frmrCapCadet
Topic Author
Posts: 3539
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:09 pm

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...7159320_trairtravelfamilies08.html

A family ought not to expect undo catering to but:

No milk aboard, even if you are willing to pay

No assigning families adjoining seats (and the airlines could at least give families the seat guru 'red' seats), but no...

And you take a 30 lb kid, pay the regular fare, and not allowed to check an extra suitcase

Generally you are on your own, and not welcome

It is their company, and I guess that can do whatever they want. And we don't have to generally put up with it, there is a great interstate system out there. Ever wonder why government (overly) regulates?

[Edited 2012-01-08 15:26:25]
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
XXXX10
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2000 7:10 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:16 pm

Personally I don't think famlies should be given preferential treatment. If you want to sit together check-in early! When travel with Mrs XXXX10 and XXXX10 junior I have always made sure we have enough food, milk medicine and nappis even allowing for a long delay.

At some point people need to take responsibiltty,
 
bennett123
Posts: 9197
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:33 pm

I do not see why some airlines charge extra for sitting together. IMO, check in should put groups together where possible.

Incidentally, I am single.

For one thing, how can parents supervise their children if they are not sitting together. Children, (and parents) will worry if they are separated, and will be more likely to "play up".

I do not claim to be JUST thinking about them  .
 
tharanga
Posts: 438
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:29 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Sun Jan 08, 2012 11:56 pm

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Thread starter):
And you take a 30 lb kid, pay the regular fare, and not allowed to check an extra suitcase

Can you explain that? Doesn't a full-fare child have the same baggage allowances as anybody else?

Or are you talking about a lap child? In which case I'm confused by you saying 'regular fare'
 
1stfl94
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:33 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:17 am

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 2):

I do not see why some airlines charge extra for sitting together. IMO, check in should put groups together where possible.

Incidentally, I am single.

For one thing, how can parents supervise their children if they are not sitting together. Children, (and parents) will worry if they are separated, and will be more likely to "play up".

I do not claim to be JUST thinking about them  .

Also it makes more sense for the families to be sat together first because if they get split up you can guarantee that once on the plane they'll be trying to swap, causing unnecessary hassle during boarding. Although online check in should help to solve this
 
U2380
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:11 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:28 am

I would agree that families should, in principle, be allowed to sit together. It's better for everyone that way.

But I don't agree with them getting any special privileges what-so-ever. You get what you pay for, and certain people should not get preferential treatment because they happen to have children.

]

[Edited 2012-01-08 16:31:35]
 
User avatar
WROORD
Posts: 743
Joined: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:36 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:47 am

I agree with people who say that families with children should not have any preferential treatment, but I think they should be allowed to preboard. When you have small (SMALL not teenagers) children you do need extra time to put away your stuff and take out thing for your children to be entertained during the flight. When you board with everyone you become a disruption trying to handle everything while other people are trying to find their seats. Not sure why most airlines stopped that practice. I agree people should not count on the airline to provide toys, mild and diapers this is parents responsibility.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 18817
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:53 am

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):
I don't think famlies should be given preferential treatment. If you want to sit together check-in early! When travel with Mrs XXXX10 and XXXX10 junior I have always made sure we have enough food, milk medicine and nappis even allowing for a long delay.

Last flight I paid the extra fee to sit together. (It upset the wife as 'wasted money.') I wasn't going to worry. It meant we were seated early and established before the rush.

Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1981
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:05 am

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):
If you want to sit together check-in early!

I think the problem is that, with full flights, there are no adjoining seats available at time of booking.

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):
I have always made sure we have enough food, milk medicine and nappis even allowing for a long delay.

I agree that times have changed, but the airlines could at least put a warning on the website advising parents what is and what is not available in flight. And not boarding families early just isn't helpful for the rest of us.

I will never forget a flight from ATL to FCO where, an hour after take off and dinner trays are being served, a woman discovered that, because her daughter was a lap child, the airline did not have a meal for the child. When the woman asked if there wasn't an extra meal on board the flight attendant gave a curt "no" and pushed on. Okay, so you save money putting the child in your lap, and lower fare means you get less. But couldn't the airline have notified her at time of booking and saved her an uncomfortable flight? (I just checked Delta's website. Nothing about flying with kids popped up prominently)

When people complain about the loss of customer service, I don't think they're complaining about not receiving first class treatment on a coach fare, I think they are upset that they didn't know what they should, or should not, expect to receive for their fare. It's courtesy really and it's called taking care of your client regardless of the fare class.
 
frmrCapCadet
Topic Author
Posts: 3539
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:09 am

Like I said, it is another reason not to fly unless you absolutely have to.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:12 am

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Thread starter):
No milk aboard, even if you are willing to pay

If they don't have it, they don't have it. You aren't going to carry around milk just for a few families.

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Thread starter):
Generally you are on your own, and not welcome

Why should the airline go out of their way to cater to families? That isn't where the money is. Families might fly a few times a year, and even then likely on discount fares or a parent's frequent flier miles. Why shouldn't airlines fully cater their product to businessmen who fly more frequently and pay more to do it?

It's going a step too far to say that families aren't welcome, but they aren't the demographic airlines should be after. And that's okay, but people need to understand that.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14218
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:42 am

Quoting frmrcapcadet (Thread starter):
No assigning families adjoining seats (and the airlines could at least give families the seat guru 'red' seats), but no...

And you take a 30 lb kid, pay the regular fare, and not allowed to check an extra suitcase

Generally you are on your own, and not welcome

These are 3 (of many) reasons that WN gets my business when we are flying as a family. Flying with kids doesn't have to be a rotten experience.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
but they aren't the demographic airlines should be after.

Why not? Isn't there value in selling 3 or 4 or 5 tickets at the same time?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:51 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 11):
Why not? Isn't there value in selling 3 or 4 or 5 tickets at the same time?

