New law, parents/kids sitting together

[DisneyOma]

Then you are either reading with your own bias, or your reading comprehension skills need some work. With that, have a good day.

We all read with bias. The rest is a personal attack. I am having a good day, thank you. I hope you are too. But to consider adults with children to be above others, to require a certain mindset that they somehow deserve something others do not just because they have children is something I will never agree to. Parenting is such a huge commitment. People should really think it through before they decide to have kids, IMO. Some people don't think beyond "oh, a baby" now, do they?

 

[siren0119]

We all read with bias. The rest is a personal attack. I am having a good day, thank you. I hope you are too. But to consider adults with children to be above others, to require a certain mindset that they somehow deserve something others do not just because they have children is something I will never agree to. Parenting is such a huge commitment. People should really think it through before they decide to have kids, IMO. Some people don't think beyond "oh, a baby" now, do they?

It's interesting that you chose to make this an indictment on people for having children. Very telling. And incredibly short sighted.

Pretty sure my primary motive for having kids wasn't whether I could fly or not. That'd be a ridiculous reason to have children, or to decide not to have children.

Your perspective seems to be to assume that the intent of parents is an entirely selfish one (hence your use of "entitlements")
OR, it could be viewed as an extra fee that punishes a parent for having a young child that may not do well sitting next to a stranger. Same could apply to individuals who have illnesses or disabilities that make separation from a guardian a difficult situation. I wonder, would you chastise them equally for having a disabled or ill family member/partner/companion?

 

[Dismama2boys]

We all read with bias. The rest is a personal attack. I am having a good day, thank you. I hope you are too. But to consider adults with children to be above others, to require a certain mindset that they somehow deserve something others do not just because they have children is something I will never agree to. Parenting is such a huge commitment. People should really think it through before they decide to have kids, IMO. Some people don't think beyond "oh, a baby" now, do they?

Again, nothing here applies to anything I said. At all. Those aren’t my feelings, those aren’t my sentiments, and those aren’t my words.

 

[maxiesmom]

It's interesting that you chose to make this an indictment on people for having children. Very telling. And incredibly short sighted.

I don't read that post as an indictment on people for having children. Only on those who think having children makes them extra special and deserving of extra special treatment.

 

[maxiesmom]

Wow why so much anger here? Sometimes it’s not possible to get all the seats together initially. For instance yesterday coming home f Disney we had comfort plus seats on delta. When booking the only seat options were in 4 rows for 4 family members including a 6yo and a 3yo. It did not let us downgrade just that flight so we could pick other seats. We already paid a premium for more space. Should we have changed our first flight for the day? Or have a 5 hr layover? Or stay in a hotel to get a different flight next day when we can pay for seats for that one? We tried to change seats before the flight but they said we’d have to ask at the gate for THAT flight. So we waited.

If you can't book seats together on a flight, then do not book that flight. Seems pretty simple. You don't pick what is more convenient for you and expect everyone else on the plane to make accommodations for you.

 

[lambdabeta]

It's interesting that you chose to make this an indictment on people for having children. Very telling. And incredibly short sighted.

Pretty sure my primary motive for having kids wasn't whether I could fly or not. That'd be a ridiculous reason to have children, or to decide not to have children.

Your perspective seems to be to assume that the intent of parents is an entirely selfish one (hence your use of "entitlements")
OR, it could be viewed as an extra fee that punishes a parent for having a young child that may not do well sitting next to a stranger. Same could apply to individuals who have illnesses or disabilities that make separation from a guardian a difficult situation. I wonder, would you chastise them equally for having a disabled or ill family member/partner/companion?

Actually I would chastise them the exact same way if they continually stated they were being punished for trying to sit next to each other. It is not a punishment for parents and others with family members to pay extra to sit next to each other. It is a fee EVERYONE pays if they want to choose their exact seat whether they are a solo traveler or a group. That is why I don't understand your argument. It really has nothing to do with the type of traveler. It is someone's choice to pick what fits best for their situation. I pay extra for amenities. That is the way it works. If you don't like it either fly another airline or pay the extra fees. I think you are having a really hard time seeing that this fee hits everyone equally.

 

[LongLiveRafiki]

It's interesting that you chose to make this an indictment on people for having children. Very telling. And incredibly short sighted.

Pretty sure my primary motive for having kids wasn't whether I could fly or not. That'd be a ridiculous reason to have children, or to decide not to have children.

Your perspective seems to be to assume that the intent of parents is an entirely selfish one (hence your use of "entitlements")
OR, it could be viewed as an extra fee that punishes a parent for having a young child that may not do well sitting next to a stranger. Same could apply to individuals who have illnesses or disabilities that make separation from a guardian a difficult situation. I wonder, would you chastise them equally for having a disabled or ill family member/partner/companion?

