RANT: I don't care if you want to sit next to your kids on the airplane

It is no more ridiculous to suggest that using the "toilet" is a choice than it is suggesting sitting next to your 3 year old is.
Whether it is a charge to use it/sit next to your child, or a discount to not is simply semantics.



So you are saying they can be the same then. You would be happy for airlines to "charge" for having access to the toilet, as long as you can choose whether or not to do so.




But you need to look at this from the other side, I dont really have a choice about needing to sit next to my 3 year old, and you are living in a different planet if you think it's okay to put a 3 year old on the other side of a plane from a parent.
So I am being forced into paying a charge for both of us so that I can actually supervise my child. You can say there is a choice but there is t really.


Whether we like it or not, paying for seat assignments is now a thing. If you want one, you pay. If you don't want one, don't pay. Whatever. It's fine with me. But, to insist that you get to go on a plane and insist that you get seats with your family together without paying is absurd.

I truly do not understand the mentality of wanting something for nothing.

Your purchase of a fare on a plane only gives you A seat on the plane...not a particular seat. They do sell those, however. So, buy it. There IS a choice. You don't want to pay, which the cheap side of me understands. But, don't say you don't have a "choice." Don't pay, however, and you take your chances. You have to decide whether taking that chance is "worth it." I always pay, and it's not because I want to sit next to my family (we are all adults and near adults and are perfectly capable of taking care of ourselves), but because I prefer a certain type of seat in a certain part of the plane. I consider it part of the "price of flying" to get that seat. So, I pay.
 
OTOH I find it appalling that these days airlines aren't automatically ensuring young children are with parents or passengers on the same ticket booking aren't kept together. So to me that's where the real responsibility lies
From reading some of the responses here, there seems to be open hostility to the idea that the airlines will do something to keep children with an older guardian short of requiring families to pay for it. I even sense a wish that the rule passed last year doesn't get implemented or perhaps is implemented in a way that effectively doesn't change a thing.

Adult passengers can usually do fine though.
 
From reading some of the responses here, there seems to be open hostility to the idea that the airlines will do something to keep children with an older guardian short of requiring families to pay for it. I even sense a wish that the rule passed last year doesn't get implemented or perhaps is implemented in a way that effectively doesn't change a thing.

Adult passengers can usually do fine though.

Maybe because if an airline is charging for seats, then everyone should have to pay for seats. Having kids should be an automatic "out" out of having to pay.
 


I would hope you sit in a window seat in case someone else in your row needs to get up to use the bathroom.
Always. I hate the aisle. Can't stand all the people who batter you with their crud as they walk past.
 
From reading some of the responses here, there seems to be open hostility to the idea that the airlines will do something to keep children with an older guardian short of requiring families to pay for it. I even sense a wish that the rule passed last year doesn't get implemented or perhaps is implemented in a way that effectively doesn't change a thing.

Adult passengers can usually do fine though.
I think that comes from the introduction of the 'premium' tiered seat costs which didn't used to be a thing. So to my mind economy should be economy, premium economy is premium economy and so forth. Extra nickel and diming for window or aisle or close to the front irritates me and is a huge part of why this issue now exists.

Yes, if nothing changes and you want guarantees, then you have to pay. For me it goes back further than that, and lies with all the changes the airlines have made which have created the situation.
 
Last edited:
Maybe because if an airline is charging for seats, then everyone should have to pay for seats. Having kids should be an automatic "out" out of having to pay.

Congress doesn't agree with that assessment or that section of the FAA funding authorization bill would have been scrubbed. Family boarding is already a thing with pretty much every airline. Southwest does it with their family boarding group before the B group. It's not the same as their early-bird check-in, but that in and of itself probably already meets the criteria of the rule with regards to an open seating process. The only thing I think might change is that they extend it to 13 years old when it was previously 6 years old. On Delta/Skywest I've personally had a gate agent reassign seating to place me next to my kid without even asking for it.

The fact is children are given a lot of special considerations when it comes to air travel. They're allowed to fly for free under 2 years of age on a lap. They can get discount fares, although that's less of an issue these days since it's typically off of full fare. One top of regular baggage and personal item allowances, children get free allowances to take a diaper bag on board and a stroller and/or car seat checked in at no additional cost (even for lap infants).

Heck - the airlines themselves fought this rule, and claimed that they basically do what they can to allow children to be with a guardian without charging extra. Allowing a guardian to select an adjacent seat for a child with no additional fee is just an extension of all the things that are done to accommodate children as passengers.
 