Not when it's a family of five or so who fly on vacation once a year on advance discounted tickets versus a business traveler who might fly 20 times a year or more on more expensive or premium class tickets.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
nonrevman
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:33 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:57 am

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):
Personally I don't think famlies should be given preferential treatment. If you want to sit together check-in early! When travel with Mrs XXXX10 and XXXX10 junior I have always made sure we have enough food, milk medicine and nappis even allowing for a long delay.

At some point people need to take responsibiltty,

I do believe in one absolute when it comes to traveling with small children: Parents MUST be seated with their children

Believe me, you would rather have me seated with my 3 and 5 year old than have them seated next to you wondering where Mommy and Daddy are. There have been stories lately about parents being separated from toddlers for whatever reason. I do not think this is acceptable. I will not have my children seated next to strangers, nor would I expect a stranger to take care of them. Then, there is the safety factor. If oxygen masks come down, or the plane has to be evacuated, what would happen to the child? Whose responsibility would helping them fall to in an event? This sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen if something goes wrong and a kid was forced to sit away from their family.

Of course many families do plan ahead and ensure that they are seated together. However, this does not stop the possibility that seat assignments will change. It would only take an equipment change, cancellation, or misconnection to force family members to be scattered all over the airplane.

I agree that preferential treatment is not necessary in all other areas. We will deal with the milk, diapers, entertainment, etc.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14218
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:57 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
Not when it's a family of five or so who fly on vacation once a year on advance discounted tickets versus a business traveler who might fly 20 times a year or more on more expensive or premium class tickets.

OK, but "low yield vacation travelers" isn't the point of this thread, is it? The point of this thread is families versus those without children.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:59 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 14):
OK, but "low yield vacation travelers" isn't the point of this thread, is it? The point of this thread is families versus those without children.

The two go hand in hand. Why would airlines tailor their policies and product to passengers who are not their bread and butter for the most part? Sure some airlines do cater to those passengers and should alter their products accordingly, but why is it a surprise that airlines that seek to make their money off of corporate road warriors aren't the most family friendly companies?

Seems like people going to Morton's expecting amenities like a Chuck E Cheese.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14218
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:07 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15):
The two go hand in hand.

Maybe I'm just slow tonight, but I don't see the connection. I've bought super cheap tickets for business travel. I've bought absurdly expensive tickets for family trips. I suppose there's a connection insofar as leisure travelers are less likely to book last minute, but what am I missing here?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14560
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:23 am

In the past, competitive pressures meant airlines had to offer service that included special attention and catering to families Problem is that many airlines have chosen for financial reasons to no longer offer such while some customers still expect them and at the absolutely cheapest price. In some ways though, airlines still should accommodate families to a reasonable extent. Of course, we all know of too many who fly who do not have tolerance of children and believe that as they pay more money, they should always get their way.

Seating families together, especially children under 16 or so is a necessity for safety and security. Do you want your child sitting next to a Chester the Molester? In an accident or emergency event, you need to be together to make sure they are safe. Children may have dietary or medical issue (like peanut allergies, for example) where you need to be with them. As to the milk issues, TSA rules make it impossible to bring milk from home (with some very limited exceptions as to babies), certain toys and stuff through their checkpoints. You also need a parent to be with their kids to keep control, are properly seated and using belts as needed as it is not the cabin crew's or other pax's job, handle their carry on luggage and so on.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6583
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:31 am

Airlines, for survival, have been very successful in doing the little things to maximize profit. Their treatment of families is consistent with that, both for better and for worse. If families paid more, the airlines would cater to their needs more responsively.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 16):
I've bought super cheap tickets for business travel.

This happens with reasonable frequency.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 16):
I've bought absurdly expensive tickets for family trips.

Conversely, this is a rare situation, for several reasons:

1) People usually (with the notable exception of funerals) plan family travel well in advance.
2) People are more likely to be paying for family travel out of their own pocket.
3) Bringing an entire family along on nonrefundable or premium-class fares is absurdly expensive.

Furthermore, families travel only a few times a year at most, and most families are not attached to a high-value traveler. Those high-value travelers, on the other hand, will fly many times a year, often on a single fare that is comparable to what an entire leisure-fare family is paying.
 
User avatar
pu
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2011 1:08 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:34 am

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):
At some point people need to take responsibiltty,

Agreed.
However, there are circumstances that cloud the issue. Many times weather, cancellations and general busy-hub-conditions mean people get shuffled around beyond their original flight.

Quoting U2380 (Reply 5):
But I don't agree with them getting any special privileges what-so-ever. You get what you pay for, and certain people should not get preferential treatment because they happen to have children.

Agreed.
Also, if their kid keeps everyone awake on a long night flight or kicks the back of my seat, we all should be compensated by the offending family.

Quoting WROORD (Reply 6):
ou do need extra time to put away your stuff and take out thing for your children to be entertained during the flight. . . . Not sure why most airlines stopped that practice.

The reason why that got taken away is because once-a-year family fliers were taking away overhead bin space and otherwise abusing this once-universal privilege to board early to the detriment of status-owning frequent fliers.

Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 8):
there are no adjoining seats available at time of booking.

The train, a ship, a car or stay at home.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 11):
Flying with kids doesn't have to be a rotten experience.

Good, I'm glad you found a way to enjoy it and that WN fits nicely for you purposes, I wish more people were as hip to this.

Quoting nonrevman (Reply 13):
with my 3 and 5 year old than have them seated next to you wondering where Mommy and Daddy are.

Several times its happened to me...I have my nice reserved seat I've had for several days or weeks and a mom and a kid get seated in two separate center seats away from each other. The child is scared to death, sometimes crying, sometimes slobbering and snotting all over the place. So I end up giving up my very valuable (to me) window/aisle seat so that they can sit together - which makes me feel grudgingly better with myself as I battle the rest of the flight for the shared armrests I don't deserve as punishment.

