Proposed rule would ban airlines from charging parents to sit with children
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
(to be clear, there are many good reasons for caring, such as having children, any other personal circumstances, etc)
I long ago decided I'd pay extra for economy plus (or whatever the airline calls it) the cost isn't much more and the legroom is nice. My wife doesn't care (she is short so doesn't need legroom)
I don't for one nanosecond believe that the people who don't care are getting cheaper tickets out of the deal. I'm sure the companies are only too happy to pocket the extra money.
What has changed is that you get less and less convenience for your $ in coach. Most flights make most of their money on the 5 business travelers who pay 5-10x the minimum seat price the day before the plane leaves.
Any airline that pockets the fees rather than using it to lower fares is going to lose a lot of business on competitive routes.
It follows that competition is creating negative price pressure. There is no other explanation for why they don't charge more money already.
That said I doubt they're directly making much money from people paying a la carte for assigned seats. I bet they get a lot more value out it letting them turn free seat selection as a perk to entice people to sign up for their credit card.
I think that most people care about their seat assignment, either because they want to sit near someone, or they prefer aisle or window, or they prefer to sit away from the restrooms or towards the front of the aircraft, etc.
In my opinion, the real purpose of this is to obscure the all-inclusive price of the ticket.
Most people care. Most people who don't pay care, too—they just can't (safely/comfortably) afford to pay.
We might all have paid the same fare, but sitting at the back of the plane in the last aisle seat before the bathroom is something that a lot of people are clearly willing to pay to avoid.
- no one bothering you behind and you do not bother anyone when reclining the seat
- easy access to toilets AND to water/snacks at the back
Maybe it depends on airlines and on what other people eat before their flight :D
The point wasn't about that specific seat, just that certain seats in the same fare class are more desirable than others.
Yesterday, I flew with my 11 year old on Southwest. Our first flight was three hours late, we missed our connection and were in the last boarding group on the new flight, which took off at 10:30 pm. He's sat alone before and it's fine, but our bags weren't organized in way to make that easy, and on the late flight they turn off all the lights and it just seems a little strange to sit between strangers in the dark for hours. He was also changing timezones and landed at what felt like 3 am to him.
It just seemed like an unnecessary stressor after a long day of travel for a relatively young person.
Nobody wants to get stuck sitting next to someone else's unattended kid on a flight. And no flight attendant wants unattended kids on their plane, either. So all you have to do is, when you get on the plane tell the flight attendant stationed by the plane's door that you weren't seated next to your kids, and what seats everyone is sitting in. Then proceed to your assigned seats. They will gladly sort things out for you, so you should only have to wait a few minutes for someone to come along and tell you your new seat assignments.
Just take that opportunity. That’s why they’re asking!
Again, it's entirely different if it's a toddler/small child vs a teenager; teenagers are probably happy to be away from the parents for awhile.
It sounds almost like you think a multi-billion dollar company is more important that regular old families.
I know I'm old now because I shake my head at the world we have created with sadness and disgust.
The OP is acting like parents and kids are the only people who will ever want to sit together.
What happens when OP’s kid is sitting next to another family? You gonna pull off your swap then?
Airlines suck don’t get me wrong. This is someone blaming an airline for bad parenting and/or poor planning ahead.
There you go, algorithm geniuses
The decision they made was putting the onus on a multi-billion dollar corporation to respect and be kind to families!
The fact they hadn't already done-so is entirely on them, not OP.
If you think there is another decision to be made, you are sorely mistaken.
- OP made the decision to put the onus on a multi-billion dollar corporation to resolve the issue and respect families - good for OP, hell yes, I agree!
- OP also made the decision to inconvenience everyone boarding behind them
Both of these things can absolutely be true at the same time.
Edit: Going further, this is actually a really great way of highlighting how bullshit this policy is. A family, like OP, will make what they view as the best path forward for themselves in this situation, at the expense of inconveniencing everyone behind them. If the root cause is the airline's policy, then this is a great example of how this policy can inconvenience everyone on a plane.
