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

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

The threat title is "Parents Now Protected From Having To Pay Extra To Sit With Their Kids On Flights". Seems very relevant to contribute an example that shows how this is not the case. What's a little surprising is how many people jump in to defend a practice that consumer watchdogs in the government are working to curb.

You just posted that you found this Board because you wanted to know how it is flying with Spirit and vent about Spirit's policies. On this thread there is talking about a hypothetical where you're getting little information about Spirit thus far. The thread is about a guidance that has had zero progress. We have a dedicated SWA thread that is extremely helpful for example, we don't have one for Spirit but it's why I suggested creating your own thread.

The thread was created in July, has had no responses beyond July 22nd, the thread was about guidance given not about any protection written in stone. Unfortunately the OP's thread title was inaccurate when it was created and that was already discussed back in July. If you don't want to create your own thread that's fine but I'm not sure how much help you're going to get to answer your inquiry about Spirit and vent about Spirit here because no airline has presently had any requirements passed down to them by the DOT. All the document was about was "in 4 months time we'll review". In fairness there's been a lot of miscommunication about all of this and it wasn't helped by blogs and other articles picking it up. I went straight to the source from the DOT to get my information about it. Should there be an update about this I'm sure it will be posted about in the news and the 4 month time is coming up so perhaps we'll know soon.

ETA: Here the DOT page https://www.transportation.gov/indi...er-protection/family-seating/June-2022-notice and it has the actual document on it.

"In four months from the date of this Notice, OACP plans to initiate a review of airline policies and consumer complaints filed with the Department. If airlines’ seating policies and practices are barriers to a child sitting next to an adult family member or other accompanying adult family member, the Department will consider additional action consistent with its authorities." Nothing was ever "now protected" and all that was ever written was review, will consider.

 

[FlippityFlier]

Sorry, not following. How does car seat help your argument? Unless you're getting the car seats for free because it's "not fair" to those who don't need them.

I mean that airlines have all already shown that certain things related to travel with children are not optional so they don't charge for them. Spirit doesn't charge to check car seats yet charges to ensure that a three-year-old would sit next to their parent. That doesn't make sense.

 

[FlippityFlier]

Nothing was ever "now protected" and all that was ever written was review, will consider.

Right, "now protected" actually meant "are now moving to protect". People have long complained about the basic economy policies most airlines have started to institute over the last decade, the Trump DOT declined to add new rules, figuring the airlines would work it out themselves, and the Biden DOT decided to move further and say "We'll give you four months and see how this goes." Now we're at the four month deadline and we're checking in.

You're right, their assessment is going to focus on complaints. I'm guessing that what Spirit and others do is keep the same policy and hope parents continue to pay for seating, while at checkin time ensuring that all families sit together. (A counter agent probably confirmed this when she told me not to worry, we'd sit together.). That way there are no complaints, except maybe from people who get moved from their seat, but that will probably not get recorded as a family-travel complaint.

 

[NJlauren]

Right, "now protected" actually meant "are now moving to protect". People have long complained about the basic economy policies most airlines have started to institute over the last decade, the Trump DOT declined to add new rules, figuring the airlines would work it out themselves, and the Biden DOT decided to move further and say "We'll give you four months and see how this goes." Now we're at the four month deadline and we're checking in.

You're right, their assessment is going to focus on complaints. I'm guessing that what Spirit and others do is keep the same policy and hope parents continue to pay for seating, while at checkin time ensuring that all families sit together. (A counter agent probably confirmed this when she told me not to worry, we'd sit together.). That way there are no complaints, except maybe from people who get moved from their seat, but that will probably not get recorded as a family-travel complaint.

If I pay for my seat and am moved I will complain and be pissed!

Also if you really want spirit feedback happy to give it, fly with them and overall I have no complaints, and always sit with my kids but as documented I pay for that.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Right, "now protected" actually meant "are now moving to protect". People have long complained about the basic economy policies most airlines have started to institute over the last decade, the Trump DOT declined to add new rules, figuring the airlines would work it out themselves, and the Biden DOT decided to move further and say "We'll give you four months and see how this goes." Now we're at the four month deadline and we're checking in.

You're right, their assessment is going to focus on complaints. I'm guessing that what Spirit and others do is keep the same policy and hope parents continue to pay for seating, while at checkin time ensuring that all families sit together. (A counter agent probably confirmed this when she told me not to worry, we'd sit together.). That way there are no complaints, except maybe from people who get moved from their seat, but that will probably not get recorded as a family-travel complaint.

We have very different definitions of now protected. There is no protection, isn't that what you just said that you commented on this thread to "contribute an example that shows how this is not the case."

