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

[lisski76]

Do you know what parents nowadays just can't win with members of the general public.

If our kids misbehave we are neglectful, not doing our jobs etc etc etc see it all the time on these boards

If we want to be seated next to our kids to supervise and look after them then we are helicopter parents, entitled etc etc etc.

Quit giving parents such a hard time. Most of us are doing our best day in day out.

Totally agree with this. I also want to add that I always pay for seats for my family to sit together. Its my job to care for my child whether age 2 or 11. For those people saying who cares if the child is separated if their over age 5, I care. I care for 3 reasons; first it's my child, second what if there was an emergency and third because you can't trust people today. In my line of work I have seen it all and there is no way my child is sitting with strangers. Again I pay, plan and prepare to do this, I don't expect the airline to accommodate me nor other passengers.

 

[bcla]

Totally agree with this. I also want to add that I always pay for seats for my family to sit together. Its my job to care for my child whether age 2 or 11. For those people saying who cares if the child is separated if their over age 5, I care. I care for 3 reasons; first it's my child, second what if there was an emergency and third because you can't trust people today. In my line of work I have seen it all and there is no way my child is sitting with strangers. Again I pay, plan and prepare to do this, I don't expect the airline to accommodate me nor other passengers.

However, it looks like the default will soon be that the airlines allows seating together without any surcharge. I take it you'll probably accept it. What I see in this forum are implications that this is somehow unfair because groups without younger children won't have this advantage.

 

[lisski76]

However, it looks like the default will soon be that the airlines allows seating together without any surcharge. I take it you'll probably accept it. What I see in this forum are implications that this is somehow unfair because groups without younger children won't have this advantage.

There are always going to be people who think things are not fair. In my opinion, I think all airlines should require that seats be chosen during the booking process, even if that means paying extra to do so. This too won't please everyone, but it will cut down on some of the issues discussed I this thread. I will continue to pay for our seats in the future because for me, my family sitting near each other is important.

 

[Westcoastwild]

There are always going to be people who think things are not fair. In my opinion, I think all airlines should require that seats be chosen during the booking process, even if that means paying extra to do so. This too won't please everyone, but it will cut down on some of the issues discussed I this thread. I will continue to pay for our seats in the future because for me, my family sitting near each other is important.

I honestly think most people do pay to select seats. The cheapskates are just the ones that howl about the fee. Because when I book a flight a month or two out, most seats are taken, even premium. If there were fewer people selecting, there'd be a better chance of snagging whatever seat I want. That's not the case.

 

[bcla]

I honestly think most people do pay to select seats. The cheapskates are just the ones that howl about the fee. Because when I book a flight a month or two out, most seats are taken, even premium. If there were fewer people selecting, there'd be a better chance of snagging whatever seat I want. That's not the case.

In reality there are often more unclaimed seats than the seating diagram indicates. Many seats are withheld. I've heard some airlines will make those seats available to their higher status customers before they become available to everyone. Some may be withheld until check-in.

 

[mnrose]

However, it looks like the default will soon be that the airlines allows seating together without any surcharge. I take it you'll probably accept it. What I see in this forum are implications that this is somehow unfair because groups without younger children won't have this advantage.

Where do you get this conclusion? Have you seen the draft regulations? I actually looked for them, and could not find them. The bill passed in Congress does no such thing. Not even close.

I really do not care because it does not affect me, but I hate to see misinformation spread.

This is misinformation.

 

[bcla]

There are always going to be people who think things are not fair. In my opinion, I think all airlines should require that seats be chosen during the booking process, even if that means paying extra to do so. This too won't please everyone, but it will cut down on some of the issues discussed I this thread. I will continue to pay for our seats in the future because for me, my family sitting near each other is important.

You either pay extra or you don't. I don't see how seat selection becomes like a mandatory hotel resort fee. If it's mandatory, then it should be integrated into the fare.

I mean, if you were just traveling with one or two kids, you would pay the premium seat fee even if it would be free under the new rule?

 

[Westcoastwild]

You either pay extra or you don't. I don't see how seat selection becomes like a mandatory hotel resort fee. If it's mandatory, then it should be integrated into the fare.

I mean, if you were just traveling with one or two kids, you would pay the premium seat fee even if it would be free under the new rule?

I don't believe for one moment the airlines are going to be forced to sell premium seat for nonpremium kids. I think it's more likely that they'll withhold the nonpremium seats- like the middles- to sell with the adjacent premium seats. So if you say you have a kid, those pairs of premium/nonpremium will show up. Parent buys the premium- kid gets the middle. Which you can already do.

 

[lisski76]

You either pay extra or you don't. I don't see how seat selection becomes like a mandatory hotel resort fee. If it's mandatory, then it should be integrated into the fare.

I mean, if you were just traveling with one or two kids, you would pay the premium seat fee even if it would be free under the new rule?