I think that comes from the introduction of the 'premium' tiered seat costs which didn't used to be a thing. So to my mind economy should be economy, premium economy is premium economy and so forth. Extra nickel and diming for window or aisle or close to the front irritates me and is a huge part of why this issue now exists.

Yes, if nothing changes and you want guarantees, then you have to pay. For me it goes back further than that, and lies with all the changes thecairlines have done which have created the situation.

Ya think?

Yeah - I see the responses seem to be "I'm paying for it and it's unfair that someone else gets it for free." I understand the sentiment, but it's kind of flying in the face of Congressional action and not acknowledging the recent overload of nearly every airline nickel and diming passengers for baggage, seating assignments, etc. I was looking at a seating chart a few years back to select a seat, and it had maybe four different "premium" seat types in the coach cabin - extra legroom, window, aisle, and exit row (since it typically had extra legroom).

I certainly don't begrudge the airlines charging more for extra legroom. They're deliberately doing that knowing they can put fewer passengers on the same plane. However, some of those extra legroom seats bely the fact that they've been reducing the seat pitch over the years, and the current premium legroom seats are often about the same as they were 20 years ago.
 
From reading some of the responses here, there seems to be open hostility to the idea that the airlines will do something to keep children with an older guardian short of requiring families to pay for it. I even sense a wish that the rule passed last year doesn't get implemented or perhaps is implemented in a way that effectively doesn't change a thing.

Adult passengers can usually do fine though.

I don't think there's any hostility to the idea that airlines should do something to get those folks together. If the airline wants to make it so families with kids can book certain seats, they can do that. Hostels, for example, have you enter minors ages into the system, and if those kids are under 13, only private rooms will show as available. You CAN'T book a dorm room with a kid under 13. This is different than a family showing up for a room and the hostel telling the people who booked their private rooms MONTHS in advance that they'll have to sleep in the dorms because the people with kids who have no private room booked need that room. No hostel is going to do that. The family is going to be looking for different lodging.

I just think the burden lies on the consumer. If you can't book seats together, don't book the flight. This covers the code shares. Mummabear admits that she could book separate flights and pick seats. She doesn't want to pay more money or spend a longer layover to do so. But she COULD. I COULD fly economy and not pay extra for a seat assignment or legroom. I COULD pick a red eye or a flight with an 12 hour layover to save a few hundred bucks. But I choose not to. That's what's maddening. The assumption that single people (or adults) aren't affected by these fees. I pay for these extras all the time and just consider them part of the fare. Because to me they aren't extras. They're something necessary for my sanity. Sitting with your two year old is a necessity. You need to ensure that happens.

It's also maddening that people claim anxiety- either their own or their child's. Because if you take public transit, there is this expectation of appropriate public behavior. If you're upset, you can't attack your neighbor. If your anxious, you need to manage that. You can't cause a disruption. Your kid in grade school? They already understand this. They can already manage their anxiety on a flight. If they are so scared of flying that they are likely to have an extreme reaction, then don't fly at all until you find a way to "condition" them to handle that fear.

In the situation of standby passengers with kids, the airline should offer incentives for people to switch and they do. If people switch, ok. If they don't, that family can sit accept sitting apart or wait standby for a flight that will put them together. But people should not be compelled to switch and the airline should not compel them to do so.

As I said previously: it's public transit. Be prepared to sit next to a stranger. There's a huge difference from being separated from a 2 year old and an eight year old. The age at which a kid can be legally an unaccompanied minor is the age at which he/she should be able to operate their own oxygen mask in case of emergency. And that's the cut off (to me) for any effort on the airlines' part to require adjacent seating.
 
I just think the burden lies on the consumer. If you can't book seats together, don't book the flight. This covers the code shares. Mummabear admits that she could book separate flights and pick seats. She doesn't want to pay more money or spend a longer layover to do so. But she COULD. I COULD fly economy and not pay extra for a seat assignment or legroom. I COULD pick a red eye or a flight with an 12 hour layover to save a few hundred bucks. But I choose not to. That's what's maddening. The assumption that single people (or adults) aren't affected by these fees. I pay for these extras all the time and just consider them part of the fare. Because to me they aren't extras. They're something necessary for my sanity. Sitting with your two year old is a necessity. You need to ensure that happens.

And that is exactly what I have a huge problem with. Those who could buy seats to ensure they sit next to the children, but choose not to. And then complain when they are not given seats next to their children. That is expecting something for free when they should have and could have paid for it.
 
Whether we like it or not, paying for seat assignments is now a thing. If you want one, you pay. If you don't want one, don't pay. Whatever. It's fine with me. But, to insist that you get to go on a plane and insist that you get seats with your family together without paying is absurd.

