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

[bcla]

What's your point? maxiesmom was stating her opinion. I don't think she said Congress has to do what she says.

I sense an open hostility towards the law and a hope that it doesn't get implemented out of some sense of "fairness" - whether it's for adults paying for aisle/window seats or families who preemptively pay those fees.

 

[Planogirl]

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.

Something like that happened to DS and I. We had assigned seats but just before flight they changed us to widely separated seats. DS was 5 and no matter what anyone else thinks I did not think it was appropriate for him to sit alone.

I made the request to change this at the counter and even offered to take a later flight if necessary. The agent found a way to put us together though.

These endless fees nowadays are ridiculous and I mean that for everyone. However, I would pay if I had a young kid at this time.

 

[mummabear]

A school bus is much more likely to be in a crash than an airplane. But people don't think twice about sending kids off on them with only a driver, not anyone else on board. No one to assist at all, unlike on aircraft where the FAs are trained to direct and help passengers.

So I do have trouble with all of that making sense. You (in general) can't sit a few rows away from your child in a vehicle where there are people trained to help if something goes wrong, but have no problem sending your kids off in a bus without you and with only 1 adult, who is busy driving.

You are making assumptions here about how people's children get to school. First of all no primary school children are catching ge bus daily to school that only starts for high schools here.
Secondly 2 and 3 year olds aren't catching a school bus but you are expecting their parents to be okay sitting away from them on a plane or pay a fee to do so.

I don't think Maxiesmom was reaching. If children as young as 5 can fly as unaccompanied minors, there should be no rule requiring they be seated next to a family member on other flights. What that is saying is that little Johnnie, age 5, can fly across the country by himself, but if mom and dad are on the same plane, he can't be 5 feet away from them. That is absurd. If 13 and under have to be seated adjacent to a family member, than only those over the age of 13 should be allowed to fly by themselves.

You are paying a fee for an unaccompanied minor to pay for a FA to supervise them. You also cannot send a 2-3 year old as an unaccompanied minor.

As mentioned, the odds are much higher for a school bus to be involved in an accident. While you don't have to worry about losing cabin pressure, you do have to worry if the other drivers on the road are under the influence, driving distracted, or have another issue. But presumably you send you kid on the school bus daily. Most airlines allow 5 year olds to fly unaccompanied. If it was that much of a safety issue, why do they allow that? Or do you think they shouldn't?

See above. You are a) making assumptions in how minors are being sent to school and b) making the assumption that this only effects families with kids over 5.
Are you saying you agree that 3 year olds shouldn't be split from their parents?

I get the resentment over it, but not the insistence that others should have to pay. Like it or not, airlines have always tried to make accommodations for children flying with parents/guardians. There's always been preferential boarding for families with young children. I've personally seen airlines go out of their way to change seats.

And most airlines do hold back seats from being available for selection just for this sort of thing. It's not just for kids though. It might be for a disabled passenger who has an attendant fly for free (I think this is an ADA requirement).

Even before I had a child I was thankful that parents would be next to kids. I was somewhat amused by a toddler popping up over the seat to say hi from Detroit to SFO, but his dad did keep it from becoming excessive. I don't know if another passenger would have been quite as understanding. Once I was having some difficulty with my kid even sitting next to us on an international flight. It was the first time our kid had ever been on a flight longer than 2 hours, and one guy just laid into us like somehow yelling at us would help rather than further agitating our kid. Now if we hadn't been able to sit next to our then 3 year old, who knows what would have happened.

And can you imagine the fallout of that angry man had been seated next to this child alone and he smacked them?

I think you're missing the point. I think people are saying IF parents want to ensure they are sitting in seats they want (in this case next to their kids), they should have to pay, just like the person who wants to sit in seat 7A needs to pay (because it's a "preferred" seat or whatever). Why are you (general) insisting that parents should get for free what others have to pay for?

I am saying that no one should be paying for seats outside of class allocations.
But further more yes it is less of a choice, really just an illusion of a choice to suggest that parents shouldn't be seated next to their minor children, you are forcing "premium" seats to seat groups together.
It is no where near the same as I want to sit in 7A because 7 is my lucky number or whatever other reason.

Imagine going to the movies and every 2nd seat is premium and an extra $10, would you be happy with the choice of your group to being split to avoid the fees or paying more just so you can sit together? I mean you don't HAVE to sit next to each other, you just WANT to.

 

[mummabear]

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.

So if paying for bathrooms becomes a "thing" you are ok for it?
Again I say it is an illusion of choice, I am being strong armed into paying for a "premium" seat so that I can supervise a toddler, not because I care about sitting in a window or aisle. Because not supervising them is t really a choice at 2.

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.