Pu
 
Tradewinds
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 11:03 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:46 am

I have to say, I've had nothing but good experiences flying with my daughter so far. We've flown on NW, JL, and DL, and in all cases the FAs were very helpful. We didn't get too many "extras" on NW and DL, although the FAs did go out of their way to accomodate us, perhaps understanding (correctly) that the happier the child is, the happier everyone on board will be, too. JL, of course, was phenomenal -- complimentary child seats, a little goodie bag for the wee one, and the FAs would bend over backwards for you (which they tend to do for all pax, in my experience, but).

Some people on here seem adamant that families with kids shouldn't receive any preferential treatment, and while I see the logic in terms of purely financial terms, such a stance strikes me as very antisocial. Kids are kids. They aren't capable of maintaining the same social protocol as adults and thus some incentives, whether its a little toy, allowing them to sit with their parents without having to pay some silly charge, or giving them a wee bit of milk and risking having to tell another passenger the will have to take their coffee black, are perfectly justifiable.

Anyway, this is why a US carrier is not going to get my family's money anytime soon. We only fly when we go to Japan anyway, so we will go with JL or NH, who know how to take care of families (and customers in general!).
Tradewinds
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:48 am

How can you be som selfish. children shouldnt have any special treatments etc. Come on these are kids. Of course they get special treatment and of course they deserve it.
How can we compare ourselves and demand same thing as a young child?
Its the ultimate act of selfishness.

What evil has a child age 3-5 etc done to deserve the anxiety of sitting alone.
Who can be so cruel as to demand a child to be separated from parents so they get their prebooked seats?
As a responsible adult I would always offer my seat if a family was in need of it. Even if it meant me sitting in the middle seat. I dont like middle seats but were talking about children so its not even up for debate. I was brought up with some manners.

Most parents that fly would book tickets together and thus are seated together. Would be a lot of chaos at check in otherwise.

Also in what legislations are children allowed to be separated from their parents?
Not in Europe that I know.
I really doubt that US legiuslation allows it as well but I bow to people with superior knowledge about US legislation if it is allowed.

Time to look ourselve sin the mirror. Sure some families are a pain in the arse on flights. but we are talking about children here. We all share this earth and demanding equal treatment to children nah thats just not kosher.
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
 
tdscanuck
Posts: 8572
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:25 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:49 am

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):
Personally I don't think famlies should be given preferential treatment.

By and large, they aren't.

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):
If you want to sit together check-in early!

This doesn't work. As load factors have gone up, landing blocks of more than two seats together even at booking is an iffy proposition...at check-in it's a lost cause. You're far more likely to succeed by explaining what's going on to the gate agent...for all the reasons listed in prior posts, it's better for *everyone* on the aircraft if children are seated with their parents.

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):
When travel with Mrs XXXX10 and XXXX10 junior I have always made sure we have enough food, milk medicine and nappis even allowing for a long delay.

Absolutely...packing for an overnight should be standard.

Quoting Pu (Reply 19):
Also, if their kid keeps everyone awake on a long night flight or kicks the back of my seat, we all should be compensated by the offending family.

Are we going to extend that to the jackass with the ear buds I can hear from across the aisle or the guy who's 8 drinks over his limit by the time we start descent or the fool who can't get out of their aisle for 10 minutes while you're trying to deplane? Not that I object to any of those in principle but people always love to pick on kids and leave out all the other people that screw up the flight experience.

Quoting Pu (Reply 19):
Quoting JAAlbert (Reply 8):
there are no adjoining seats available at time of booking.

The train, a ship, a car or stay at home.

Your flag says you're Swedish...do you live in Sweden? It takes me more time to travel across my current state (Washington) than it takes for a Swede to cross their entire country. In North America train travel is not a viable option for about 75% of the continent, there are no ships, and car travel is a matter of many days. Yes, options abound, but not all options are even remotely equal. Unless the thesis is that children should simply remain within a few days drive of their place of birth until the age of majority...

Tom.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14218
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:53 am

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):
Conversely, this is a rare situation, for several reasons:

Rare, but not nonexistent, which is the problem. The travelers who are wealthy enough to pay a bit more than bargain basement but not wealthy enough to charter (which is actually a pretty wide income range) are running out of options for acceptable service.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7028
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 4:41 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
Families might fly a few times a year, and even then likely on discount fares or a parent's frequent flier miles. Why shouldn't airlines fully cater their product to businessmen who fly more frequently and pay more to do it?

Just one reason: Because the family father / mother on Sundays is the businessman / businesswoman on Mondays.

One more reason: Infrequent kids of today are the frequent travellers of tomorrow.

And even a third reason: Those companies (not just airlines), who treat their clients or customers significantly inferior to the competition, will at the end of the day need the darkest red ink for writing also things like "layoffs" and "wage reduction" in their annual report.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
danwoodman00
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:24 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:14 am

i flew this past summer from SEA to SFO with my 13yo daughter and 18mo son. couldn't get 3 seats together on an a320, so the kids had to sit together, and i had to sit in the exit row (the only one old enough to do it).

all efforts at online check (23:58 prior to takeoff...) and at the airport (arrived 2 1/2 hours early just to talk to the "gold status" desk for my regular airline) failed to get us three seats together.

on boarding, i asked the gentleman with the "third seat in the row" beside my daughter and son if he'd swap his aisle seat for my aisle exit row seat. he refused.

my son watched daddy move 7 rows back. and had a melt-down. a doozy.

  

after take-off, the very buttoned-up gentleman, having listened to my son's ample lung capacity for the entire taxi, roll-out, take-off, and climb past 10k, was slightly more amenable to the switch when i came up and offered a second time.

i was stunned that he refused the first time. i smirked when he agreed the second time.

my son was much quieter after sitting in my lap for a few minutes.

