Parents Now Protected From Having To Pay Extra To Sit With Their Kids On Flights

[lowlight]

If this becomes law I suspect what will happen is that if someone books with a child under 13 and doesn’t pick a seat a middle seat is set to unavailable and their group goes on a list. Once the number of groups on the list matches the dwindling number of seats together they will assign the seats. After that, if a group attempts to buy a ticket for someone under 13 the plane will show as full, as there are no two seats together available anymore. Two adults will still be able to buy tickets for that flight, they just won’t be able to sit together. Families may find flights with a dozen aisle seat open, but they won’t be able to book.

And then the whole plane applauded.

 

[FlippityFlier]

As I explained at the dentist once, we had missed an appointment for my son. My fault, totally forgot. When we went the next time, after waiting an hour after his appointment time to be seen, they told me there was a $25 charge for missing the appointment. I said I understand, would ask if they would wave this as a one time curtesy, as we never miss appointments. They said they could not, that they have a schedule to keep, and by reserving a time and me not being there, I was costing them money. I said ok, and then asked them for a blank piece of paper. I wrote out an invoice for $125 for the one hour of my time we waited for our appointment. Her perplexed look was priceless. I said I was an IT consultant, and that is what my company charged for my time. I said what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Funny, the missed the appointment fee was waived.

This literally happened? It sounds like an apocryphal story in Readers Digest. It's not a terribly convincing argument, they never agreed to contract your services for the hour you waited so the invoice was invalid. Maybe the poor receptionist or dentist figured it was worth the $25 to not have you keep handing her random pieces of paper. It's a little disturbing that you took joy in her "perplexed" look.

 

[FlippityFlier]

If this becomes law I suspect what will happen is that if someone books with a child under 13 and doesn’t pick a seat a middle seat is set to unavailable and their group goes on a list. Once the number of groups on the list matches the dwindling number of seats together they will assign the seats. After that, if a group attempts to buy a ticket for someone under 13 the plane will show as full, as there are no two seats together available anymore. Two adults will still be able to buy tickets for that flight, they just won’t be able to sit together. Families may find flights with a dozen aisle seat open, but they won’t be able to book.

A better fix is to waive fees as you go through the reservation process since you've already entered your child's age so the system knows you're sitting with children. Seats will get assigned.

 

[FlippityFlier]

On the flip side I do think some parents think they or their children are entitled to something extra, just because they are under some magical age. Don't get me wrong, there is a reason places offer discounts for children, and I am all for that. But if the airline charges for seat reservations, and your party of 4 wants to sit together, then you should pay for the seat. No matter what the ages of the party of 4.

Here's the thing -- it's not "extra". You *must* sit next to your children if they're little. I am totally fine with making seat selection a chargeable experience -- if I'm traveling with my wife or friends we are happy to pay extra to choose where we sit and whether it's together. That's fine. But with my five year old it's not optional, period. So it's a parent tax, not an optional benefit. I'm flying Spirit in a couple weeks and I'm not paying to pick our seats, and I'll check in exactly 24 hours before the flight to (hopefully) guarantee me and the kids sit together, and if we don't I'm going to be on the phone with the airline right then. If they tell me to talk to the gate agent they're going to hear it from me, because it's their problem and they shouldn't put the onus on other passengers as people are boarding.

 

[sam_gordon]

Here's the thing -- it's not "extra". You *must* sit next to your children if they're little. I am totally fine with making seat selection a chargeable experience -- if I'm traveling with my wife or friends we are happy to pay extra to choose where we sit and whether it's together. That's fine. But with my five year old it's not optional, period. So it's a parent tax, not an optional benefit. I'm flying Spirit in a couple weeks and I'm not paying to pick our seats, and I'll check in exactly 24 hours before the flight to (hopefully) guarantee me and the kids sit together, and if we don't I'm going to be on the phone with the airline right then. If they tell me to talk to the gate agent they're going to hear it from me, because it's their problem and they shouldn't put the onus on other passengers as people are boarding.

With all due respect, it's a "tax" (if you want to use that word) for anyone that MUST sit with their travelling companion(s). Parents aren't the only ones in that situation.
If you don't want to pay the "tax", pick an airline that allows free selection (or included in the rate at least).

Regarding your upcoming flight, IMO, it's YOU putting the onus on other passengers who have paid to select their seats. What the airline can do (and we don't know they don't) is when it's time for the computer to assign seats (for those who don't pay), put travelling parties with kids under 10(?) at the beginning of that list. This way, everyone who has paid to select their seats gets what they paid for, parents get a better chance of sitting together, and those who don't care where they sit will never know the difference.