I truly do not understand the mentality of wanting something for nothing.

A lot of this is really just fighting back against every little nickel and dime fee that wasn't there 15 years ago. In 2006 I just wanted to bring something home from Florida, and the airline had two pieces of checked-in baggage included in the fare. But flying the same airline two years later I was paying for the first piece of luggage, then a few years later paying for an aisle or window seat. This is one thing where there's enough governmental action to maybe push back a bit. I suppose not every airline will need to have free seat selection, but if it does then they won't be able to charge that aisle fee if a parent and child book together. It's not really all that complicated. I'd frankly be OK if the airlines decided it wasn't worth it and price their fares accordingly without charging a premium for a window or aisle seat, like they had been doing that for over a half century.

Well - this new rule is patterned after the European Union rule from what I've read. There are some airlines in Europe that charge for seat selection but not necessarily a premium for window or aisle. And in any case an airline like British Airways sounds like they hold back quite a few seats to accommodate younger children flying with guardians.

Most US airlines don't charge per se for seat selection, except maybe ultra low cost carriers like Spirit. And in their case the model they use often allows them to hold back a lot of their seats to put families together. Part of the issue with seats not being together is when solo passengers are allowed to pick from a number of random seats.
 
Ya think?

Yeah - I see the responses seem to be "I'm paying for it and it's unfair that someone else gets it for free." I understand the sentiment, but it's kind of flying in the face of Congressional action and not acknowledging the recent overload of nearly every airline nickel and diming passengers for baggage, seating assignments, etc. I was looking at a seating chart a few years back to select a seat, and it had maybe four different "premium" seat types in the coach cabin - extra legroom, window, aisle, and exit row (since it typically had extra legroom).
I've not read it that way. More that if they've thought ahead and paid a premium why should they then be forced to give up that seat, thus now paying for the parent who may not have had the foresight to book ahead.

If the new rule guarantees a child next to a 13 or older without additional cost, they may still have to pay for the adult seats.

Before all this additional charge nonsense (and so be it if that's what they want to do - I don't see it changing) the airline had no issue seating parties of people together. So somewhere there has to be a little compromise, and it should be on the airline to accommodate it at time of booking, not strangers once boarded.

Having said that DH has moved to help people and in my original post I said I may depending on situation (physical issues). But that's out of kindness not duty
 
Last edited:
And what about when you do everything right - book a flight, select your seats together, and the airline changes your seats and separates you? Then refuses to refund you or book you on a different flight where you can be together? I'm just smh at the number of people that expect second graders and even younger to manage themselves, especially in an emergency.
 
A lot of this is really just fighting back against every little nickel and dime fee that wasn't there 15 years ago. In 2006 I just wanted to bring something home from Florida, and the airline had two pieces of checked-in baggage included in the fare. But flying the same airline two years later I was paying for the first piece of luggage, then a few years later paying for an aisle or window seat. This is one thing where there's enough governmental action to maybe push back a bit. I suppose not every airline will need to have free seat selection, but if it does then they won't be able to charge that aisle fee if a parent and child book together. It's not really all that complicated. I'd frankly be OK if the airlines decided it wasn't worth it and price their fares accordingly without charging a premium for a window or aisle seat, like they had been doing that for over a half century.

Well - this new rule is patterned after the European Union rule from what I've read. There are some airlines in Europe that charge for seat selection but not necessarily a premium for window or aisle. And in any case an airline like British Airways sounds like they hold back quite a few seats to accommodate younger children flying with guardians.

Most US airlines don't charge per se for seat selection, except maybe ultra low cost carriers like Spirit. And in their case the model they use often allows them to hold back a lot of their seats to put families together. Part of the issue with seats not being together is when solo passengers are allowed to pick from a number of random seats.
actually you were always paying for the luggage and seats, it was just part of a bundled price. Now they unbundled it. I choose to fly airlines that don't charge for seating (there are some) and choose appropriate seats for my family. Its really not difficult. As the parent, my kids are my responsibility. I choose seats next to me or my husband, periodically check the seating assignments to make sure nothing has changed and if I cannot get seats with each child next to a parent, we choose a different flight. Getting on a plane does not abdicate my responsibility as a parent. Yes stuff happens and when it has I get it resolved before getting on the plane.
 
