New law, parents/kids sitting together

[smiths02]

I don't disagree with that at all - I'm a big fan of knowing what you're getting. What I dislike as a practice (and again, this is just my opinion based on personal experiences and having frustrating experiences shared by friends and family) is that families with young children are expected to pay the "add on" charge to ensure littles aren't sat with strangers, I feel like it approaches a low level of extortion to "force" families to pony up extra or just not fly. The airlines are already collecting three, four, five or more seat fares from a family, and sometimes the "nominal" extra fee times three/four/five can add up to almost the cost of an additional ticket. In addition, if airlines are going to allow kids to be seated away from parents, they need better safeguards to keep small kids from being alone. Airlines have age limits for unaccompanied minors, and it seems odd that an airline would allow a 2 year old to be seated away from their parent but yet wouldn't allow that child on the plane at all if unaccompanied - at 2 years old having the parent physically on the plane but not with the child isn't enough supervision.

How many 2 year olds does a typical family have? I mean I have a family of five...I would not pay the fee 5 times...I might pay it for one adult and the young children

 

[siren0119]

How many 2 year olds does a typical family have? I mean I have a family of five...I would not pay the fee 5 times...I might pay it for one adult and the young children

LOL I can name three families in my relatively small circle of friends who have 2, 3 and 4 children under the age of 5. And I suspect they are hardly unique.

Airlines all have policies about the minimum age of children allowed to ride as unaccompanied minors. The youngest that seems to be allowed is 5 years old, some airlines push that to 8 years old. It (again) is my opinion, I don't expect to gain agreement and am just explaining my thoughts and how I arrived at them. But it doesn't sit well with me that an airline wouldn't allow a child to fly alone if they're under the age dictated by their policies, but will require parents to pay for a child under the unaccompanied minor age to sit with their guardian.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

LOL I can name three families in my relatively small circle of friends who have 2, 3 and 4 children under the age of 5. And I suspect they are hardly unique.

Airlines all have policies about the minimum age of children allowed to ride as unaccompanied minors. The youngest that seems to be allowed is 5 years old, some airlines push that to 8 years old. It (again) is my opinion, I don't expect to gain agreement and am just explaining my thoughts and how I arrived at them. But it doesn't sit well with me that an airline wouldn't allow a child to fly alone if they're under the age dictated by their policies, but will require parents to pay for a child under the unaccompanied minor age to sit with their guardian.

Under the age of 5 is vastly different then being 2. Or even under the age of 2.

 

[siren0119]

Under the age of 5 is vastly different then being 2. Or even under the age of 2.

Right - but the airline's dont differentiate when asking for extra payment to ensure a parent is sitting with a child. If the child can't sit on a lap, they get a ticket. If they are age 1-5, the airlines do nothing to ensure that child is seated with a guardian (without paying a premium), and yet they wouldn't allow the same child to fly alone. that's a big part of why I take issue with the policy.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Airlines all have policies about the minimum age of children allowed to ride as unaccompanied minors. The youngest that seems to be allowed is 5 years old, some airlines push that to 8 years old. It (again) is my opinion, I don't expect to gain agreement and am just explaining my thoughts and how I arrived at them. But it doesn't sit well with me that an airline wouldn't allow a child to fly alone if they're under the age dictated by their policies, but will require parents to pay for a child under the unaccompanied minor age to sit with their guardian.

While I understand for the most part your reasoning even if I don't personally agree with it I just want to say fundamentally there is a difference between an unaccompanied minor and what we're talking about. When a child flies alone they have no one, absolutely no one within distance on a plane with them.

I understand not wanting to be separated from your child but that is different than sending your child alone on a plane with no guardian or parent present at all.

 

[gwynne]

Right - but the airline's dont differentiate when asking for extra payment to ensure a parent is sitting with a child. If the child can't sit on a lap, they get a ticket. If they are age 1-5, the airlines do nothing to ensure that child is seated with a guardian (without paying a premium), and yet they allow the same child to fly alone. that's a big part of why I take issue with the policy.