No, the airline did that when they didn't seat the family together.
If a bank has so many convoluted steps it takes me 10 minutes to withdraw cash from an ATM, am I at fault for holding up everyone else waiting to use the ATM? Should I simply not use the ATM at all in fear of delaying others?
The billion dollar corporation did a stupid thing, it is THEIR fault boarding was not as fast as it otherwise could have been, NOT the paying customer's.
The airline gave them the option of sitting together, and OP chose the option that will inconvenience others.
>If a bank has so many convoluted steps it takes me 10 minutes to withdraw cash from an ATM, am I at fault for holding up everyone else waiting to use the ATM?
No, but you are at fault if they give you the option for instant withdrawal for $0.25.
>The billion dollar corporation did a stupid thing, it is THEIR fault boarding was not as fast as it otherwise could have been, NOT the paying customer's.
Did you happen to miss my edit? The one where I highlight that the root is the policy, and the fallout from OP's choice between the two options given to them is a great example of why it's bullshit?
You can stick that.
What if the "instant" option was $25? What if it was $250?
Your logic falls down completely.
I am genuinely horrified you think it's OK for a multi-billion dollar corporation to charge customers - who are already paying for a service - MORE money for a faster service when it used to be included as part of the original payment for services, and we know very well they could if they wanted to, but they're just gouging customers for every increasingly more money
That's super kind of you, thanks for the level-headed discussion.
>What if the "instant" option was $25? What if it was $250?
>Your logic falls down completely.
Sort of, I suppose. Again, not saying the policy is OK, just saying that there are different kinds of fallout based on the decisions we make within a fucked up system. You're taking my comment a lot further than you need to be.
>I am genuinely horrified you think it's OK for a multi-billion dollar corporation to charge customers - who are already paying for a service - MORE money for a faster service when it used to be included as part of the original payment for services, and we know very well they could if they wanted to, but they're just gouging customers for every increasingly more money
Please take a deep breath and chill out on the "horrified" and "stick that" rhetoric, and then begin to patiently read through all of my comments on this thread. I have VERY SPECIFICALLY said in this thread that I don't like this policy, either. I have VERY SPECIFICALLY said in this thread that, as a parent, I'm glad that this rule is being proposed. Perhaps they're in response to other people, but they're all in this chain.
You're very right to be passionate about this, but I have a feeling that your emotions are preventing you from having a level-headed discussion at this point. I say this because I've repeatedly told you I don't like this policy, and that the fallout from OP's actions highlights why the policy is bullshit, but you're still telling me that you're horrified that I think this policy is OK. That's not at all what I'm saying, and it seems that others in this chain have understood that fairly well.
If you want to have a good discussion, this, right here, IMO is the reason we have to make decisions "within a fucked up system" (as you put it).
You are letting these companies push you around. You accepted the $0.25 "instant" fee at the ATM, and in fact said I would be an a-hole if I didn't and held other people up because of it. At that point you are a very big part of the problem, because you are not just allowing them to get away with it, you're actively encouraging it, and saying anyone who doesn't is actually the problem.
Stand up for yourself. Stand up for others. Don't take the BS. Don't blame regular folks for what the big corporations are doing, make noise about the corporation is very obviously at fault here and they are the problem making our society worse.
> I've repeatedly told you I don't like this policy
But you clearly don't feel that way strongly, otherwise you wouldn't be saying I'm the bad guy for not paying the extra $0.25 (or $25) "instant" fee at the ATM and holding others up.
Not really. I pick my battles - there are places I fight back, and other places where I may opt not to pick a fight for the sake of convenience. But just because I'm willing to pay a fee within a system that currently exists doesn't mean that I haven't actively worked to elect politicians who have stated that they want to make these changes. There are plenty of other exorbitant fees that airlines charge that I have refused to pay and have worked around on my own, but sometimes I may bite the bullet for the sake of my own convenience while the politicians I supported work to put these proposed rules in place. And wouldn't you know it, this thread is literally about them doing that. Huh...