It's as much of a choice as not being able to supervise a 2year old.
So you in the "premium" seat are going to be happy opening snacks, telling when they need to use the toilet, reading them stories etc? No, and nor should you. But I really shouldn't have to pay extra because the airline has decided to create and system that forces us to pay for "upgraded" seats.

As for the bathrooms being charged I can say the same sort of ridiculous statements posters are about kids.
Go before you get on the plane
Wear a diaper
Don't fly for longer ban you can hold
Or choose to pay for the seat that includes toilet access: I mean it's pretty entitled to think you should just get it for free. Not everyone has to use the bathroom during a flight.

And an unaccompanied minor could certainly be cause health and safety issues and a mess.

 

[Westcoastwild]

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.

I am curious as to why you bother singling solo travellers out. Why not the family of five? If you're in a plane with 3 seats on either side of the aisle, that family will book everything but one seat. Who do they allow to book the last seat? The family in front or the family behind or half a couple?

And how long do you recommend them holding those seats? 3 months out? 3 weeks out? They may not sell those tickets when the price rises, so what would motivate them to not do so?

I mean, solos, couples, families- they can all book anytime...

 

[bcla]

And an unaccompanied minor could certainly be cause health and safety issues and a mess.

There is the possibility of an unaccompanied minor fee, but that's where someone is specifically paying for that level of service and an acknowledgement from the airline that they'll make sure the kid is well taken care of.

 

[Westcoastwild]

So if paying for bathrooms becomes a "thing" you are ok for it?
Again I say it is an illusion of choice, I am being strong armed into paying for a "premium" seat so that I can supervise a toddler, not because I care about sitting in a window or aisle. Because not supervising them is t really a choice at 2.


It's as much of a choice as not being able to supervise a 2year old.
So you in the "premium" seat are going to be happy opening snacks, telling when they need to use the toilet, reading them stories etc? No, and nor should you. But I really shouldn't have to pay extra because the airline has decided to create and system that forces us to pay for "upgraded" seats.

As for the bathrooms being charged I can say the same sort of ridiculous statements posters are about kids.
Go before you get on the plane
Wear a diaper
Don't fly for longer ban you can hold
Or choose to pay for the seat that includes toilet access: I mean it's pretty entitled to think you should just get it for free. Not everyone has to use the bathroom during a flight.

And an unaccompanied minor could certainly be cause health and safety issues and a mess.

Well, the bathroom argument is a ridiculous one, though, because it's a biological necessity. They probably won't charge for that. Not a bio necessity to sit next to your SO or 6 year old.

But let's say they did. I'd pay it if needed to use the bathroom and I wouldn't if I didn't. Train stations in Europe charge for bathroom use, locker use, whatever. Even in the states, most "public" restrooms aren't free- it's generally understood that if you want to use the bathroom at a coffee shop or gas station, you need to be a paying customer.

 

[mummabear]

There is the possibility of an unaccompanied minor fee, but that's where someone is specifically paying for that level of service and an acknowledgement from the airline that they'll make sure the kid is well taken care of.

I was responding to the poster who had said that if she was dented the bathroom because she had choosen to not purchase a seat with toilet access that it would create a mess and be a health issue.

Yes an unaccompanied minor has a fee for the flight crew to basically accompany them and make sure they are ok.

But an unaccompanied minor has to be 5, in he current system without paying a fee I risk being split from my 2 year old-and she on her own can certainly be a health and safety risk to herself and others and create a mess of many types of a guardian is t there to care for her.

 

[IAHFTPT]

Wow. DanceswithDisney should be proud.

 

[Planogirl]

People are often so willing to put up with any nonsense from the airlines. Service seems to be of little importance when it comes to this industry and I can't help but wonder why.

 

[bcla]

I was responding to the poster who had said that if she was dented the bathroom because she had choosen to not purchase a seat with toilet access that it would create a mess and be a health issue.

Yes an unaccompanied minor has a fee for the flight crew to basically accompany them and make sure they are ok.

But an unaccompanied minor has to be 5, in he current system without paying a fee I risk being split from my 2 year old-and she on her own can certainly be a health and safety risk to herself and others and create a mess of many types of a guardian is t there to care for her.

At least in the United States there's no legal requirement for unaccompanied minor age. Five years old seems to be the industry standard though, but there's no legal mandate to set it to that age.

 

[mummabear]

Well, the bathroom argument is a ridiculous one, though, because it's a biological necessity. They probably won't charge for that. Not a bio necessity to sit next to your SO or 6 year old.

But let's say they did. I'd pay it if needed to use the bathroom and I wouldn't if I didn't. Train stations in Europe charge for bathroom use, locker use, whatever. Even in the states, most "public" restrooms aren't free- it's generally understood that if you want to use the bathroom at a coffee shop or gas station, you need to be a paying customer.