  
 
N1120A
Posts: 26538
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:32 am

Quoting WROORD (Reply 6):
I agree with people who say that families with children should not have any preferential treatment, but I think they should be allowed to preboard.

Well, I think they should be given Zone 1 treatment. F/C/High Elites first - then families with children.

Quoting nonrevman (Reply 13):
I do believe in one absolute when it comes to traveling with small children: Parents MUST be seated with their children

Yep. And I'm one of those high status frequent fliers without kids.

Quoting ltbewr (Reply 17):

All good points.

Quoting danwoodman00 (Reply 25):
on boarding, i asked the gentleman with the "third seat in the row" beside my daughter and son if he'd swap his aisle seat for my aisle exit row seat. he refused.

Honestly, I'm shocked the FA didn't intervene.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
odafz
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 8:00 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:48 am

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):
Personally I don't think famlies should be given preferential treatment. If you want to sit together check-in early!

It is one of the most thoughtless and heartless comment I have read for a while .... together with comments of BMI727... Having said that, the testimony of tradewinds and danwoodman00 shed a light on how airlines ought to operate and despite careful planning things can turn bad.

Just a question... in case of an emergency would you like to be separated from your children....?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26538
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:56 am

I'll add that the CO FA was completely wrong in denying milk to this family. Kids drink milk, airlines should be aware. Besides, CO's coffee (which has infected UA, to my great lament) is disgusting.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:59 am

Personaly, I think the needs of children is the Parent's responsibility.
Things like milk for infants are allowed through terminal security after a quick check.

No airline should be forced to cater for a child who's parents have failed in their single most important responsibilty.
Why should airlines "have" to carry milk suitable for infants? As I've already say, Parents can bring their own aboard.

However, the one thing that ticks me off about airlines vs families is the age at which most airlines deem someone to be an adult! I've seen it as low as 10 years! I mean, c'mon! At least let their voice break or let them get old enough to vote first before you charge them an adult fare!

Like most here, I am not ignorant of loads vs fuels vs range etc. But where is the sense in charging full fare for a 12 year old who weighs less than the average long haul suitcase?

IMO, Airlines (and any public service, government or private run) should only be allowed to charged adult fares from the legal age of consent in whatever country they are operating in.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
User avatar
MillwallSean
Posts: 955
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 3:07 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 7:59 am

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 22):

Your flag says you're Swedish...do you live in Sweden? It takes me more time to travel across my current state (Washington) than it takes for a Swede to cross their entire country. In North America train travel is not a viable option for about 75% of the continent, there are no ships, and car travel is a matter of many days. Yes, options abound, but not all options are even remotely equal. Unless the thesis is that children should simply remain within a few days drive of their place of birth until the age of majority...

I know geography isn't the strong side for Americans. But no it doesn't take you much time to travel across Washington state...
And travelling domestic in Sweden is far longer than say your usual San Francisco-Seattle...
The total area of Washington is 66,582 sq mi (176,477 sq km), of which land takes up 66,511 sq mi (172,263 sq km) and inland water 1,627 sq mi (4,214 sq km). The state extends about 360 mi (580 km) E-W and 240 mi (390 km) N-S.
Now add on Oregon, Idaho and lets say one of the Dakotas and you get closer to the size of Sweden.
End of geography lesson but please US introduce it into the schools again...

Quoting N1120A (Reply 26):

Well, I think they should be given Zone 1 treatment. F/C/High Elites first - then families with children.

This board first thing is just so silly. I am always allowed to board at my own request. But having first-business and gold etc board first is just ridiculous. Maybe some get a hard on for walking onto the plane first and feeling special but for what having a queue of people standing next to you for the coming 15 minutes or so.
I'm happy to board among the last always. I'm also secure enough in myself so i don't need to feel special and walk aboard in front of other.

Only time I might ever consider boarding first is when there is a sea of people pushing to get on to the plane first. That behaviour some how annoys me hehe.

Quoting XXXX10 (Reply 1):
Personally I don't think famlies should be given preferential treatment. If you want to sit together check-in early! When travel with Mrs XXXX10 and XXXX10 junior I have always made sure we have enough food, milk medicine and nappies even allowing for a long delay.

At some point people need to take responsibiltty,

Ive travelled often with kids. We always always bring nappies, milk and all other stuff the children might need. these days the kids got those silly looking bags that look like an animal and its filled with toys, books and stuff.

But the check in early part doesn't make sense. Few airlines I fly with assign seating at check in. Most tend to have done it several days in advance. Being first at check in is more subject to availability.
Sure today you can generally check in and sort the seats out online yourself but there is always the chance its all changed when you arrive at the airport.

But some responsibilities has to be taken.
When I know my ticket is bought through a different channel than the rest of the family I always contact the airline letting them know i am travelling with other passengers. So far we have always gotten the seats next to each other. Its a quick email and and ensures there wont be any unpleasant surprises.

I was surprised when we first had kids and i started travelling intercontinental and the airlines not only provided the small toypackage but also nappies and other stuff for us like we wouldnt bring it ourselves.
No One Likes Us - We Dont Care.
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 8336
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:04 am

- Children should be seated with their parents in the same class- end of story. They have elected to have kids, and raise and nurture them, the airline should be there to ensure that the processes are in place that allow them to perform these functions in flight, and take responsibility for their own family. It is not the airline's job to be a de facto parent inflight if they seat the family together.

That includes when their parents pay for business but are too cheap to do so for the whole family so place their kids down the back and expect the airline to do the parenting while they live it up in Business.

-If a seat assignment charge is charged for everyone else to assign their seat then it should also be assigned to a family as well. However I think it should be charged like a family pass admission rather than individual fees. 1 adult and 3 children or 2 adults 2 children kind of thing.