 

[FlippityFlier]

With all due respect, it's a "tax" (if you want to use that word) for anyone that MUST sit with their travelling companion(s). Parents aren't the only ones in that situation.

Who else are you thinking of in that situation? I can think of some, like caregivers with adults with special needs. They should be included too.

it's YOU putting the onus on other passengers who have paid to select their seats.

No, it's the airline which chose to have this policy putting people in this awkward position. I'm left with no choice. (I mean of course I have choices, and the one I'm choosing here is to fly Spirit and complain about an unfair policy.). But sitting with my little kids is not a choice.

Note that in reality we are extremely likely to be seated together without incident. Spirit knows that cheapskates fly them. and that the majority of ticketholders seem to choose, like me, to not pay to select seats. Their system apparently attempts (like you wondered) to seat everyone on a reservation together when they check in (according to a counter agent I spoke with) so as long as we check 24 hours ahead we should be seated together.

It actually makes sense to charge people to choose seats. Want a window or aisle? Like the front or back of the plane? That's premium behavior on a discount airline, pay a little more. Totally fine. But there are a few passengers who do not have the luxury of that being a choice, and it's not OK to force them to subsidize everyone else on the plane who is able to take the random-seat discount.

 

[sam_gordon]

Who else are you thinking of in that situation? I can think of some, like caregivers with adults with special needs. They should be included too.

What about the couple where one of them is a "nervous flier"? What about a parent traveling with a 15 year old (or an adult) who has never flown? What about the couple who just got married and are on their way to their honeymoon? You want to separate them? There are many people who think they MUST sit with their travelling companions. Not everyone agrees with their logic. By charging for seat selection, airlines are putting the onus back on passengers. You want to sit with someone? Pay for it.

 

[sam_gordon]

No, it's the airline which chose to have this policy putting people in this awkward position. I'm left with no choice. (I mean of course I have choices, and the one I'm choosing here is to fly Spirit and complain about an unfair policy.). But sitting with my little kids is not a choice.

Why do business with a company that you think has an unfair policy? Oh, saving money, right? It's worth saving the money and then complain. Sorry, I don't work like that.

Note that in reality we are extremely likely to be seated together without incident. Spirit knows that cheapskates fly them. and that the majority of ticketholders seem to choose, like me, to not pay to select seats. Their system apparently attempts (like you wondered) to seat everyone on a reservation together when they check in (according to a counter agent I spoke with) so as long as we check 24 hours ahead we should be seated together.

Yes, you are LIKELY to be seated together, and I'm sure the system tries to put everyone on a reservation together. But that's not a guarantee.

It actually makes sense to charge people to choose seats. Want a window or aisle? Like the front or back of the plane? That's premium behavior on a discount airline, pay a little more. Totally fine. But there are a few passengers who do not have the luxury of that being a choice, and it's not OK to force them to subsidize everyone else on the plane who is able to take the random-seat discount.

What about the people who can travel with a carry on only (although isn't Spirit's carry on fee more than checked bag fee?)? I mean is it fair for a family (who has to bring more luggage) to "subsidize" those who can travel with less?

 

[Marrila]

Who else are you thinking of in that situation? I can think of some, like caregivers with adults with special needs. They should be included too.


No, it's the airline which chose to have this policy putting people in this awkward position. I'm left with no choice. (I mean of course I have choices, and the one I'm choosing here is to fly Spirit and complain about an unfair policy.). But sitting with my little kids is not a choice.

Note that in reality we are extremely likely to be seated together without incident. Spirit knows that cheapskates fly them. and that the majority of ticketholders seem to choose, like me, to not pay to select seats. Their system apparently attempts (like you wondered) to seat everyone on a reservation together when they check in (according to a counter agent I spoke with) so as long as we check 24 hours ahead we should be seated together.

It actually makes sense to charge people to choose seats. Want a window or aisle? Like the front or back of the plane? That's premium behavior on a discount airline, pay a little more. Totally fine. But there are a few passengers who do not have the luxury of that being a choice, and it's not OK to force them to subsidize everyone else on the plane who is able to take the random-seat discount.

Welcome to the DIS!
We can choose the airline that most fits our needs and personal preferences. In many cases we can purchase adjacent seats, upgrades and the like.
On the other hand, folks who don't care where they sit can book cut rate airlines and save some bucks.
There are lots of options.

 

[FlippityFlier]

What about the couple who just got married and are on their way to their honeymoon? You want to separate them? There are many people who think they MUST sit with their travelling companions.

I'm sure they think so but that doesn't make that couple right.

What about the people who can travel with a carry on only (although isn't Spirit's carry on fee more than checked bag fee?)? I mean is it fair for a family (who has to bring more luggage) to "subsidize" those who can travel with less?