The thing is, everyone pays extra if they want to choose their seats. The family with a teen with ADD, the adult with a spouse with dementia who gets confused easily, those with anxiety, those with a bad knee that need to sit on a certain aisle, those who need to be close to the lavatory for bathroom emergencies, someone who wants a window seat so they can sleep... They are not being punished for having those issues or disabilities. They are simply choosing the fare that works for their particular needs. A large number of people have reasons for wanting to choose their seats. Airlines are required to work with people who need certain seat accommodations, but only within the fare level that the person purchased. If there are not seats together remaining in the basic fare (since you get what's left), they cannot seat you together without moving another guest, who likely paid to be sitting where they are, which is not fair to them. They might need the seat they selected too.

Everyone has to take responsibility for their own family. Everybody has their own issues. People have the option of paying extra to select their seats if they need certain seat accommodations, and if you choose not to, you can't expect others to give up the seats they paid to select.

 

[pixiedust23]

The thing is, everyone pays extra if they want to choose their seats. The family with a teen with ADD, the adult with a spouse with dementia who gets confused easily, those with anxiety, those with a bad knee that need to sit on a certain aisle, those who need to be close to the lavatory for bathroom emergencies, someone who wants a window seat so they can sleep... They are not being punished for having those issues or disabilities. They are simply choosing the fare that works for their particular needs. A large number of people have reasons for wanting to choose their seats. Airlines are required to work with people who need certain seat accommodations, but only within the fare level that the person purchased. If there are not seats together remaining in the basic fare (since you get what's left), they cannot seat you together without moving another guest, who likely paid to be sitting where they are, which is not fair to them. They might need the seat they selected too.

Everyone has to take responsibility for their own family. Everybody has their own issues. People have the option of paying extra to select their seats if they need certain seat accommodations, and if you choose not to, you can't expect others to give up the seats they paid to select.

I totally agree!! I travel with my 2 kids every year. I book seats for all of us. I very rarely travel alone with DH. I also book seat assignments for us. I would be suuuuuper pissed if my seat assignments got moved when with DH solo b/c someone else decided they didn't need to get seat assignments for their children. I was diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and having my seat changed as I was boarding a plane would be a huge trigger for me. I have a family and anxiety. I plan accordingly. I do not expect others to adapt for me.

 

[Macprincess]

I just ordered plane tickets today to fly from Tampa Florida to Michigan for Christmas this year on South West. It was a relatively last minute decision based on a family need. We are a family of five with 2 college age kids and a high school student who all have exams up until 12/21 and we fly out on 12/22 which is sure to be a insanely busy flying day. It already cost us about $175 more per person then we typically have to pay to fly this route because of the Holiday. Two of us need aisle seating for health reasons and we would like to sit together. To make this happen I had to forked over another $200 to do early bird check in. It will annoy me to no end if I or anyone in my family is asked to accommodate a parent who wasn't willing to pay this fee so their young child could sit next to them. Yes, the fee sucks! I get that as I loathe paying it too! I also hated paying it when my children were younger but it's part of the price you have to pay to get seats together on this airline.

If the airline assigned us the seats for free I may have considered moving if asked to accommodate a family that was separated. However, since on this particular airline, that family had the same opportunity to either pay for the early bird seating or pass on it. I don't feel those of us who paid for this perk should have to move. Personally, I think if you choose to take this risk then you don't have the right to take away space from another person who paid extra to board the plane and pick out their seat earlier. I also have no issue sitting in a seat when a family tries to game the system and pay for only one persons in their family to have early bird boarding and then that person boards and saves seats. Not cool! Pay the stinking fee like the rest of us or risk sitting apart!

As someone who has paid this fee for years when my children were younger to ensure they were seated with a family member I have no sympathy for a parent who didn't take parental responsibility for their child. Those who say,"I'll risk it because no one want to sit with my unattended preschooler." I call BS! Your a parent grow up and act like one! Accept the responsibility for the child you brought into this world. It is not the flight attendant or any other passenger on the planes responsibility to make sure your child or children are attended to. It's your responsibility! Do not be surprised if passengers don't offer to move seats and don't imply that were the ones being rude in this situation. Actually, if you made the choice to fly with young children and booked without paying the early bird fee with the expectation that someone would take pity on your situation and move to accommodate your need it's you who is being rude.