It is a choice, I can certainly go an hour or two without using the bathroom, and I could choose to save money by not purchasing a seat with access.
It would be your choice to decide to pay for it-unlike public restrooms though you may need to decide months before when you choose your fare not just if you need to go.

You can only make your argument by bringing up older children. There is not minimum age currently guaranteed.
So are you ok with a 2 year old being split for a parent? Do you think that is safe for the 2 year old? And do you really think it is reasonable to have a caregiver pay extra to be seated next to them? Do you think it is a different story if they are disabled instead or a toddler?

 

[mummabear]

At least in the United States there's no legal requirement for unaccompanied minor age. Five years old seems to be the industry standard though, but there's no legal mandate to set it to that age.

And that is really the industry saying that those under 5 require parental supervsion.

 

[Westcoastwild]

Imagine going to the movies and every 2nd seat is premium and an extra $10, would you be happy with the choice of your group to being split to avoid the fees or paying more just so you can sit together? I mean you don't HAVE to sit next to each other, you just WANT to.

Uh, yes. If I don't want to pay the premium at a theater or a ball game, I either sit separately from my group or I don't go at all. I'm not going to be upset at the theater. I might be upset if my friends try to guilt me into paying that premium.

I have this discussion with people I travel with regularly. If they don't want to pay for extra legroom, that's fine. I'm going to. If they want to go to a play, and the only seats left are obstructed or premium, I'm not going to spend money on either. They can go without me.

 

[chelynnah]

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.

That, to me, needs more pushback on the airlines to stop the separations. Hopefully the new rule will take care of that.

 

[bcla]

I am curious as to why you bother singling solo travellers out. Why not the family of five? If you're in a plane with 3 seats on either side of the aisle, that family will book everything but one seat. Who do they allow to book the last seat? The family in front or the family behind or half a couple?

And how long do you recommend them holding those seats? 3 months out? 3 weeks out? They may not sell those tickets when the price rises, so what would motivate them to not do so?

I mean, solos, couples, families- they can all book anytime...

I'm not necessarily singling out solo passengers, but it's an example. I've certainly heard of some of the things couples will do in hopes that they get three seats all to themselves like take a window and aisle hoping nobody wants the single middle. I don't begrudge anyone for doing what's practical. However, going back to the way that airlines used to mostly assign seats, they tended to group solo passengers together in order to accommodate groups. I've mentioned Amtrak, which will group solo passengers together such that there will be room for pairs boarding then or later. When there's open seating (which there often is at the start of a route) then there are often solo passengers taking one seat and hoping that nobody else wants to join them. Some even get huffy when they're asked to move or when someone takes the adjacent seat.

If I'm in a widebody with four across seating, I'm OK with two adjacent middle seats. However, that's just not possible with common narrow-body jets like a 737 or A319. That's basically what the proposed federal rule is supposed to address.

 

[Westcoastwild]

It is a choice, I can certainly go an hour or two without using the bathroom, and I could choose to save money by not purchasing a seat with access.
It would be your choice to decide to pay for it-unlike public restrooms though you may need to decide months before when you choose your fare not just if you need to go.

You can only make your argument by bringing up older children. There is not minimum age currently guaranteed.
So are you ok with a 2 year old being split for a parent? Do you think that is safe for the 2 year old? And do you really think it is reasonable to have a caregiver pay extra to be seated next to them? Do you think it is a different story if they are disabled instead or a toddler?

See, this is why I'm unsympathetic. My mother has health issues that make it really really hard for her to travel alone. She can't stay in a hotel that has no handicapped rooms available. Airlines do have assistance programs, but that doesn't help her on the way to the airport or on the way from the airport. She also has nerve damage where she can't get into a seat on the right side. So that pretty much means premium seats or left hand side aisle seats.

We pay extra all the time so she can travel with us. It's a built in expense. Sure, I look at a hotel that's half the price but has no handicapped accessible rooms and think if only we could stay there. But I don't book it. If I'm with a toddler, I wish I could save 60 dollars by picking a dorm room but I can't so I don't book it.

 

[Gracie09]

You are making assumptions here about how people's children get to school. First of all no primary school children are catching ge bus daily to school that only starts for high schools here.
Secondly 2 and 3 year olds aren't catching a school bus but you are expecting their parents to be okay sitting away from them on a plane or pay a fee to do so.


You are paying a fee for an unaccompanied minor to pay for a FA to supervise them. You also cannot send a 2-3 year old as an unaccompanied minor.



See above. You are a) making assumptions in how minors are being sent to school and b) making the assumption that this only effects families with kids over 5.
Are you saying you agree that 3 year olds shouldn't be split from their parents?