- Those on infant (ie under twos) tickets should be allowed preboarding, but not every group with kids of any age. (and after the frequent flyers have been offered their priority boarding. When you're flying to a holiday destination, you can board 3/4 flight under the 'preboarding families and childen' banner

-any specialist requirements in flight should be brought onboard by the passenger rather than supplied by the airline unless appropriate charges for the extra service have been paid (like therapeutic oxygen/company rented sleep apnea machines etc) . Nobody reasonably expects airlines to provide without additional cost any medication or epi-pens for those limited passengers who require it, same should apply for infants formula and some very specific meal request options that cost far more than a standard meal.
Flown to 147 Airports in 62 Countries on 83 Operators and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:11 am

I find it interesting to see the discussion on not allowing groups to sit together unless they pay. Is this a peculiarly US thing? From my experience its only LCCs in the rest of the world (non-US) which ignores groupings and make people pay to sit together. The default is virtually always that groups are, er, grouped, then they book and rarely split up. I mean cotravellers and families, not sports teams  

This is from the point of view of a person who flies for business at least twice/three-times per month and a lot for pleasure. I do confess that I avoid domestic travel in the US and refuse to fly US carriers for long haul. In that context, I've never seen families split up except by mistake and once when one family I saw were waitlisted (but the cabin staff rearranged them after takeoff). So I guess its mainly a US thing. Again, for the sake of disclosure, I travel a *lot*.

If an airline refused to ensure I was going to be seated next to my child, I'd simply choose another airline. There's no reason why they can't seat families and groups (other than, of course, interfering with yet another revenue stream and possibly operational requirements - which are quite unusual). In 40+ years of travel, I've only been separated from my travelling companion once and even then we were rearranged once boarded. So, no, there is rarely a valid reason for splitting up 'normal' groups.

Perhaps people have forgotten that this was the default (and still is in most of the world).

As for splitting parents/children. This is absurd. End of story. Minors need to be supervised/taken care of. I am frankly shocked that airlines have accepted the possible legal liability of separating parents and children on flights for the sake of making more money. Would people accept this on a train, bus or a ship? At a practical level, how on earth do you look after your child if you are separated? I suppose it will take the first occurrence of inappropriate behaviour by a passenger for US airlines to change their policies.

As for families getting preferential treatment - you must be joking. Apart from early boarding what sort of treatment are people talking about? Boiling water? Some airlines do go out of their way to help parents by serving parents food at different times so each can relax while the other looks after the children. Some have story times in the galley area so that the children and parents (and other pax) have some child-free time.

I guess it comes down to the expectations. In many parts of the world, children are not looked on as a burden and airlines serve these expectations appropriately. In some this isn't the case. From the comments here and my own experience, its very much a cultural issue.

Interesting thread...

HB88
 
JQflightie
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:18 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:32 am

at QF, we go out of our way for Famlies or Parents with Children, we board them first, have them seated, there is usually a Childrens meal or Todler meal loaded for them (if they have ordere one on their booking) if not something is usually found or loaded for the Toddler/Child, us Cabin Crew give out Pillows and Blankets to parents with children first, we give them a little brief about the aircraft, toilets and change table facilities and so on, and then its the 'Kids Packs' time, we give them pencils, and colouring books, its good, its a stressful time travelling with children... avery litle bit counts to make their flight hassle free  
When is my next holiday?
 
N1120A
Posts: 26538
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:33 am

Quoting garpd (Reply 29):
Things like milk for infants are allowed through terminal security after a quick check.

1) You assume (incorrectly) that airport security people are always reasonable or even that they abide with the law in this manner. Take a look at what happened to that poor woman at BUR who was bringing physician-approved food for her elderly mother.

2) We aren't just talking about infants here. We are talking about growing children, and a normal food/drink they have in their daily life.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 30):
This board first thing is just so silly. I am always allowed to board at my own request. But having first-business and gold etc board first is just ridiculous. Maybe some get a hard on for walking onto the plane first and feeling special but for what having a queue of people standing next to you for the coming 15 minutes or so.
I'm happy to board among the last always. I'm also secure enough in myself so i don't need to feel special and walk aboard in front of other.

Only time I might ever consider boarding first is when there is a sea of people pushing to get on to the plane first. That behaviour some how annoys me hehe.

In the US, where charging for checked bags is the norm, the larger number of carry-ons has made boarding early more important.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
JQflightie
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:18 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:51 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 28):

No, this is wrong, Parents need to take some sort of responsibility when travelling with children, you cannot rely on a Airline to have enough milk on an aircraft for children! Parents have to meet the airline half way!!

And as for CO 's coffee, agreed... its pretty bad, why cant every air! Im glad that in Business and First we have Nespresso (A380 and B744) and Espresso machines (B744) now thats a way to keep people happy 
When is my next holiday?
 
SKAirbus
Posts: 1545
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 9:18 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:02 am

Personally I think that families should not have any extra privilages when flying. IMO having children is a choice and not a right and as such should not be afforded any special treatment. I paid for my ticket too but have to wait whilst families are boarded first and seated in better seats.

Many airlines have a policy of sitting people on one booking together automatically. British Airways do anyway so that is a policy which works as it doesn't differentiate between families with children or a group of friends travelling together.

When it comes to catering, there are child meals you can order but if there is something specific you need then why not bring it yourself? It is unreasonable to expect the airline to stock every item you find down the childcare aisle at the supermarket.
Base: BRU
 
N1120A
Posts: 26538
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:16 am

Quoting JQflightie (Reply 35):
No, this is wrong, Parents need to take some sort of responsibility when travelling with children, you cannot rely on a Airline to have enough milk on an aircraft for children! Parents have to meet the airline half way!!

