While WN doesn't allow unaccompanied minors on connecting or international flights, AA, DL, UA, and AS allow unaccompanied minors on international flights, and AA, DL, and AS allow unaccompanied minors on connecting flights.

It probably does make sense for WN to extend its unaccompanied minor policy to connecting and international flights to remain competitive against other U.S. airlines that allow unaccompanied minors on connecting or international flights. There are also some parents who would be willing to put their kids on WN nonstop international flights as unaccompanied minors if WN extends its unaccompanied minor policy to its international flights.

Why would WN prohibit unaccompanied minors on international flights when WN can legally extend its unaccompanied minor policy to international flights and when there are parents who would be willing to pay for unaccompanied minor service on WN international nonstop flights?

This has been asked many times over the years . The answer has always been because of legal issues of the child care in the event of a miss connection situation doesn't warrant the acceptable cost to implement.
As far as International UM's they said Point Blank they would Never offer it when International flying started. The international regulations are different from country to country and are not worth the investment.

Flyguy

wnflyguy wrote:

This has been asked many times over the years . The answer has always been because of legal issues of the child care in the event of a miss connection situation doesn't warrant the acceptable cost to implement.
As far as International UM's they said Point Blank they would Never offer it when International flying started. The international regulations are different from country to country and are not worth the investment.

Flyguy

I cannot imagine the legal liability is worth the risk If you drop off one child in the wrong country.. years of bad press. Connections are confusing. I cannot imagine a profit center for DL and less of one for WN.

lightsaber wrote:

wnflyguy wrote:

This has been asked many times over the years . The answer has always been because of legal issues of the child care in the event of a miss connection situation doesn't warrant the acceptable cost to implement.
As far as International UM's they said Point Blank they would Never offer it when International flying started. The international regulations are different from country to country and are not worth the investment.

Flyguy

I cannot imagine the legal liability is worth the risk If you drop off one child in the wrong country.. years of bad press. Connections are confusing. I cannot imagine a profit center for DL and less of one for WN.

This. UM services are not a profit center for the airlines, the fees barely cover the cost and liability issues. I always warn parents that want to whine about the fees to be careful what they wish for - carriers are much more likely to get rid of the service than charge less for it.

Connections really aren’t confusing, and carriers have been doing it for years. I knew how to get around an airport by the time I was 9. You just look at the screen and go to your gate, and you can always ask for help. The carriers would have stopped accepting minors on connecting or international flights years ago if they thought there wasn’t money in it.

UMs are easy (ier) for hub and spoke carriers. Look at DL's rules that restrict last connections of the day, for example, and apply that to WN focus cities that often have fairly low connection frequencies to begin with.

usdcaguy wrote:

Connections really aren’t confusing, and carriers have been doing it for years. I knew how to get around an airport by the time I was 9. You just look at the screen and go to your gate, and you can always ask for help. The carriers would have stopped accepting minors on connecting or international flights years ago if they thought there wasn’t money in it.

Agreed airlines have been doing it for years.
But WN has never seen the value in providing the service. A few years ago they did however start what they called "the Gate Sweeper program" were a Customer service agent wound handling the inbound child pick ups at the flights and transferring to awaiting parents. But the volume of UM fluctuated so much from day to day it cost WN more to have a soul dedicated positions for every shift across the system.
So the scales it back to the OLD system to have the Flight attendants again to pass off and check awaiting parents paperwork with Valid IDs. In the event parent are late the FA pass off the child to an waiting Customer service personal..
With the customs regulations WN would probably never venture into the world of International UMs.

Flyguy

WN is so regimented.

They dont change things unless they absolutely need to.

jplatts wrote:

While WN doesn't allow unaccompanied minors on connecting or international flights, AA, DL, UA, and AS allow unaccompanied minors on international flights, and AA, DL, and AS allow unaccompanied minors on connecting flights.

It probably does make sense for WN to extend its unaccompanied minor policy to connecting and international flights to remain competitive against other U.S. airlines that allow unaccompanied minors on connecting or international flights. There are also some parents who would be willing to put their kids on WN nonstop international flights as unaccompanied minors if WN extends its unaccompanied minor policy to its international flights.

Why would WN prohibit unaccompanied minors on international flights when WN can legally extend its unaccompanied minor policy to international flights and when there are parents who would be willing to pay for unaccompanied minor service on WN international nonstop flights?

The airline business is already complex. UMs are significantly complex and comes with a lot of liability. Allegiant doesn't do UMs below the age of 15, same with Frontier. Ryanair, same thing, except 16.

God forbid anything happens to the kid - getting lost or molested. If an aircraft has an IROPS issue and puts down in an airport that's offline, FAs have to look after the kid. There have to be processes for all of this. It's just simpler not to.

I don't see why WN would change. Theres not any signicant money to be had , and a ton of work to be able to handle them.

jfklganyc wrote:

WN is so regimented.

They dont change things unless they absolutely need to.

And this is bad why? They are a for-profit company and as noted in the other posts, there are enormous liabilities in this type of service and very little, if any, profit to be made. If a child needs to be transported then a responsible accompanying adult can fly with the child.

As a crew member I've seen these situations go bad. I totally get why they wouldn't do this.

The trend has been for carriers to reduce the scope of allowable UM travel, not increase it. You are far more likely to see the other carriers noted restrict UMs on connecting and/or international journeys than for Southwest to expand it. It’s not a service that is needed to be “competitive” (since the revenue to be gained is very small), and as others mentioned, the potential downside in liability is significant.

saab2000 wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

WN is so regimented.

They dont change things unless they absolutely need to.

And this is bad why? They are a for-profit company and as noted in the other posts, there are enormous liabilities in this type of service and very little, if any, profit to be made. If a child needs to be transported then a responsible accompanying adult can fly with the child.

As a crew member I've seen these situations go bad. I totally get why they wouldn't do this.

Where did I say that it was bad?

Being regimented can be a good thing and it could be a bad thing.

I’ve seen it affect Southwest both ways.

For instance, if you want to be the de facto national airline of the Dominican republic like Jetblue is, you had better take UMs on your flights.

For instance, If you want to turn planes as quickly as Southwest does… You better not have assigned seating or fly into places like EWR