The airlines aren't charging a premium to folks who either need or prefer to select seats.
The airlines are giving a discount to folks who agree to sit absolutely anywhere. No choice, period. Would you prefer it if they quit doing this?

 

[siren0119]

The airlines aren't charging a premium to folks who either need or prefer to select seats.
The airlines are giving a discount to folks who agree to sit absolutely anywhere. No choice, period. Would you prefer it if they quit doing this?

Truthfully, I would prefer if it was not positioned as an upcharge. If I book a delta flight, at base fare, I am offered an upcharge to select my seats ahead of time. It's worded that way.

Or, waive the upcharge for one adult plus any children in the party under the age of whatever the minimum unaccompanied minor age is as stated in their policy. Allow families to not be forced to pay a premium just because their kids are little.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

If I book a delta flight, at base fare, I am offered an upcharge to select my seats ahead of time. It's worded that way.

You really need to stop and think about this. It's not an upcharge period. The Basic fares came about because consumers wanted and liked the idea of saving money and not paying for things that they didn't personally want,need or care about. Several years ago there wasn't Basic fares. If you wanted to sit next to your children on the airlines that you have seat selection you bought a ticket and paid the same price as every single other person (aside from upgraded seats like ones with more room or business or first class, etc). Did you complain before Basic fares were introduced and before airlines like Spirit came around where you paid for exactly what you want about costs of your airline ticket?

Today you're still going to pay the same price as everyone else, just like you did before, except now nowadays you can consciously choose to save some money and book a seat that does not come with seat selection (among other things depending on the airline). You're really thinking about this completely backwards. Basic fares weren't present with airlines to begin with they were added later to accommodate a growing consumer desire. YOU don't fit that consumer desire just like many other people don't. That's ok. You can book a normal ticket, which you would have done before Basic fares even existed, and go on with your day.

 

[siren0119]

You really need to stop and think about this. It's not an upcharge period. The Basic fares came about because consumers wanted and liked the idea of saving money and not paying for things that they didn't personally want,need or care about. Several years ago there wasn't Basic fares. If you wanted to sit next to your children on the airlines that you have seat selection you bought a ticket and paid the same price as every single other person (aside from upgraded seats like ones with more room or business or first class, etc). Did you complain before Basic fares were introduced and before airlines like Spirit came around where you paid for exactly what you want about costs of your airline ticket?

Today you're still going to pay the same price as everyone else, just like you did before, except now nowadays you can consciously choose to save some money and book a seat that does not come with seat selection (among other things depending on the airline). You're really thinking about this completely backwards. Basic fares weren't present with airlines to begin with they were added later to accommodate a growing consumer desire. YOU don't fit that consumer desire just like many other people don't. That's ok. You can book a normal ticket, which you would have done before Basic fares even existed, and go on with your day.

I agree that it's a marketing tactic. I don't necessarily have to agree that it's a good thing. It doesn't make my thinking about it incorrect, because i recognize that it is PURELY a marketing move.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I agree that it's a marketing tactic. I don't necessarily have to agree that it's a good thing. It doesn't make my thinking about it incorrect, because i recognize that it is PURELY a marketing move.

*sigh* I didn't say it was a marketing tactic..It's not a marketing tactic. A marketing tactic is a way of promoting something to a consumer. That's not the same thing as an option simply being added to a product.

The Basic fares and only pay for what you want type airlines are an additional option available to the consumer. It's an addition to an already existing product (airline tickets).

Respectfully, you are thinking about it incorrectly because you're failing to realize how it was before Basic fares existed, and why they came about.

In any case you're more than welcome to continue on with your opinion but please don't book Basic fare or its equivalent with other airlines as it is clearly not for you

 

[siren0119]

*sigh* I didn't say it was a marketing tactic..It's not a marketing tactic. A marketing tactic is a way of promoting something to a consumer. That's not the same thing as an option simply being added to a product.

The Basic fares and only pay for what you want type airlines are an additional option available to the consumer. It's an addition to an already existing product (airline tickets).

Respectfully, you are thinking about it incorrectly because you're failing to realize how it was before Basic fares existed, and why they came about.