You made an earlier comment about going in circles, I feel like that's what we're doing now. So I'll just leave it as if you want help on Spirit my best suggestion is to create a thread about that topic and ask away. Posters can be helpful to you sharing in their experiences

 

[sam_gordon]

I mean that airlines have all already shown that certain things related to travel with children are not optional so they don't charge for them. Spirit doesn't charge to check car seats yet charges to ensure that a three-year-old would sit next to their parent. That doesn't make sense.

If something isn't "optional", then it's "required", right?

But we KNOW you don't HAVE to bring car seats OR strollers with you on a trip. You can have someone else provide them or do things that don't require them. Since you don't HAVE to bring car seats or strollers with you, they're not "required", and therefore "optional".

Personally, I don't think it would be "fair" to say travelling parties with children under 'x' get to pick their seats for free, and everyone else has to pay.

 

[snowwite]

If I pay for my seat and am moved I will complain and be pissed!

Also if you really want spirit feedback happy to give it, fly with them and overall I have no complaints, and always sit with my kids but as documented I pay for that.

We always pay extra to sit together. I would strongly protest being moved because someone else didn’t plan or wanted to save on the flight. We’d like to save too but we pay because I’m SUPER anxious flying. Families who have one toddler yet take the entire family on early also drive me bananas. Samantha Brown has a great article about boarding with littles and says have one parent go set up car seat etc and you let kid run around, nap, nurse whatever then board last and limit the time they are on the plane waiting.

 

[FlippityFlier]

But we KNOW you don't HAVE to bring car seats OR strollers with you on a trip. You can have someone else provide them or do things that don't require them. Since you don't HAVE to bring car seats or strollers with you, they're not "required", and therefore "optional".

Well, sort of -- most Ubers and taxis don't have car seats in them, so they're often actually required for the trip, and they're mandated by law in the car, so parents often have no choice but to bring them on the plane. Strollers similarly, for some it's simply impossible to get around without one.

BUT let's even accept that they're optional -- the airlines still recognize that they are essential to family travel, so they check them for free. How does that square with charging to seat a little child next to their parent?

 

[npatellye]

We always pay extra to sit together. I would strongly protest being moved because someone else didn’t plan or wanted to save on the flight.

Same. We pay to pick our seats and also pay for extra legroom seats. I would not take kindly to being moved to a different seat when we intentionally pick our seats so we can sit with our children.

Edited to add: my children are young enough that they cannot sit alone but we prefer the peace of mind of knowing we are together as soon as we book our tickets. To me, that’s worth the extra $33/person (including the charge for extra legroom) my local budget airline charges each way.

 

[sam_gordon]

Well, sort of -- most Ubers and taxis don't have car seats in them, so they're often actually required for the trip, and they're mandated by law in the car, so parents often have no choice but to bring them on the plane. Strollers similarly, for some it's simply impossible to get around without one.

So people are required to use Ubers and taxis? That's what you keep missing... people have CHOICES on how they travel. Their CHOICES on how they travel have consequences.

BUT let's even accept that they're optional -- the airlines still recognize that they are essential to family travel, so they check them for free. How does that square with charging to seat a little child next to their parent?

No, airlines have decided they don't want to alienate families. If Spirit (for example, pick any airline) decided they were going to charge for strollers & car seats, it would greatly cut down on how many families fly with them. It's a business decision. At the same time, if Spirit (again, pick your airline) decides "hey, families with children under 6 get to sit with their traveling companions at no charge!", they make OTHER travelers upset, potentially costing them business. They're not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, their doing it for the goodness of their bottom line. Just like YOU are doing by deciding not to pay for your seats. It's all about the Benjamins (isn't that a phrase?).

 

[FlippityFlier]

So people are required to use Ubers and taxis? That's what you keep missing... people have CHOICES on how they travel. Their CHOICES on how they travel have consequences.

Feels like you're getting a little far afield here. People have choices but car seats are, for all intents and purposes, not optional when traveling with kids. You're getting into "WELL NO ONE FORCED YOU TO HAVE KIDS, OR TO LEAVE YOUR HOUSE" territory. Tell me how you're going to get an infant through an entire air travel trip without a car seat being involved at some point. They're a mandatory part of travel, which is why airlines check them for free. It may even be govenment-mandated, I don't know, but at the root it's because they're safety equipment, and strollers are lumped in. Whether it's driven by regulation or the airlines wanting to woo families it's because we as a society see child safety as a requirement.

 

[Allison]

If you think needing to save a few bucks is more important than making sure you sit with your 5 year old, I don’t know what to tell you either.

Your current need is to plan ahead for seating for your child.
Other people may have different needs that they also plan ahead for. Their needs are also valid.

Agreed.