 

[maxiesmom]

I also have no issue sitting in a seat when a family tries to game the system and pay for only one persons in their family to have early bird boarding and then that person boards and saves seats. Not cool! Pay the stinking fee like the rest of us or risk sitting apart!

There was so much of this when I flew home from Orlando this past Sunday. My boarding position was A 30, and I think the first 10 rows all had one person in them on each side of the aircraft.

 

[PollyannaMom]

I'm in that "us", my kids are tweens now but have flown plenty when they were younger. I do not agree at all that families with young children should be penalized simply for having young children - it's not like they can choose out of their kids' ages. If a child is not able to be an unaccompanied minor on a flight according to the airline's own policies, the airline should not force their parents to pay additional charges so that they are seated with a guardian.

I'm in that us too. I travel with someone who needs my assistance. Booking what works for us is not an upcharge.
My opinion-those base bottom fares for for college students, people travelling alone or groups of able adults who have zero preference where and who they sit by. They are no perks, no frills fares. Period.

I kind of see both sides of the debate over initial booking. But this:

Except that technically it is not. In your contract, even if you pay for seat selection (and even if you pay even more for one of the "upgrades" to seats with extra legroom, closer to the front, etc), they have no obligation to honor your seat selection. Some airlines are nicer than others on this. Like I said, when it happened to me on United, the airline outright refused to do anything to help me get back seats together and said I would have to try my luck by asking other guests. It happened to me again on American Airlines on another trip, but there the gate attendant was much more helpful and did something to fix it. In both cases, I was not paying a "cheaper" fare--airlines just screw up a lot.

is what really bothers me. In no other industry (except, I guess, the lottery ) do you pay for something to ensure you might get it. - If I buy tickets to a play, they don't sell the same seat to someone else and make us fight over it. If I ask for a dozen doughnuts in a bakery, and there are only 8 left, they don't give me 8 but still charge me for 12. Airlines really do seem to take advantage of the fact that we don't have a reasonable alternative to accepting their policies, no matter how unfair we would consider them in other industries.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

If I buy tickets to a play, they don't sell the same seat to someone else and make us fight over it.

You can have situations in which two people have tickets for the same seats. It happens at sporting events, it happens at concerts and shows, etc. Usually due to a ticket reseller. In any case lots of places have policies in regards to that where the first person to enter with their ticket scanned is the one who gets the seat and sometimes that's not the actual rightful ticket holder and many times neither party is aware of the other party having a ticket for their seat until they found out later on.

 

[lambdabeta]

You can have situations in which two people have tickets for the same seats. It happens at sporting events, it happens at concerts and shows, etc. Usually due to a ticket reseller. In any case lots of places have policies in regards to that where the first person to enter with their ticket scanned is the one who gets the seat and sometimes that's not the actual rightful ticket holder and many times neither party is aware of the other party having a ticket for their seat until they found out later on.

I have never had this happen to me and I have gone to many concerts, Broadway shows, sporting events and local theater shows. I have had people sitting in my seats who have been escorted to their seats by the ushers. And what do you mean by you wouldn't find out till later? You would find out when you went to the venue to use your tickets. Most venues are able to tell the difference between fake tickets and legitimate tickets anyways. If I was the one with the legitimate tickets since I only buy from legitimate sources I would be making the venue move the others because I can prove how I paid for my tickets with email on my phone. They would have to prove how they got their tickets and if it was a third party seller then they would be out of luck. It isn't a first come first serve scenario. And the venue still didn't sell that seat to two people like the airlines overbook their flights.

 

[charmed59]

Think of this extra low cost fare as the airline’s version of the single rider line. It allows the airline to fill in seats amongst those that care who they sit with. And those willing to sit with anyone get the shorter line, or the cheaper fare. Just as a family would not use the single rider line and expect to get seated together those choosing this fare should not expect to be seated together.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I have never had this happen to me and I have gone to many concerts, Broadway shows, sporting events and local theater shows. I have had people sitting in my seats who have been escorted to their seats by the ushers. And what do you mean by you wouldn't find out till later? You would find out when you went to the venue to use your tickets. Most venues are able to tell the difference between fake tickets and legitimate tickets anyways. If I was the one with the legitimate tickets since I only buy from legitimate sources I would be making the venue move the others because I can prove how I paid for my tickets with email on my phone. They would have to prove how they got their tickets and if it was a third party seller then they would be out of luck. It isn't a first come first serve scenario. And the venue still didn't sell that seat to two people like the airlines overbook their flights.

I haven't had it happen to me either but it does happen and more often than you think.