I get where you're going but how much you pack is never going to be analogous to having to sit with a 5-year-old. There's needs and then there's needs. And for the record the three of us are checking a single bag. (That's an economy of scale -- we have that option whereas three single travelers need to each pay for their own bag. Maybe seat selection can work the same way, pay per reservation and not per person. Give those poor honeymooners a little discount too, those lovebirds.)

 

[sam_gordon]

I'm sure they think so but that doesn't make that couple right.

So who gets to decide?

I get where you're going but how much you pack is never going to be analogous to having to sit with a 5-year-old. There's needs and then there's needs. And for the record the three of us are checking a single bag. (That's an economy of scale -- we have that option whereas three single travelers need to each pay for their own bag. Maybe seat selection can work the same way, pay per reservation and not per person. Give those poor honeymooners a little discount too, those lovebirds.)

Nice to see you can judge another traveler's "needs" so easily.

 

[FlippityFlier]

On the other hand, folks who don't care where they sit can book cut rate airlines and save some bucks.
There are lots of options.

Sounds like you're saying "folks who don't have kids can book cut rate airlines and save some bucks." Because even if they don't care where they sit they are forced to pay to select seats. That doesn't seem fair, right?

 

[Marrila]

Sounds like you're saying "folks who don't have kids can book cut rate airlines and save some bucks." Because even if they don't care where they sit they are forced to pay to select seats. That doesn't seem fair, right?

Two college students don't care where they sit, they don't pay extra.
A mommy and 6 year old will want seats together, so they pay for reserved seating.
We all have different needs and in some cases folks have parental or caretaking responsibilities. It's not about "fair."

 

[sam_gordon]

Sounds like you're saying "folks who don't have kids can book cut rate airlines and save some bucks." Because even if they don't care where they sit they are forced to pay to select seats. That doesn't seem fair, right?

EVERYONE who is particular about where they sit needs (should) to purchase seats. How is that NOT "fair"?

Did you purchase a car seat (probably multiples) for your child? What about a high chair? A crib? It's not unusual for parents to HAVE to spend extra money for their children. Those who are childless don't have to. Is that "fair"?

 

[NJlauren]

I hate this whole thing, I have two young kids, and fly JetBlue, spirit and United. I have never not paid to select seats. I refuse to risk being separated from my kids. When traveling solo I am also not happy if someone asks me to move, even traveling solo I pay for my seat in advance. It’s great someone wants to save money dont we all?!? But it’s important i sit where I want so I pay for that privilege.

If you don’t want to pay for a seat dont ask me to move, on occasion I will move, but I will not be happy about it.

Ideally I would be guaranteed to sit with my kids but that’s not the current rule so i suck it up and pay, and do not complain about it. When you select the cheap fare you agree to the rules.

They are giving a discount to not pick a seat, I suspect they will just raise all prices so everyone has to pick seats.

 

[FlippityFlier]

Two college students don't care where they sit, they don't pay extra.
A mommy and 6 year old will want seats together, so they pay for reserved seating.

"want"?

 

[greeneyedchick]

My son and I have been travelling with basic economy since he was 9 years old. We knew there was a chance that we wouldn't be seated together and we were fine with that. He was old enough to manage things on his own. As long as he had his kindle and his backpack of snacks, he was fine. I agree that if parents want to be closer, they should pay. It's ridiculous to ask the airlines to accommodate seating together for kids p to the age of 13. Kids should be able to travel a few rows from their parents at a younger age than that.

 

[FlippityFlier]

My son and I have been travelling with basic economy since he was 9 years old. We knew there was a chance that we wouldn't be seated together and we were fine with that.

Right, that's a 9 year old. My 9 year old can sit by himself just fine too. I'm talking about the kids young enough where it's not a choice. When he was younger did you just not use basic economy?

 

[FlippityFlier]

Ideally I would be guaranteed to sit with my kids but that’s not the current rule so i suck it up and pay, and do not complain about it. When you select the cheap fair you agree to the rules.

I agree with you, ideally that would be the rule. And I'd be happy to agree to the rules of the cheap fare, but one of them is "parents of young kids can't have the cheap fare" so...

 

[NJlauren]

I agree with you, ideally that would be the rule. And I'd be happy to agree to the rules of the cheap fare, but one of them is "parents of young kids can't have the cheap fare" so...

Not exactly the rule is you don’t get to select your seat till 24 hours in advance. That’s why the fare is so cheap. Your getting a discount for not selecting your seat.

They aren’t saying you can’t have them, they are just saying you don’t get special treatment and a guaranteed seating because you have a young child.

They should charge more, and then you can check a box to get 50 off to not select a seat… maybe that will help