 

[EACarlson]

Feels like you're getting a little far afield here. People have choices but car seats are, for all intents and purposes, not optional when traveling with kids. You're getting into "WELL NO ONE FORCED YOU TO HAVE KIDS, OR TO LEAVE YOUR HOUSE" territory. Tell me how you're going to get an infant through an entire air travel trip without a car seat being involved at some point. They're a mandatory part of travel, which is why airlines check them for free. It may even be govenment-mandated, I don't know, but at the root it's because they're safety equipment, and strollers are lumped in. Whether it's driven by regulation or the airlines wanting to woo families it's because we as a society see child safety as a requirement.

They are mandatory for car travel. They are not required on busses, trains or airplanes. It is perfectly possible to take a trip involving air travel without being in a car. I've done it to WDW.
Allowing free checking of car seats and strollers is a business decision, if United came out tomorrow and said they wouldn't allow car seats to be checked for free anymore, one it might actually prompt congress to do something, and two, a certain segment of customers would look at other airlines.
What you really seem to want is a return to 1980's air travel when there were two types of tickets and only a few airlines. Average ticket price then is almost the same as it is now, which means the real cost has been halved when inflation is figured in. Many things have changed for the worse, but ticket prices have not been one of them.

 

[FlippityFlier]

They are mandatory for car travel. They are not required on busses, trains or airplanes. It is perfectly possible to take a trip involving air travel without being in a car. I've done it to WDW.

Airlines recognize that they are an essential part of family travel or they wouldn't check them for free. Not sure why you're even arguing that they're not. On the basis of that one time you didn't need to use one?

What you really seem to want is a return to 1980's air travel when there were two types of tickets and only a few airlines. Average ticket price then is almost the same as it is now, which means the real cost has been halved when inflation is figured in. Many things have changed for the worse, but ticket prices have not been one of them.

Nope. Lots of ways to work this out without scrapping the entire system, as I've detailed above more than once.

 

[npatellye]

They are mandatory for car travel. They are not required on busses, trains or airplanes. It is perfectly possible to take a trip involving air travel without being in a car.

Agreed. Having flown with infants and toddlers multiple times, I can honestly say I’ve never flown with a car seat. We have flown over 15 times (domestically and internationally) with a lap infant between 2013 and 2018. Once we arrived at our destinations, we always arranged for transportation that didn’t require a car seat. So I’ve never needed a car seat to fly with an infant or even with an infant and a toddler. I don’t see a car seat as a mandatory part of my family vacations requiring air travel. YMMV.

 

[sam_gordon]

Airlines recognize that they are an essential part of family travel or they wouldn't check them for free. Not sure why you're even arguing that they're not. On the basis of that one time you didn't need to use one?

Airlines check them for free because if they didn't, they would lose customers. It's a business decision. Why did the legacy airlines implement "basic economy"? Because they saw the ULCC taking some of their market share. So they offer the same thing (at a lower cost than their "normal" tickets). All it takes is for one business to do something and (assuming it works) competitors will quickly copy it.

Yes, car seats are mandatory when traveling in cars. BUT, if you take a bus from the airport to your hotel, you don't need a car seat. If you arrange private transportation, you don't need to bring a car seat. If you take a subway or train, you don't need a car seat.

And again, if a company has a policy you don't agree with, why do business with them? It depends on how much that policy means to you, right? Or how much money you're saving?

 

[FlippityFlier]

They are mandatory for car travel. They are not required on busses [sic], trains or airplanes. It is perfectly possible to take a trip involving air travel without being in a car. I've done it to WDW.

I've driven without a seatbelt a couple times too. Does that mean they're not essential safety equipment?

Having flown with infants and toddlers multiple times, I can honestly say I’ve never flown with a car seat. We have flown over 15 times (domestically and internationally) with a lap infant between 2013 and 2018. Once we arrived at our destinations, we always arranged for transportation that didn’t require a car seat. So I’ve never needed a car seat to fly with an infant or even with an infant and a toddler. I don’t see a car seat as a mandatory part of my family vacations requiring air travel. YMMV.

But you needed a car seat, you just didn't bring yours on the plane. Airlines recognize their importance to families, which is why they're the only thing they check for free.

Yes, car seats are mandatory when traveling in cars. BUT, if you take a bus from the airport to your hotel, you don't need a car seat. If you arrange private transportation, you don't need to bring a car seat. If you take a subway or train, you don't need a car seat.

Because it's possible to avoid using them they aren't important? Every airline disagrees with you. To put another way, they know that no parent is bringing a car seat just because they like car seats, they are bringing one to keep their kid safe.

Seriously scratching my head at y'all.

 

[FlippityFlier]

And again, if a company has a policy you don't agree with, why do business with them? It depends on how much that policy means to you, right? Or how much money you're saving?

Because it's my dad's 85th birthday and he's not doing great and I have to bring the kids and it was the only carrier I could afford on short notice. (Yes it's my choice to go, but don't go there.) I really appreciate their business plan of keeping fares low by making many ancillary things -- bags and aisle/window and drink service and snacks -- optional for-fee add-ons. Except.. well, you know the rest.