It's tickets purchased through resellers like StubHub generally speaking (which is a very common seller to buy from) VividSeats, SeatGeek, etc. It's not fake tickets either. It's basically two people who use tickets that are legit tickets but only one will get the seats--the first person to have their ticket scanned. It's when the ticket for a given seat is sold twice.

August 2017: https://wqad.com/2017/08/28/duplicate-tickets-sold-for-same-seats-at-sold-out-seger-show/
From that article:
"We get into the venue, we got to our seats, and two of our seats were taken", said Tom Roemer.

He and his wife and another couple had bought their tickets on StubHub, and found more than one set of tickets for two of the seats had been issued by a third party broker for the sold out show.

"A little shock and dismay, especially when you're being told to leave the actual venue and go outside of the gates to go and purchase another ticket," he said.

He paid $296 for a pair of Seger tickets, and soon learned, they would not be accepted. The other ticket holders who had purchased the very same seats had arrived first, and their tickets were scanned and in the system. In these cases, it is first come, first serve.

And it happens these days more than you might think.

"On a big show, we'll see five or six instances of that a night," said Greg Mouw, box office manager at the I-Wireless Center, the site of Seeger's show."

Here is some information from Seat Geek:
"1. The Ticket Was Sold Twice
The most common reason for a ticket being invalid is that the broker inadvertently sold it twice. For instance, Joe the Seller decides to list his Adele ticket on SeatGeek and then turn around and list it on UberSeat. Two separate customers could then purchase the same ticket around the same time. Since each ticket barcode can only be used once to enter an event, one of those tickets will not work at the gate. The buyer who happens to arrive second will not be able to enter with the same ticket.

Most ticketing companies (like SeatGeek) make sellers agree that they will not list their inventory on more than one website in order to avoid double-selling. Any honest, intelligent broker will cancel the double-sold order as soon as they can, and notify the customer within a few hours, leaving them plenty of time to make a second ticket order. SeatGeek also imposes penalties on sellers who break this rule, so double-selling is exceedingly rare. Sellers want to avoid fines just as much as buyers want to get into their events!

2. You Bought it From an Unreliable Source
We’ve all seen the sketchy men dressed in all black hawking tickets outside of popular sold-out shows. They’ll generally be charging a hefty price (much higher than face value) and the whole thing feels a bit…shady. That’s because it is! Never buy tickets from somebody who doesn’t look like they could also be going to the same show. Snagging tickets from a dude standing outside the venue is a huge gamble. Scalper tickets could work just fine, but if they don’t, getting your money back is impossible."

Our MLB team has said it happens often enough. Happened to a couple (that I could easily find) a couple years ago. Again first come first serve.

The poster said "If I buy tickets to a play, they don't sell the same seat to someone else and make us fight over it." Well you might find yourself doing just that. I realize that this is different than the topic of the thread but it's something the poster brought up and in a completely different industry than the topic of the thread.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Think of this extra low cost fare as the airline’s version of the single rider line. It allows the airline to fill in seats amongst those that care who they sit with. And those willing to sit with anyone get the shorter line, or the cheaper fare. Just as a family would not use the single rider line and expect to get seated together those choosing this fare should not expect to be seated together.

I do agree with this analogy but unfortunately it's not unheard of people going through single rider lines and expecting to sit next to each other.

It's along the same vein though of the sentiment people have generally expressed in these types of threads---don't buy the ticket if you know it won't work for you (which would include not being able to select seats together) and along your analogy don't enter the single rider line if you know it won't work for you (which would include not being able to sit with your party).

 

[lambdabeta]

I haven't had it happen to me either but it does happen and more often than you think.

It's tickets purchased through resellers like StubHub generally speaking (which is a very common seller to buy from) VividSeats, SeatGeek, etc. It's not fake tickets either. It's basically two people who use tickets that are legit tickets but only one will get the seats--the first person to have their ticket scanned. It's when the ticket for a given seat is sold twice.

August 2017: https://wqad.com/2017/08/28/duplicate-tickets-sold-for-same-seats-at-sold-out-seger-show/
From that article:
"We get into the venue, we got to our seats, and two of our seats were taken", said Tom Roemer.

He and his wife and another couple had bought their tickets on StubHub, and found more than one set of tickets for two of the seats had been issued by a third party broker for the sold out show.

"A little shock and dismay, especially when you're being told to leave the actual venue and go outside of the gates to go and purchase another ticket," he said.

He paid $296 for a pair of Seger tickets, and soon learned, they would not be accepted. The other ticket holders who had purchased the very same seats had arrived first, and their tickets were scanned and in the system. In these cases, it is first come, first serve.

And it happens these days more than you might think.