In any case you're more than welcome to continue on with your opinion but please don't book Basic fare or its equivalent with other airlines as it is clearly not for you

I've spent most of my career in sales and marketing - it IS a marketing tactic. How they phrase it is also a marketing tactic. I didn't imply you called it that, it's just what it is.

I personally don't really need to worry about it, my kids are more than old enough to sit by themselves and watch movies while we're flying and they don't need a lot of supervision.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I've spent most of my career in sales and marketing - it IS a marketing tactic. How they phrase it is also a marketing tactic. I didn't imply you called it that, it's just what it is.

*sigh*

 

[siren0119]

*sigh*

LOL you can call it whatever makes you comfortable. Airlines needed to compete with the cut rate airlines, so they rephrased things and rearranged their offerings. The seats still cost the airline the same across the board. Happens all the time, but it is purely a marketing tactic designed to drive business. If it weren't marketing, that would mean a selected seat actually, practically cost more than a non guaranteed seat.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

LOL you can call it whatever makes you comfortable. Airlines needed to compete with the cut rate airlines, so they rephrased things and rearranged their offerings. The seats still cost the airline the same across the board. Happens all the time, but it is purely a marketing tactic designed to drive business. If it weren't marketing, that would mean a selected seat actually, practically cost more than a non guaranteed seat.

Okie dokie

 

[dakotix]

Never had this problem on Southwest

 

[MomOTwins]

You really need to stop and think about this. It's not an upcharge period. The Basic fares came about because consumers wanted and liked the idea of saving money and not paying for things that they didn't personally want,need or care about. Several years ago there wasn't Basic fares. If you wanted to sit next to your children on the airlines that you have seat selection you bought a ticket and paid the same price as every single other person (aside from upgraded seats like ones with more room or business or first class, etc). Did you complain before Basic fares were introduced and before airlines like Spirit came around where you paid for exactly what you want about costs of your airline ticket?

Today you're still going to pay the same price as everyone else, just like you did before, except now nowadays you can consciously choose to save some money and book a seat that does not come with seat selection (among other things depending on the airline). You're really thinking about this completely backwards. Basic fares weren't present with airlines to begin with they were added later to accommodate a growing consumer desire. YOU don't fit that consumer desire just like many other people don't. That's ok. You can book a normal ticket, which you would have done before Basic fares even existed, and go on with your day.

I'd believe you if the basic fares are lower than what they were before.

*sigh* I didn't say it was a marketing tactic..It's not a marketing tactic. A marketing tactic is a way of promoting something to a consumer. That's not the same thing as an option simply being added to a product.

The Basic fares and only pay for what you want type airlines are an additional option available to the consumer. It's an addition to an already existing product (airline tickets).

Respectfully, you are thinking about it incorrectly because you're failing to realize how it was before Basic fares existed, and why they came about.

In any case you're more than welcome to continue on with your opinion but please don't book Basic fare or its equivalent with other airlines as it is clearly not for you

I mean, the way I see it is that I used to be able to buy a base fare on american airlines for the same route with seat selection included for the price of a base fare without seat selection today. So I don’t think they made the change to give a discout to middle seat riders; I think they found a way to get people to pay more for something that used to be included. Just like checked baggage used to be included, but now it is extra even though the fares did not go down with that change.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I'd believe you if the basic fares are lower than what they were before.

Then you're not actually understanding what I'm saying. Airline ticket pricing ebbs and flows and includes a wide variety of things. As a random using my home airport for example a new airport is going to be built. It's not being paid for by tax money but instead by raising taxes and fees and pricing for airline tickets. So when it's complete I will be paying a higher ticket price simply because of that. Fuel costs, maintenance costs, airport fees and taxes, etc etc all come into play. I remember when gasoline for vehicles was over $4 per gallon..lordy I wasn't driving far at all at those prices.

But the end result is still the same. I can go buy a Basic Economy fare on Delta and it will be less than the Main Cabin price on Delta. That was what I was talking about. And what I was saying before. Whatever prices you've paid in the past doesn't matter with respects to what I'm talking about. What my point was was before you paid the Main Cabin price even if you didn't care about sitting next to X. Now if you don't care about sitting next to X you can purchase a reduced priced ticket for Basic Economy (subject to its availability).

