Hacker News Reader

Comment by bunderbunder | Hacker News Reader

We don't pay extra to sit with our kids, but the trick does require a little bit of chutzpah.

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.

View on HN

I appreciate that you acknowledge the inconvenience to others by using the word chutzpah. Your method slows down, and complicates, the boarding process for everyone else on the plane. Everyone's different, but with my kids, I'd much rather just pay for the convenience of being able to quickly get on the plane and get seated without making folk around me frustrated.

Every airline I’ve ever flown boards families with children right after elderly and wheelchairs.

Just take that opportunity. That’s why they’re asking!

That's there for people who need to deal with getting strollers collapsed and ready to be stored with the luggage, and kids safely in their seats. OP's method extends into the normal boarding process, because you have to wait for other passengers to get on and be willing to move their seats.

It also applies to small children, in my experience. But if you're flying with a toddler it's a lot easier to convince the gate agent to help you sort it out before boarding begins.

Also, the early boarding is for whatever people interpret it being for. Most airlines are intentionally vague about justifications for early boarding. "If you need extra time or assistance to board...", and lots of people take advantage. I know a particularly "chutzpah" guy (who is young, has no disability, nor children) who always boards during this period because "nobody's stopped me!"

Early boarding does nothing to help with different assigned seats. It actually does the opposite because no one else who could consent to a seat swap is on the plane

I've had the stewardess notice my kid in an adult only seat (turns out only one side of that plane has airmasks that fit kids or something like that) and move us, then tell whoever we displaced to take our old seats.

If I was a flight attendant, I’d use this reasoning regularly even if it wasn’t true. Hard to disprove on the spot. And these kinds of things can even vary from order to order of the same aircraft between (and within) airlines.

The idea is to get noticed early, if you have a seat assignment issue, or get a row if it's a free-for-all seating airline.

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.

Absolutely. I'm not happy about this way of doing it, either, but it's the best overall option that has been provided by the airlines. The upcharge for getting seated together at booking time is extortionate, and not at all proportional to the inconvenience created by sorting it out at boarding time instead.

Talk to them at check in instead.

It is interesting you make it sound like it is that person's fault the airline did not seat their family together.

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.

Seat booking is hard. If a parent chooses the option of unattended seating, that’s just the reality of limited resources.

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.

Oh… hackernews…

Seat booking isn't hard. It's a solved problem, for decades.

Then why do airlines keep fiddling with it?

To get more money from passengers.

Two seats are free on a plane, but each is in a row of three, and each of those rows already has a couple. Book 2 seats side by side.

There you go, algorithm geniuses

I never said that it's OP's fault that airlines don't seat families together, I just highlighted the impact of the decision OP made in that moment. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I (as a parent of kids) am completely onboard with this proposed rule and have wanted it for a long time.

> I just highlighted the impact of the decision OP made in that moment

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.

I don't think there's another decision to be made - I'm fine with them making the decision, especially because they're self-aware (hence my saying that I appreciate them admitting that fact).

- 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.

> - OP also made the decision to inconvenience everyone boarding behind them

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.

>No, the airline did that when they didn't seat the family together.

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?

> No, but you are at fault if they give you the option for instant withdrawal for $0.25.

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

>You can stick that.

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.

> Sort of, I suppose

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.

>You are letting these companies push you around.

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?

You’re right. Thanks & sorry. I just took a really long walk and feel better.

I did the same, I noticed myself getting more frustrated over an internet debate than I should be haha. Though, it's incredibly more humid here than it usually is, and now I feel gross and kinda regret it LOL.

Much love, bud. Hope you and yours enjoy the rest of your day. :)

Cheers, you too. Shockingly humid here too....

Everyone's different, but with my kids, I'd much rather just pay for the convenience of being able to quickly get on the plane and get seated without making folk around me frustrated

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.

Completely agreed, and just to clarify, at no point have I argued in favor of this law. But in a situation such as this, whether or not I agree with what an airline is doing, I'll typically take the path of least resistance for me and mine (same with OP!).

/shrug

It's that airlines are causing this issue though. They have websites to choose seats, and could very easily do this for free. Flight attendants already verify other aspects of seating, so does preboarding, so the entire workflow is done.

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.

For the third or forth time in this thread, I've never argued against the fact that the root cause of this all is the airlines being extortionate. I was clearly (at least I figured it was, my bad I suppose) discussing a reaction to a reaction to a root cause.

Fair enough.

> I appreciate that you acknowledge the inconvenience to others by using the word chutzpah. Your method slows down, and complicates, the boarding process for everyone else on the plane.

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.

I don't disagree with any of this, nor did I, to clarify, imply that OP is the root cause.

So I mostly agree with you if assigned seating was free. The problem I've had twice is where someone had asked me to trade a paid seat for a worse one to sit with a spouse. Obviously different than a child, but it speaks to something else I hate about flying. The airline makes their problems your problems. For example: flight delayed but we can rebook you for a flight that would have been cheaper if you had just booked that one, and you have no recourse.

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.

Personally I pay for seat assignments but I’m sympathetic. He didn’t create this problem. The airline knows the birthdate of every passenger before they show you the option to pay for seats. They are deliberately seating young kids alone. They didn’t do this before, but they made an intentional business decision to do this to extract more cash.

I actually find the idea of the chaos that would unfold after putting my toddler in one seat and then going somewhere else to sit quite amusing. Haven’t had the chance yet, but I’m not paying a high fee for a seat on a short flight.

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

That is the real power move

If I pay for an aisle seat, I’m not going to give it up for some unprepared parents who skipped going on an airline where you can pick your seats. That’s not my problem. I tend to travel alone and when I don’t I get an assigned seat for my partner/friends. I will of course be courteous to anyone asking but if they keep it up I’ll ask the attendants to please help me, I’m being bullied.

Have fun sitting next to my unattended 5yo for eight hours.

Also going to say if anyone asks me to change seats for this (and wouldn’t involve me separating too much from my own co-travellers, and even then, we’re adults that can deal with a few hours apart on a trip together), I’ll 100% do it.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com