Did you read the article? They were asking for a cup of milk - basically one of those cartons that CO carries. Further, what makes you think the parent could "meet the airline halfway" anyway? It sounds like they had brought some on, but the TSA (wrongly) will often try and keep people from bringing such things. Also, the whole "its for the coffee, not children" thing is absolute garbage. I've seen plenty of FAs give milk out, and not just to kids. Further, CO boards lots of little individual half and half containers for F - its not like they would have some sort of crisis if they had to take a couple back to Y if they indeed did run out of milk.

Quoting JQflightie (Reply 35):
And as for CO 's coffee, agreed... its pretty bad,

The sad thing is, for us PMUA FFers, we used to have good coffee.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
tcasalert
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:34 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:18 am

To be honest, we always buy seats together and begrudge having to do so as it is yet another fee you get lumped with. We have a 2 year old boy, why on earth would it be acceptable to sit at the other end of the aircraft from him? Yes you can check in early but it isn't always convenient, especially with a little one, who gets bored at the best of times let alone when waiting around for 3+ hours. Then people will complain when he starts crying because he is bored.

If they just reserved seats for groups together in the first place there would be no problem, and then if you want to sit apart for any reason then charge for it. After all they only have as many seats on the aircraft as there are passengers, so what is the problem in arranging the seating so that people travelling together can sit together.

It is also very frustrating that for children ided the total cost by 3 to make it appear less.

It really is highway robbery but there is sadly nothing you can do about it, the airlines will continue with these shady tactics until the law changes to cater for this.
Next flight: Feb 2012 - BHX-CPH-BHX - SK MD87 / CRJ900
 
User avatar
InsideMan
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 9:49 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:23 am

Gandhi said:
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”
From what I read here you can replace animals with children and it would give a grimm outlook abour the American society today....

Don't want to sound too corny here, but children are our future. Even the gruntled single businessman needs someone to pay for his pension / medicare etc.

If find it astonishing you have to pay to sit with people you booked your flight with or to board early. Chapter 11 legislation should be reformed. It's about time to have some inefficient dinosaurs disappear and let the market regulate itself. If no airline makes money, some will disappear, fares will rise to a sustainable level and healthy companies survive.

Make no mistake, some parents are really irresponsible and airlines should not be held accountable for that, but we are talking about the most basic of things here. Charge a family extra to be able to sit together? Unbelievable.
 
nclmedic
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:25 pm

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:24 am

I do think some airlines don't give families with young children the help they deserve. Completely agree with previous posters - getting families onboard early and getting them settled makes the whole machine much smoother for everybody else. To be fair to many UK airlines, this is almost always the case (exclusive of FR, but that's a whole other story!).

In terms of what's available nutrition-wise, I'm sorry, but parents don't get on a train or bus and expect all dietary requirements to be provided for so why is a plane different. Many of my colleagues fly with very young families frequently, and it's usually just assumed that you need to bring sufficient baby-supplies for the whole trip! Most airlines will also tell you in advance on their website what they can and cannot provide. Formula milk is a bit of always a bit of an issue in the UK as people are terrified about providing anything to babies!

In short, flying with kids is hard work at the best of times, so I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for parents who turn up unprepared. Worst case scenario, most airports have a pharmacy that should be able to provide overpriced formula anyway.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2510
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:36 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 34):
2) We aren't just talking about infants here. We are talking about growing children, and a normal food/drink they have in their daily life.

Then the parents should budget accordingly and buy what they need airside. To be honest, for any normal dietary needs, this is perectly fine. Even the smallest airport has a cafe or kiosk selling food and drink. It's not difficult and not the airlines responsibility.
Or are you suggesting that Airlines should stock extra food/beverages for growing children on board? If so,
could you please explain why you feel this is the responsibility of the airlines? In so doing, please also explain why this responsibility is no longer that of the Parents.


On the topic of sitting together. I personally have never, in my life, come across an airline that charges extra for sitting together. Arrive in a timely manner, check in on time (and I'm not talking at the last minute here) and all should be fine.
I do it, my friends do it, my parents did it.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
blueflyer
Posts: 4199
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:44 am

I fully understand the rationale behind insisting that kids fly with their parents, and I support that stance for the most part. Where and when do we draw the line, however? Does the whole family have to fly together, or is it enough to have a parent sit with a child in one row and another parent ten rows back? If a family of 4 buys a ticket an hour before departure and there are only individual seats left, should the airline be required to force three people to move? What if in doing so, it splits up another traveling party? What if it's the octomom and her brood?

It's pretty hard to figure out where the limit is, that is why I can understand airlines' reluctance to getting involved in relocating passengers to seat parties with children together.

Quoting nonrevman (Reply 13):
This sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen if something goes wrong and a kid was forced to sit away from their family.

Seeing as no one is forced to fly and anyone can walk off the plane if they're not satisfied with their seating arrangement, I can't see that lawsuit going very far.

Quoting garpd (Reply 29):
However, the one thing that ticks me off about airlines vs families is the age at which most airlines deem someone to be an adult! I've seen it as low as 10 years! I mean, c'mon! At least let their voice break or let them get old enough to vote first before you charge them an adult fare!

Some overfed 10-year old boys weigh as much as a 20-year old model on a diet. Should the model pay a child's fare too? Besides, irrespective of their weight, children take up a space that could otherwise be sold to an adult at an adult fare. Why should the airline be denied that income?
All Hail King Donald
 
BE77
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:15 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:59 am

Quoting Pu (Reply 19):
So I end up giving up my very valuable (to me) window/aisle seat so that they can sit together - which makes me feel grudgingly better with myself as I battle the rest of the flight for the shared armrests I don't deserve as punishment

Since an all the airlines I fly in the course of a year (7 or so) advance seating is either a 'paid' or ff 'earned' priviledage and since my normal routings involve an overnight hotel AND still need multiple connections and one very long day, my advance booked window seat is very valuable, and I am VERY reluctant to give it up...oddly enough even though the amount is insignificant - no one ever offers to pay (and obviously didn't want to pay in advance either).