Yes, perhaps the fee should be integrated into to the fare. Per this new rule, I believe it's under age 13 that is guaranteed to sit with a family member, so yes I would still pay so all of my family can sit together.

 

[Westcoastwild]

Where do you get this conclusion? Have you seen the draft regulations? I actually looked for them, and could not find them. The bill passed in Congress does no such thing. Not even close.

I really do not care because it does not affect me, but I hate to see misinformation spread.

This is misinformation.

Right. It's a directive. That's all. They're directing the DOT and airlines to look at the issue. And even the directive is pretty weak. A directive that says a kid should sit in an adjacent seat to any member of their party over the age 13 is not exactly a big win for the families. The airline just has to make sure the kid is seated next to one family member.

The only person it might help is the mother travelling alone with a few young kids, but I'm going to assume that most women in that position pay to select their seats to begin with.

 

[bcla]

Where do you get this conclusion? Have you seen the draft regulations? I actually looked for them, and could not find them. The bill passed in Congress does no such thing. Not even close.

I really do not care because it does not affect me, but I hate to see misinformation spread.

This is misinformation.

Here's the law. Maybe there's a chance that DOT staff recommends to the Secretary of Transportation that it not be implemented, but exactly for what reason. When cabinet departments refuse to implement regulations that are recommended by law, there needs to be a rationale for refusal to implement. There are public interest organizations with attorneys more than willing to work pro bono to sue.

FAMILY SEATING.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall review and, if appropriate, establish a policy directing all air carriers providing scheduled passenger interstate or intrastate air transportation to establish 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.​

Am I reading this wrong? Maybe it's not a high priority and maybe it misses the deadline, but someone is bound to address this, even if it is late. I don't really see this being interpreted any other way than airlines being required to allow (for example) one child and one adult to be allowed to select middle and aisle seats together at no additional cost if seat selection is otherwise allowed at booking. The intent is pretty easy to understand. It's supposed to be a fee waiver.

 

[Westcoastwild]

Yes, perhaps the fee should be integrated into to the fare. Per this new rule, I believe it's under age 13 that is guaranteed to sit with a family member, so yes I would still pay so all of my family can sit together.

The fee is integrated into the fare. You can pay a fare that covers the selection of seats instead of buying a fare that doesn't cover that.

People just don't want to pay a higher fare.

 

[Westcoastwild]

Here's the law. Maybe there's a chance that DOT staff recommends to the Secretary of Transportation that it not be implemented, but exactly for what reason. When cabinet departments refuse to implement regulations that are recommended by law, there needs to be a rationale for refusal to implement. There are public interest organizations with attorneys more than willing to work pro bono to sue.

FAMILY SEATING.

(a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall review and, if appropriate, establish a policy directing all air carriers providing scheduled passenger interstate or intrastate air transportation to establish 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.​

Am I reading this wrong? Maybe it's not a high priority and maybe it misses the deadline, but someone is bound to address this, even if it is late. I don't really see this being interpreted any other way than airlines being required to allow (for example) one child and one adult to be allowed to select middle and aisle seats together at no additional cost if seat selection is otherwise allowed at booking. The intent is pretty easy to understand. It's supposed to be a fee waiver.

But it doesn't specifically waive any fees. It doesn't say that you can pick a seat and automatically get the seat next to you. It means that the airline is obligated to find two adjacent seats. So all they have to do is find a vancant nonpremium seat next to the seat of someone they can upgrade. The seat picked is at the discretion of the airline, and I've never seen an airline that requires an extra fee for every single window and aisle seat.

If anything, I actually think it hurts the family's chances of good seats. Very likely they'll be stuck by the toilets.

 

[bcla]

But it doesn't specifically waive any fees. It doesn't say that you can pick a seat and automatically get the seat next to you. It means that the airline is obligated to find two adjacent seats. So all they have to do is find a vancant nonpremium seat next to the seat of someone they can upgrade. The seat picked is at the discretion of the airline, and I've never seen an airline that requires an extra fee for every single window and aisle seat.

If anything, I actually think it hurts the family's chances of good seats. Very likely they'll be stuck by the toilets.

It specifically says to the "maximum extent practicable" and "at no additional cost". Sure it's possible that such a regulation allows for seating choice being up to the airline, but that might not be allowed in the final regulation. If the fare basis allows (for instance) adult passengers to pick two nonadjacent middle seats at no additional cost but doesn't allow an adult with child to select two seats together in the same cabin class at no extra charge, that might not be taken too kindly by the regulators at the DOT. And it still won't satisfy detractors who are upset that someone might get an aisle seat in advance at no extra charge.

I certainly don't see the intent to allow for a random assignment of seats at the time of boarding or check-in if the fare basis otherwise allows the selection of seats at booking.