I mean, the way I see it is that I used to be able to buy a base fare on american airlines for the same route with seat selection included for the price of a base fare without seat selection today. So I don’t think they made the change to give a discout to middle seat riders; I think they found a way to get people to pay more for something that used to be included. Just like checked baggage used to be included, but now it is extra even though the fares did not go down with that change.

What does middle seat riders have anything to do with it? I sit in the middle seat all the time because my husband is tall. I never ever would expect a discount to sit in the middle seat. Weird TBH. And where did I say anything about the particular seat selected?

 

[mellie76]

I've spent most of my career in sales and marketing - it IS a marketing tactic. How they phrase it is also a marketing tactic. I didn't imply you called it that, it's just what it is.

I personally don't really need to worry about it, my kids are more than old enough to sit by themselves and watch movies while we're flying and they don't need a lot of supervision.

I left these transportation threads a couple of months ago after seeing how cranky the vets here are. Kudos for trying to make a logical point here with a touch of human ubderstanding. But, you're not going to get far in this group. There seems to be a long history of people resenting travelers with children (I know, funny on a Disney board) or judging traverlers who they don't think k have it as together as they did when their kids were younger.

I agree that we're letting airlines get away with not automatically seating young children with their parents. I coughed up the extra seating choice fees in order to avoid any drama. But, PREFERENCE for a bigger seat, an aisle or a window is different than a NEED to sit close to a young child. It's not harming anyone else's choices on a plane if the minor children are automatically given seat selection together.

 

[DisneyOma]

I find it really interesting that there is an acceptance of the idea that a family with young children should have to pay a premium (of any kind) to ensure their young children aren't seated with strangers.

Oh the dreaded strangers!

LOL I can name three families in my relatively small circle of friends who have 2, 3 and 4 children under the age of 5. And I suspect they are hardly unique.

Airlines all have policies about the minimum age of children allowed to ride as unaccompanied minors. The youngest that seems to be allowed is 5 years old, some airlines push that to 8 years old. It (again) is my opinion, I don't expect to gain agreement and am just explaining my thoughts and how I arrived at them. But it doesn't sit well with me that an airline wouldn't allow a child to fly alone if they're under the age dictated by their policies, but will require parents to pay for a child under the unaccompanied minor age to sit with their guardian.

They would be very unique in the region of the US I live in. Four children under the age of 5 does not happen in our school district, or I'd know, since I have access to all school records. Most families have 1-3 kids, with a two year gap between. Maybe those families with a cluster of kids under the age of five should have thought it through a bit more if they wanted to travel when the kids were young?

Right - but the airline's dont differentiate when asking for extra payment to ensure a parent is sitting with a child. If the child can't sit on a lap, they get a ticket. If they are age 1-5, the airlines do nothing to ensure that child is seated with a guardian (without paying a premium), and yet they wouldn't allow the same child to fly alone. that's a big part of why I take issue with the policy.

They have a guardian on the plane, just not sitting right next to them. And if you have a car seat, don't they put you next to the child? You make it sound like people with small children are the only ones who "have" to pay to sit together. What about someone who is disabled, autistic, anxious, etc?

 

[Dismama2boys]

There seems to be a long history of people resenting travelers with children (I know, funny on a Disney board) or judging traverlers who they don't think k have it as together as they did when their kids were younger.

Way off topic now, but I used to be shocked at how many people basically think kids should be treated as adults at Disney. In real life we don’t expect kids to be able to hold their bladders as long as adults (waiting in line/for parades) or to have patience to sit patiently for hours (waiting for parades and fireworks) or not to be disappointed if an adult elbows them out of the way so they can be “first” (meet and greets, parades, fireworks, just all of it). I’m used to it now, but still find it ridiculous. And egads - don’t EVER say Disney is for kids! The world will explode. Disney IS for everyone, but sometimes a bit of grace for the littles and their caregivers is a kind way to live.