>You accepted the $0.25 "instant" fee at the ATM, and in fact said I would be an a-hole if I didn't and held other people up because of it.
My exact statement was, "No, but you are at fault if they give you the option for instant withdrawal for $0.25.". At no point have I called you an asshole.
>... and saying anyone who doesn't is actually the problem. ... Don't blame regular folks...
I truly do not understand how I can make what I have repeated about who's truly "at fault" here any clearer than I already have. Good gracious.
>But you clearly don't feel that way strongly, otherwise you wouldn't be saying I'm the bad guy...
Again, with the emotionally-charged rhetoric. Just because one is "at fault" doesn't make one "a bad guy" or an "a-hole". I've never insinuated that you would be a bad person for choosing that option, just like I've never said that OP is a bad person - again, I applauded them for being aware of the impact their decision causes while still being willing to take what they chose as the best path forward for them and their family. Causing people to wait ten minutes because you opted not to pay a fee doesn't make you a bad person - I'm not going to cast judgement because I don't know if the person at the ATM simply doesn't want to pay it, or can't afford it, or what. But that doesn't mean that they're not at fault for making people wait - and that's OK.
Life's fairly nuanced, bud, and sometimes we have to make crappy decisions within a shitty system that we're currently working to fight. That's capitalism for ya, and it sucks. Again, I truly think that you need to go outside and get some fresh air. I'm an outdoorsman myself, and I've stumbled upon your content from time to time - maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to put HN down, hop in your Jeep and go for a drive?
Much love, bud. Hope you and yours enjoy the rest of your day. :)
The airlines have engineered this situation in order to extract some extra money out of you. They are inflicting a social externality (annoyance) on both you and other passengers in order to upsell you and profit from the arrangement. That’s why this law is needed.
/shrug
Instead the airline makes people pay, or they'll break up a family. That includes the lack of a guardian if there are issues.
100% the airlines' purposeful fault, attempting to extort cash or everyone is in a bad situation. Even the poor flight attendants, their own employees.
As a single dude, I applaud this law, and buddy's attempts to not pay extortion.
I disagree it is them at the root cause of this inconvenience.
If I were implementing a seating algorithm, my instinct would be to sit members of the same booking together. Presumably members of the same booking are family or friends.
However the actual algorithm the airlines chose to use do not do this. This must be a conscious decision. And the reason for that is they want you to pay extra to sit together.
They have decided to make the deliberate choice to not seat families together.
They have decided that their profits are more important than your annoyance.
Imagine going to a restaurant and they say they are out of steak but here is a burger, but we won't give you the difference because that's what you originally ordered.
What the rule should be is airlines can't charge for seats in the back half of their airplane.
Absolutely nothing wrong with asking. Worst that should ever happen to anyone making a reasonable ask is a “no”. I’ll enjoy being a part of the snub against the airlines and their junk fees.
I fly often enough that I don’t really care for my aisle/window/whatever seat if I have one. They’re all pretty much the same.
Edit: just adding to that, pretty sure flight attendants or other passengers would gladly resolve the issue that the airlines created.. it’s just not practical with small children
It's a process of discovery rather than being something that you know up front. You generally have to get pretty deep into the process of purchasing a ticket before you learn how much it will cost to pre-book your seats. If you don't like it, you have to start the process anew with another airline.
And this is deliberate by the airlines. They want you to invest some time before they reveal the true, all-inclusive price, so you're less likely to look elsewhere.
Inflation-adjusted, it has _never_ been cheaper to just get on a plane and fly across the country.
Once you start legislating away the ability for consumers to pick and choose what they want to pay for, some of that cost will just be rolled back into the base fare, making all customers pay more.
As usual, good intentions lead to bad policy.
But, I'm with you - "humanizing" airline travel a bit is probably a net good. These days, basically nobody enjoys flying for myriad reasons (almost all of which are vaguely caused by a "race to the bottom")
Cost-wise, kids should be 50% off.
Make it more like a resort where you hand off the kids to the on-site daycare and enjoy a carefree day. Need a staffer, but the extra seating capacity should cover it.
