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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.