"On a big show, we'll see five or six instances of that a night," said Greg Mouw, box office manager at the I-Wireless Center, the site of Seeger's show."

Here is some information from Seat Geek:
"1. The Ticket Was Sold Twice
The most common reason for a ticket being invalid is that the broker inadvertently sold it twice. For instance, Joe the Seller decides to list his Adele ticket on SeatGeek and then turn around and list it on UberSeat. Two separate customers could then purchase the same ticket around the same time. Since each ticket barcode can only be used once to enter an event, one of those tickets will not work at the gate. The buyer who happens to arrive second will not be able to enter with the same ticket.

Most ticketing companies (like SeatGeek) make sellers agree that they will not list their inventory on more than one website in order to avoid double-selling. Any honest, intelligent broker will cancel the double-sold order as soon as they can, and notify the customer within a few hours, leaving them plenty of time to make a second ticket order. SeatGeek also imposes penalties on sellers who break this rule, so double-selling is exceedingly rare. Sellers want to avoid fines just as much as buyers want to get into their events!

2. You Bought it From an Unreliable Source
We’ve all seen the sketchy men dressed in all black hawking tickets outside of popular sold-out shows. They’ll generally be charging a hefty price (much higher than face value) and the whole thing feels a bit…shady. That’s because it is! Never buy tickets from somebody who doesn’t look like they could also be going to the same show. Snagging tickets from a dude standing outside the venue is a huge gamble. Scalper tickets could work just fine, but if they don’t, getting your money back is impossible."

Our MLB team has said it happens often enough. Happened to a couple (that I could easily find) a couple years ago. Again first come first serve.

The poster said "If I buy tickets to a play, they don't sell the same seat to someone else and make us fight over it." Well you might find yourself doing just that. I realize that this is different than the topic of the thread but it's something the poster brought up and in a completely different industry than the topic of the thread.

What you are talking about is something totally different than what the PP was referring to. They are referring to the venue not selling the same seat to someone else. Which was just used as an analogy for buying tickets from an airline vs a theater. This has nothing to do with second or third party sellers.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

What you are talking about is something totally different than what the PP was referring to. They are referring to the venue not selling the same seat to someone else. Which was just used as an analogy for buying tickets from an airline vs a theater. This has nothing to do with second or third party sellers.

Eh..no it's not totally different. But whatevs.

The PP brought it up. If anything it was just a comparison that doesn't quite work (respectfully) as it's entirely possible for someone to purchase a ticket for a play and another person purchase a ticket for a play and those two tickets belong to the same seat resulting in each person believing they had the right to that seat. At least you know what can happen to you whereas before you didn't know it was possible per your previous comment to me

Tickets to a play don't have anything to do with the thread either In any case more or less I was responding to the example being used because it's something that def. happens elsewhere. I do understand the PP was discussing seat assignments not required to be honored by the airline's Contract of Carriage. Your specified seat isn't required to be honored either in the event that the ticket was duplicated (among other things and in that case it's a first come first serve) for a play, which is frequently listed on the ticket or ticket reseller's site.

(Edited: grammar)

 

[lambdabeta]

Eh..no it's not totally different. But whatevs.

The PP brought it up. If anything it was just a comparison that doesn't quite work (respectfully) as it's entirely possible for someone to purchase a ticket for a play and another person purchase a ticket for a play and those two tickets belong to the same seat resulting in each person believing they had the right to that seat. At least you know what can happen to you whereas before you didn't know it was possible per your previous comment to me

Tickets to a play don't have anything to do with the thread either In any case more or less I was responding to the example being used because it's something that def. happens elsewhere. I do understand the PP was discussing seat assignments not required to be honored by the airline's Contract of Carriage. Your specified seat isn't required to be honored either in the event that the ticket was duplicated (among other things and in that case it's a first come first serve) for a play, which is frequently listed on the ticket or ticket reseller's site.

(Edited: grammar)

Respectfully, it is an analogy that does work when taken in context. The venue doesn't sell duplicate seats. Unscrupulous people sell duplicate seats. Not the same thing. But your right, it is off topic and we will just have to disagree. If you want to sit together on an airplane you have to pay extra. If you want to have a guaranteed seat at a play you should buy tickets from the theater or authorized ticket seller like Ticketmaster.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Respectfully, it is an analogy that does work when taken in context. The venue doesn't sell duplicate seats. Unscrupulous people sell duplicate seats. Not the same thing. But your right, it is off topic and we will just have to disagree. If you want to sit together on an airplane you have to pay extra. If you want to have a guaranteed seat at a play you should buy tickets from the theater or authorized ticket seller like Ticketmaster.

On that we agree