And can you imagine the fallout of that angry man had been seated next to this child alone and he smacked them?



I am saying that no one should be paying for seats outside of class allocations.
But further more yes it is less of a choice, really just an illusion of a choice to suggest that parents shouldn't be seated next to their minor children, you are forcing "premium" seats to seat groups together.
It is no where near the same as I want to sit in 7A because 7 is my lucky number or whatever other reason.

Imagine going to the movies and every 2nd seat is premium and an extra $10, would you be happy with the choice of your group to being split to avoid the fees or paying more just so you can sit together? I mean you don't HAVE to sit next to each other, you just WANT to.

Primary school kids all over the us and beyond take buses to school every day. Just because your school district doesn't do it doesn't mean it's the norm.
Parents of 2/3 years old should act as parents and realize that it sometimes entails sucking it up and paying to choose a seat or some other in convenience. It's called parenting. No one ever said it was all giggles and hugs

 

[Westcoastwild]

I'm not necessarily singling out solo passengers, but it's an example. I've certainly heard of some of the things couples will do in hopes that they get three seats all to themselves like take a window and aisle hoping nobody wants the single middle. I don't begrudge anyone for doing what's practical. However, going back to the way that airlines used to mostly assign seats, they tended to group solo passengers together in order to accommodate groups. I've mentioned Amtrak, which will group solo passengers together such that there will be room for pairs boarding then or later. When there's open seating (which there often is at the start of a route) then there are often solo passengers taking one seat and hoping that nobody else wants to join them. Some even get huffy when they're asked to move or when someone takes the adjacent seat.

If I'm in a widebody with four across seating, I'm OK with two adjacent middle seats. However, that's just not possible with common narrow-body jets like a 737 or A319. That's basically what the proposed federal rule is supposed to address.

Yes, but you're comparing apples to oranges. I've never ridden a train where I can pick my specific seat. You can pick class. You can pick assigned seating or no assigned seating. But you can't pick the seat.

And people can get huffy all they like but they know they have to sit next to somebody. The couple in the plane example KNOWS someone could by the seat. That's different from paying for something and not getting it. It's no more justified to get angry over having someone sit next to you in open seating than it is to get angry over being separated from your group when you didn't pay for assigned seating.

And if you take a seat in open seating and then a family asks you to move, you're within your rights to say no. Amtrak shouldn't ask you to move to accommodate that family. I've never seen them do that anyway. The basis of open seating is that it is first come first serve.

 

[mummabear]

Uh, yes. If I don't want to pay the premium at a theater or a ball game, I either sit separately from my group or I don't go at all. I'm not going to be upset at the theater. I might be upset if my friends try to guilt me into paying that premium.

I have this discussion with people I travel with regularly. If they don't want to pay for extra legroom, that's fine. I'm going to. If they want to go to a play, and the only seats left are obstructed or premium, I'm not going to spend money on either. They can go without me.

But again this is about the so called premium seating.
What is at this theatre it isn't that your friends are choosing premium But you are given no choice because each row is alternating premium and non premium seats.
In the theatre you are talking about if you book early enough you can choose to sit together in an non premium seat, in airlines you can't, thy have purposely made it so that in a group to sit together at least one person must choose a "premium" seat.

Primary school kids all over the us and beyond take buses to school every day. Just because your school district doesn't do it doesn't mean it's the norm.
Parents of 2/3 years old should act as parents and realize that it sometimes entails sucking it up and paying to choose a seat or some other in convenience. It's called parenting. No one ever said it was all giggles and hugs

Wow such hostility.
No it isn't all giggles and hugs, hence why we want to sit next to our children to parent them.
The only reason the "premium" seating has been put in is to force groups to pay extra to sit together. And while when my husband and I can choose to save the money by not sitting next to each other, it isn't really a choice about whether or not we pay to sit next to our toddler, we are being strong armed into a fee, that was put i for just that purpose.

See, this is why I'm unsympathetic. My mother has health issues that make it really really hard for her to travel alone. She can't stay in a hotel that has no handicapped rooms available. Airlines do have assistance programs, but that doesn't help her on the way to the airport or on the way from the airport. She also has nerve damage where she can't get into a seat on the right side. So that pretty much means premium seats or left hand side aisle seats.

We pay extra all the time so she can travel with us. It's a built in expense. Sure, I look at a hotel that's half the price but has no handicapped accessible rooms and think if only we could stay there. But I don't book it. If I'm with a toddler, I wish I could save 60 dollars by picking a dorm room but I can't so I don't book it.

Your mother with her disabilities will have protections under the ADA, all parents are asking is for suitable protections for their children.
Airlines don't have anything to help anyone to or from the airport-what is our point?