So you are saying they can be the same then. You would be happy for airlines to "charge" for having access to the toilet, as long as you can choose whether or not to do so.
I wouldn't be happy for airlines to charge for access to the toilet, but I would understand it's their right as a business to do so. I would have the right as a consumer to frequent that business or not. Even if all airlines decided to impose such a fee, I would have the choice to find another mode of transportation. Your bathroom "choice" isn't really a choice IMO, since if I "choose" to not use the facilities, I risk causing health issues at worst or making a mess (that I then have to sit in the rest of the flight) at best.

Congress doesn't agree with that assessment or that section of the FAA funding authorization bill would have been scrubbed.
What's your point? maxiesmom was stating her opinion. I don't think she said Congress has to do what she says.
 
Ya think?

Yeah - I see the responses seem to be "I'm paying for it and it's unfair that someone else gets it for free." I understand the sentiment, but it's kind of flying in the face of Congressional action and not acknowledging the recent overload of nearly every airline nickel and diming passengers for baggage, seating assignments, etc. I was looking at a seating chart a few years back to select a seat, and it had maybe four different "premium" seat types in the coach cabin - extra legroom, window, aisle, and exit row (since it typically had extra legroom).

I certainly don't begrudge the airlines charging more for extra legroom. They're deliberately doing that knowing they can put fewer passengers on the same plane. However, some of those extra legroom seats bely the fact that they've been reducing the seat pitch over the years, and the current premium legroom seats are often about the same as they were 20 years ago.


I'm in agreement on the airline culpability. The seat pitch is a real issue. I never paid for premium seats even a decade ago. I do now because some airlines give me so little legroom that my knees are jammed in to the back to the seat in front of me, and I can't sit in that position for longer than 2 hours. I have not gotten any taller and I'm only above average for a woman anyway.

But that's an overall problem. People with kids can still do what I do which is pick a different airline or pay a premium for those seats. The worst offenders are the ultra low cost- I just don't fly with them on flights over 2 hours.
 
I just think the burden lies on the consumer. If you can't book seats together, don't book the flight.

There really is no problem with the solo passenger. If I fly solo and don't feel like paying the aisle/window fee I don't. However, for groups there are times where there are no available seats together at the time of booking. That doesn't mean they aren't available at all since a lot of airlines specifically hold back groups of seats for later assignment - especially to handle groups with younger kids. At this stage in my kid's development I don't really freak out if I'm not there, but it's generally preferable. My kid is chatty and some adults take it in stride while others get noticeably angry. And I've yet to be in a position where I wasn't accommodated. I've never pouted about it, but the airlines will help even if passengers don't pay extra.

Actually - the last time I paid an upcharge was on Spirit for their "Big Seat". That was for all three of us including our then three year old. It also included seat selection for maybe $12 each seat. That was well worth it. On the way home it wasn't available, and because of the way they handle seating if you don't pay to select a seat, we had three all together window/middle/aisle. That's more or less the way most passengers were assigned seating 30 years ago, and it worked pretty well for families then and frankly isn't too bad now.
 
And what about when you do everything right - book a flight, select your seats together, and the airline changes your seats and separates you? Then refuses to refund you or book you on a different flight where you can be together? I'm just smh at the number of people that expect second graders and even younger to manage themselves, especially in an emergency.
Now THAT I can get behind a law for.

As far as second graders being able to manage for themselves in an emergency, I go back to how many kids ride a school bus daily with a HIGHER possibility for an emergency to happen. Should every parent ride the school bus with their kids?
 
I've not read it that way. More that I'd they've thought ahead and paid a premium why should they then be forced to give up that seat, thus now paying for the parent who may not have had the foresight to book ahead.

If the new rule guarantees a child next to a 13 or older without additional cost, they may still have to pay for the adult seats.

Before all this additional charge nonsense (and so be it if that's what they want to do - I don't see it changing) the airline had no issue seating parties of people together. So somewhere there has to be a little compromise, and it should be on the airline to accommodate it at time of booking, not strangers once boarded.

Having said that DH has moved to help people and in my original post I said I may depending on situation (physical issues). But that's out of kindness not duty

Well - honestly I don't expect anyone paying extra to select an aisle seat to give it up, and if I ask I'm not going to begrudge that passenger for refusing. One time my wife asked and the passenger gave it up so quickly I was somewhat surprised. However, if no one is willing to move my alternative is to just leave my kid there, and see how long it takes before someone is begging to move.

I don't really see how the rule is any different than what exists now if it can force an adult to pay extra for an aisle or window seat. That just runs counter to what the rule was supposed to address.

And yeah - before most passengers would select seats, the airlines would probably look at available seating and the number of families with children, and make sure that they saved some together. Spirit still does that because so few of the passengers opt to pay for seat selection and it actually works quite well.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!






Top