Quoting Tradewinds (Reply 20):
JL, of course, was phenomenal -- complimentary child seats, a little goodie bag for the wee one, and the FAs would bend over backwards for you (which they tend to do for all pax, in my experience, but).

Perhaps they offer more service than they can afford with the fares and business model they have? Somewhere there is/was a disconnect between service levels / business models and fares. While it wasn't directly due to the service you got on that or those flights, it does indicate that perhaps the creditors paid for this and other perq's their flyers got through the bankruptcy?

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 21):
Most parents that fly would book tickets together and thus are seated together.

Some seem to (lightsaber as quoted below). My experience is that when there is a fee for advance seat selection, about 1 / 3 families are related to lightsabre's wife and will NOT pay the seating fee...since I did, I'm not inclined to worry about them. The other 2/3 go straight to their seats no hassle, and rightfully get the service they paid for. If you are going to cheap out on the fee, then if it is allowed, be absolutley sure to use any offered online check in service to absolute second it is available for you flight (example, with WS you can check in and select a seat 24 hours in advance). But, on busy routes with other people paying for the service don't be surprised if it doesn't work, and don't complain when you coudl have booked in advance and paid for the seat. In many airlines pricing models this is a valuable service...and since I tend to use it, apparently I agree with the value it provides.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 7):
Last flight I paid the extra fee to sit together. (It upset the wife as 'wasted money.')

Ouch - good on ya,,,I would normally 'strongly' advise against upsetting the spouse, but it takes a smart person to realise they would have been even more upset during the boarding process. (Unless of course she didn't want to sit with you!).

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 11):
These are 3 (of many) reasons that WN gets my business when we are flying as a family. Flying with kids doesn't have to be a rotten experience

Sounds excellent - WN has a great model and product that serves a very large number of people very, very well. I really would fly them more often, but my travels usually originate in Canada so not much opportunity. I figure if they can make those short turns work, they must be doing something right with the boarding too.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 11):
Why not? Isn't there value in selling 3 or 4 or 5 tickets at the same time?

For sure - and with the WN way of doing things there is a LOT of value in it I bet, which is why they do it (and partly why you choose them!).

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 22):
Are we going to extend that to the jackass

PLEASE - CAN WE? In fact, lets start with them, and after we get the supposed adults behaving, then we can we can restart the debate about children.
(FTR - I do not mind children on flights AT ALL, in fact enjoy it - and still remember being that kid who is fascinated by it. I also take kids flying through the EAA 'YE' program which is huge fun. In the classic case I'll let the poor parents dealing with the crying baby due to pressure changes to let them know it's not their fault and smart or experienced flyers all know that and accept it. However, every now and then I am on an airline and I really, really want to have PARENTS banned from ever flying again over the what they have taught (or not) their children.

Quoting garpd (Reply 29):
But where is the sense in charging full fare for a 12 year old who weighs less than the average long haul suitcase?

I think if we there were shipped the cargo hold this would be the way to price their travel. While it is more complicated than this, the normal metric reported for airline traffic is by the seat (CASM, RASM), so, it appears that the 'seat' is the commodity being paid for, not the weight.

Quoting MillwallSean (Reply 30):
But having first-business and gold etc board first is just ridiculous

OK - if you think so, then board last, but don't flame others like myself who value that option. It gets me in my forward Y window seat and out of the hubbub quickly speeding the rest of the boarding, and my carry on will be nearby on exit - since I travel light and have connections, that has saved me dozens of missed flights (including one in December that a coworker missed because he was about 10 rows behind me).

Quoting hb88 (Reply 32):
If an airline refused to ensure I was going to be seated next to my child, I'd simply choose another airline.

Absolutely. Like anyone should for any service feature that is important to them.
More and more airlines are offering different choices, exaclty the same as every other industry in the world (IPhone vs BlackBerry vs Samsung...all are 'phones', and all provide very different options - apparently the Galaxy is now the most popular after outselling Apple which had in the past couple of years toppled RIM).
If you do not differentitate your product and services, then it is just a commodity (which is where I work), and then the ONLY way to compete is on price...which is not particularly profitable.

Quoting hb88 (Reply 32):
I guess it comes down to the expectations. In many parts of the world, children are not looked on as a burden and airlines serve these expectations appropriately. In some this isn't the case. From the comments here and my own experience, its very much a cultural issue.

Somewhat cultural I agree. I'd suggest a bit cultural and a bit economic - such as the providers will know that there is an economic cost to absolutely every service they provide - they may not bother to calculate it, but they know it is there. So, in some places they will continue to provide high level support for children since they either don't want the cost of bad publicity in regions where people expect families to get a bit more help OR they provide the service because they think they'll sell more tickets on the same itinerary and can make their $ that way. If in another part of the world or another airline wants to charge for using the toilets, or for being able to select seats in advance, or baggage, or a better schedule, or anything else, it is all the same...these things have costs to the airline, and they have different levels of value to different people. In the end, we get to choose which service we want and which we are willing to pay for. Nothing is free (except my opinion, and even for that you had to sign up to read this and maybe pay $ + suffer all the ads.). Even as a 'free' service, A.Net costs money to run, and one way or another we all pay.
Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
 
PI767
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 2:50 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:17 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 26):
Honestly, I'm shocked the FA didn't intervene.

What would you expect the flight attendant to do? He or she cannot force a passenger to change seats... so what would you have expected the FA to do?
"Piedmont. The Model of What a Good Airline Should Be."
 
standby87
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 2:33 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 11:46 am

Quoting JQflightie (Reply 33):
at QF, we go out of our way for Famlies or Parents with Children, we board them first, have them seated, there is usually a Childrens meal or Todler meal loaded for them (if they have ordere one on their booking) if not something is usually found or loaded for the Toddler/Child, us Cabin Crew give out Pillows and Blankets to parents with children first, we give them a little brief about the aircraft, toilets and change table facilities and so on, and then its the 'Kids Packs' time, we give them pencils, and colouring books, its good, its a stressful time travelling with children... avery litle bit counts to make their flight hassle free

Good on QF.
"The children of today are the business travellers of tomorrow"
That was the saying at British Airways.