 

[bcla]

The fee is integrated into the fare. You can pay a fare that covers the selection of seats instead of buying a fare that doesn't cover that.

People just don't want to pay a higher fare.

If the fare basis covers the selection of seats, then it should allow for any adjacent seat selection in the same cabin class. Anything else would seem to be a big middle finger to the intent of the rule.

If I'm buying a seat directly from American Airlines, I get seat selection at the time of booking. So how do you suppose it would be handled differently between two adult passengers vs one adult/one child meeting the definition for application of this new rule?

 

[Westcoastwild]

If the fare basis covers the selection of seats, then it should allow for any adjacent seat selection in the same cabin class. Anything else would seem to be a big middle finger to the intent of the rule.

If I'm buying a seat directly from American Airlines, I get seat selection at the time of booking. So how do you suppose it would be handled differently between two adult passengers vs one adult/one child meeting the definition for application of this new rule?

That is assuming that airlines don't enjoy giving the middle finger to the DOT. Or care much what customers think- no one is "happy" about paying seat assignment fees. I get what you're saying but imo The directive is so watered down, that by the time it is turned into a "law", I don't think it will have much teeth.

 

[Westcoastwild]

If the fare basis covers the selection of seats, then it should allow for any adjacent seat selection in the same cabin class. Anything else would seem to be a big middle finger to the intent of the rule.

If I'm buying a seat directly from American Airlines, I get seat selection at the time of booking. So how do you suppose it would be handled differently between two adult passengers vs one adult/one child meeting the definition for application of this new rule?

You mean two passengers without a kid or with a kid? Because only one parent would be required to book one of the adjacent seat sets if that's how they set it up.

 

[bcla]

That is assuming that airlines don't enjoy giving the middle finger to the DOT. Or care much what customers think- no one is "happy" about paying seat assignment fees. I get what you're saying but imo The directive is so watered down, that by the time it is turned into a "law", I don't think it will have much teeth.

Southwest enjoys mocking other airlines for change fees, baggage fees, etc. Their family boarding policy was pretty much acknowledged in this law as being acceptable for the requirements although I'm pretty they would change the age. I think any airline trying to do an end around is going to suffer some well-deserved ridicule. Still, you never know what happens over time. Harrah's used to loudly proclaim that they didn't charge resort fees. After the merger with Caesers they always charge a resort fee now, so it doesn't kind of seem hypocritical. Alaska Airlines had a tradition of mocking other airlines for reducing seat pitch, charging extra for food, and overall bad service. I guess reality set in and they did all that, although their service is probably better than most. They of course had the famous ad where they take a guess as to what's the next insult that the big airlines think of, which is to install pay toilets and a guy is wandering around asking other passengers if they have change.

I have a little bit of understanding about how these things work. You're right that whatever the final rule is can't technically be called a "law". It's a regulation that some bureaucrat is supposed to research and a draft, but it's supposed to be based off of what the law allows and/or requests. When it finally gets around, it will be part of the Code of Federal Regulations.

Sure there might be a bunch of ways to do it, but trying to make an overly convoluted implementation certainly isn't going to help the next time Congress is thinking of re-regulating US-based airlines. Of course at booking, every passenger's name and DOB needs to be entered, so they will know what groups qualify for this. One way I think they might do it would be to present default seating assignments with adjacent seats, but then optionally allow the purchaser to change seats to any "available" set of seats in the same class.

 

[mummabear]

Yes...but she's not guaranteed a seat at a cheaper price because of those disabilities. She has to pay for a premium seat because she can't just sit in any seat. That's my point. She has to pay for that seat. If such a seat is not available, we can't take that flight.

So if you don't pay for a premium seat to sit next to your kid, that is on you. Not the airline.

I'm sympathetic to parents travelling with really young children, and I acknowledge that some of those folks have no real choice in the matter. But I find it hilarious that we're arguing this on a Disney forum. Because it's not like you have to fly 20+ hours with your 3 year old to visit WDW. If it bothers you so much to pay that fee, why not vacation closer to home?

I do vacation closer to home as well.
We don't have these issue with non US based airlines(and to be honest we don't really have this problem with our status within the alliance we fly anyway, but I do think it is an issue for others).
It's funny how Americans are saying "it has to be done this way" when basically everywhere else does it differently-I do not pay to choose my seats flying in mom US airlines and they also dont charge extra for window or aisle. There is economy, premium economy and business that's it.
The first couple of rows of economy (at least domestically) are reserved for status members only but otherwise everyone has the option to choose their seat when you buy your ticket.

 

[sam_gordon]

It's funny how Americans are saying "it has to be done this way"

Actually, I don't think anyone is saying that. The airlines have decided to charge for "extras" (checked luggage, more seat space, certain seats, etc). Those who don't need those "extras" get to save a little bit of money. Those who want the extras pay for it. It's a business decision the airlines have made.