We have on-board showers, individual cabins, sit down bars, but where’s the onsite daycare?
Charging for access to the already-existing seat selection feature when booking is a classic tactic of price discrimination to squeeze more money from people who can afford it.
So this could impact profits, but not costs.
I don't think the airlines have a problem justifying their ticket prices, I think they have a greedy bastard executive class problem that's draining them of all their money.
I mean, that's the entire point of Western Capitalism, to further enrich the wealthy.
The wealthy own the political classes, effectively. Unless you can make money off it then it's not happening.
So, yes— please make pricing simple enough that you can disclose everything up front, even if that means many “extras” are rolled into the base fare.
If you reflect on what value procreation may have to society, and the role parenting plays in realizing that value, and how parents accomplish this, you may come to realize that its good when parents are responsible for their young children.
That means they need to be near in fraught situations, like air travel.
Meanwhile, I think we can conclude the cost of this rule is low. E.g., several competitive airlines are already doing this. And rationally, we can suppose the proportion of bookings affected by this is low, so this is mainly a matter of updating the booking software.
High-value, low cost.. that's good policy.
If I'm booking a last minute flight for my whole family and don't have any flexibility in when I leave, it is almost certainly because it is Very Important that we're on that flight.
n.b. "a signed" -> assigned, "fair" -> fare
What you're in effect saying is that young children & their parents traveling with them should be ineligible for the cheapest fare classes, i.e. you're advocating for what is effectively an extra tax on them. Is that the intention?
It didn't use to be normal.
Yes people who require additional features should pay for additional features. Just because it's an airline doesn't mean you get to aggregate expenses to other customers for the features you want. Would you be okay if overweight people automatically got first class for the same price point as the cheapest fare? Your lifestyle and that includes having children is not the burden of other people to finance.
This is a strange thing to say immediately after chiding someone for not considering the disabled.
Should wheelchair ramps on public buildings be funded via a special tax that only wheelchair users have to pay?
When talking about accessibility to public buildings and making certain basic accessibility features part of the design and construction is different. Trying to conflate the two confuses the argument here. Requiring that your child automatically get a seat next to you for no additional charge in no way relates to ensuring that a wheelchair can make it to the plane.
There's no additional cost in seating children, or those incapable of self-supervision, with their parent/carer. The low cost airlines force the separation in order to make an inconvenience that they hope to charge for. Like if they wiped your hands with grease as you got in the aeroplane and then charged for hand wipes.
It is literally asking other customers to pay for one person's convenience.
1) people who need to sit together because they are flying with someone who cannot sit alone. If the fee makes the flight too expensive, they'd rather not fly or will choose a different airline without the fee.
2) people who will pay money to avoid a bit of inconvenience. If the fee makes the flight too expensive, they'll just not pay the fee but will still pay the base fare.
Making the people in #1 pay the fee loses airlines money. Making the people in #2 pay the fee is highly lucrative.
This rule will allow the airlines to make more money because they can now easily target #2 without targetting the people in category #1. Before the law this was more difficult -- how do you properly distinguish between people who have to sit together and people who want to sit together?
Paying a convenience fee for a convenience is a standard thing to do. Asking other people to pay for your convenience is always a wrong thing to do.
And it's a different convenience. Many people are paying extra to sit near the front of the plane. Many parents would rather sit near the back near the bathroom.
The load factor will likely vary by location and time of day, but overall from April of 2023 to April of 2024, the load factor was about 83%. This is very close to the historical load factor for US airlines since 2010 or so (except for the COVID years). The only time the overall load factor was around 60% was in 2020.
https://www.transtats.bts.gov/TRAFFIC/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/691451/us-airline-passen...
I had no intention of shaming, the personal attack is really unwarranted. And I obviously had no idea what the reason was. I just stumbled on the text when reading it so I was hoping you could perhaps fix them.
As a result of this is that it is more difficult for consumers to compare ticket prices between airlines, and consumers are more likely to pay more than planned for airline tickets due to surprise charges.