it could turn out differently this time.

But I don't think I am and I don't think it will. The Transportation Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives summarized the directive this way: "Requires airlines to generally ensure that children 13 years of age or under are seated adjacent to an adult or older child traveling with them." - from the third bullet of the Additional Provisions section on page 2. I live in DC, have friends and family in government, and have known a few Capitol Hill staffers in my day, and I don't think they highlight things that are unlikely to happen in their press releases, unless they're looking to lose credibility.

But I could be wrong.

You are missing a large part of the language -

to the maximum extent practicable and at no additional cost, except when assignment to an adjacent seat would require an upgrade to another
cabin class or a seat with extra legroom or seat pitch for which additional payment is normally required.

So if an airline charges more for a different type of seat - extra leg room on jetblue or economy plus they don't have to provide that seat to the parent at no additional charge. So if say the law was in effect and the OP choose this option, she would likely be out of luck because seat assignments is a different fare class.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

You are missing a large part of the language -

to the maximum extent practicable and at no additional cost, except when assignment to an adjacent seat would require an upgrade to another
cabin class or a seat with extra legroom or seat pitch for which additional payment is normally required.

So if an airline charges more for a different type of seat - extra leg room on jetblue or economy plus they don't have to provide that seat to the parent at no additional charge. So if say the law was in effect and the OP choose this option, she would likely be out of luck because seat assignments is a different fare class.

I don't think I'm missing that part....I think folks have assumed that 'fare class' = 'cabin class', which I *do not* think is the case.

I agree that people in extra-legroom, or other types of seats that have a different *physical* characteristic would not be moved for a parent/child pair. But I think anyone else in the standard seats could be be moved, no matter if you paid a 'fare class' that included a prior seat assignment or not.

But as you say, for the OP this is all moot because the 'new rules' are not yet implemented.

 

[wilkeliza]

I don't think I'm missing that part....I think folks have assumed that 'fare class' = 'cabin class', which I *do not* think is the case.

I agree that people in extra-legroom, or other types of seats that have a different *physical* characteristic would not be moved for a parent/child pair. But I think anyone else in the standard seats could be be moved, no matter if you paid a 'fare class' that included a prior seat assignment or not.

But as you say, for the OP this is all moot because the 'new rules' are not yet implemented.

So what happens if it is the case of the above poster whose 9 year old was moved even though they paid for their seats. I would have been livid and would have 100% asked the airline to refund me. If the booking class I bought says I get to pre-book and someone who doesn't want to pay has to bump me so they can sit with there family then at minimum I should get the fare difference back.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

Why all the hate on me folks? I didn't pass the legislation. Congress voted on it and President Obama signed it. Please stop shooting the messenger. I could be wrong in my interpretation of some of the terms in the legislation, but consider that I might also be right.

So what happens if it is the case of the above poster whose 9 year old was moved even though they paid for their seats. I would have been livid and would have 100% asked the airline to refund me. If the booking class I bought says I get to pre-book and someone who doesn't want to pay has to bump me so they can sit with there family then at minimum I should get the fare difference back.

I imagine that if someone who paid for a particular seat got moved to accommodate a parent-child pair, the 'moved' would have to seek a refund.

I think the whole point of this legislation was to codify the fact that its unreasonable to have a child sit next to a stranger, and have that stranger be a child's de-facto involuntary guardian in the case of an emergency. And to have the airlines set up systems that prevents this situation. And to prevent airlines for CHARGING a parent to prevent this situation, which is occasionally the case now when the only pairs of adjacent seats on a flight all include additional charges.

 

[Gracie09]

Why all the hate on me folks? I didn't pass the legislation. Congress voted on it and President Obama signed it. Please stop shooting the messenger. I could be wrong in my interpretation of some of the terms in the legislation, but consider that I might also be right. I imagine that if someone who paid for a particular seat got moved to accommodate a parent-child pair, the 'moved' would have to seek a refund.

I think the whole point of this legislation was to codify the fact that its unreasonable to have a child sit next to a stranger, and have that stranger be a child's de-facto involuntary guardian in the case of an emergency. And to have the airlines set up systems that prevents this situation. And to prevent airlines for CHARGING a parent to prevent this situation, which is occasionally the case now when the only pairs of adjacent seats on a flight all include additional charges.

I think it's unreasonable for a parent not to choose a fare/cabin class that allows them to choose seats next to their child. I am responsible for my kids. I make sure they are next to (as much as I can) and if it means planning ahead because you can often get two or more seats next to each other toward the back of the plane when flights are released so be it.

And I don't know why you would think the airline would refund someone they ask to move.

 

[GrnMtnMan]

You've got several assumptions underlying your reply.

I think it's unreasonable for a parent not to choose a fare/cabin class that allows them to choose seats next to their child.

Your assuming this is about fares, which it might be, but sometimes it's also just about availability. Maybe the final rules will somehow take fares into account. The legislation changes the situation from a family begging an airline to shuffle people, to the airline having a legal mandate to accommodate a parent and child.

Furthermore, people aren't always flying for pleasure.

Or with advanced notice. I had to fly to my fathers funeral with my 1 year old....I wasn't able to plan that trip in advance.

And I don't know why you would think the airline would refund someone they ask to move.

I don't understand. Are you suggesting that an airline would never, under any circumstances, issue a refund? If so, maybe that's the point of the legislation: to Have the airlines' behavior change in some situations.

And I'm not discussing this for my sake, as I usually plan in advance and haven't yet bougt an ticket that didn't allow me to select my seats for my family. But this change in the landscape is out there, and if folks would like it to change, call your congress person or the department of transportation.