Also, children must be seated next to their parents/carers.
In Emergency, the parents will end up hunting their children isof. leaving the aircraft thus hindering the safety of others.
That was in an official British CAA document I studied some years ago.
 
BE77
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:15 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:19 pm

Quoting PI767 (Reply 44):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 26):
Honestly, I'm shocked the FA didn't intervene.

What would you expect the flight attendant to do? He or she cannot force a passenger to change seats... so what would you have expected the FA to do?

Concur. Depending on the airline (the airline isn't mentioned but it doesn't sound like WN so it possibly / likely has pay in advance seat selection), the passenger paid extra specifically for that seat. Part of the contract.
Also depending on the airline, it's part of the F/A's contract that they are not responsible to reseat anyone. Then there are whatever legal requirements according to the laws of the land.

So, what is left to do - there are signed, legal contracts in place? Tell the FA to intentionally break people's contracts?

The guy there (probably) paid for the seat - and right now is probably really upset at you for not doing the same for your group - if it was UA he might have given up an E+ seat? He also may be upset at the airline for even letting your situation develop (maybe he thnks there should be a rule that people who need to sit together MUST prebook the seats or something similar). And, even though he switched, he never even got his money back....so he paid for something he didn't get - possibly the absolute worst thing a company can do to a customer. Smirking at him may have only added to the insult, because now he may think you were laughing at him for having actually being stupid enough to pay when you knew how to get it for free.

PS - Although it wasn't me, it could have been...and I have a high noise tolerence and good headsets...if I had PAID to be 8 rows ahead and had a tight connection, I would have stayed - if I had a couple hours and we were on time, I might have swapped, depending on what config the exit row was and thought it was a better seat...not because someone else was too cheap to pay for a service they actually needed. NOTE: If it was on an airline WITHOUT paid seat selection, then I modify my opinion accordingly, and have swapped seats plenty of times to let families / couples sit together - often suggesting it myself when I see the situation developing - in that case we're all in the same boat and there wasn't much that could be done.
Tower, Affirmitive, gear is down and welded
 
1stfl94
Posts: 1082
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:33 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:34 pm

Quoting standby87 (Reply 45):
Quoting JQflightie (Reply 33):
at QF, we go out of our way for Famlies or Parents with Children, we board them first, have them seated, there is usually a Childrens meal or Todler meal loaded for them (if they have ordere one on their booking) if not something is usually found or loaded for the Toddler/Child, us Cabin Crew give out Pillows and Blankets to parents with children first, we give them a little brief about the aircraft, toilets and change table facilities and so on, and then its the 'Kids Packs' time, we give them pencils, and colouring books, its good, its a stressful time travelling with children... avery litle bit counts to make their flight hassle free

Good on QF.
"The children of today are the business travellers of tomorrow"
That was the saying at British Airways.

Also, children must be seated next to their parents/carers.
In Emergency, the parents will end up hunting their children isof. leaving the aircraft thus hindering the safety of others.
That was in an official British CAA document I studied some years ago.

This is an extremely important point that a lot of people on this thread are missing and its concerning that in the US this doesn't seem to a priority for the airlines.
 
hb88
Posts: 761
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 1:25 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 12:53 pm

Quoting be77 (Reply 43):
So, in some places they will continue to provide high level support for children since they either don't want the cost of bad publicity in regions where people expect families to get a bit more help OR they provide the service because they think they'll sell more tickets on the same itinerary and can make their $ that way.

Um, or they consider that there is intrinsic value in helping travelling families with children. Hey, I'm old fashioned, but apparently quite a few airlines agree with me   The same applies to seating the elderly in accessible seats, helping unaccompanied child travellers (how does this work in the US? Do they just get dropped at check in to fend for themselves?).

It depends where you draw the line. In the race to the bottom which appears to be a defining characteristic of air travel in the US these days, each and every aspect of the travel experience which can be monetized is. You can imagine the conversations - "Hey if we make it policy that we break up co-travellers and families, we can charge them to sit together!". "Genius". There is no cost to the airline in booking co-travellers in adjacent seats, however there is money to be made in allowing people to pay to mitigate discomfort or inconvenience created by the carrier for that purpose. Think of priority boarding. Perhaps I am being cynical, but it's financially brilliant to make the boarding and pax handling procedure as unpleasant as possible and then offer a paid service to improve it. It simply takes reducing customers perceptions at the outset - and this appears to have been achieved very effectively in some countries.

As the simple experience of air travel has been progressively eroded, we in turn find it odd that it was ever so that we could expect to sit next to our spouse, ask for a childs meal, expect a free drink, not pay for inflight enertainment (at least in the US). What is interesting is that in many parts of the world, this remains the standard - and for airlines which are profitable.
 
nonrevman
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2001 6:33 am

RE: One More Reason Not To Fly - Children

Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:01 pm

Another interesting thing about separating a toddler from a parent; most airlines do not accept these children as passengers if they are traveling alone. If I am separated from one of my kids, wouldn't they effectively be an unaccompanied minor at that point? The airline would be violating their own policy by forcing the seat change.

I noticed some posts about whether or not the flight attendant should intervene. If I ever did get into this situation, and our original seat assignments were changed, I would approach the flight attendant with the situation if my own attempts to get someone to switch did not work. Hopefully, they would realize the lose-lose situation that would result on that aircraft if the 3 or 5 year old was forced to sit away from their parent(s).

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos