←back to thread

663 points duxup | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
egonschiele ◴[] No.45360538[source]
> Family Seating Guarantees: Under current regulations, airlines must ensure that families with young children are seated together without additional charges. This would no longer be guaranteed under the new proposal, meaning families could face extra costs just to sit next to one another.

This one is wild. You want to sit next to somebody's crying 2 year old? Go nuts. Change their diaper while you're at it.

replies(5): >>45360613 #>>45360649 #>>45360734 #>>45361601 #>>45364160 #
AtlanticThird ◴[] No.45360613[source]
I don't think that's what anyone wants. I think they just want families with young children to pay to sit together, like everyone else has to
replies(7): >>45360895 #>>45360899 #>>45360932 #>>45361032 #>>45361090 #>>45361209 #>>45362040 #
mcaravey ◴[] No.45360899[source]
I think that part of the problem is a want versus a need. I don't particularly care if me and my wife don't sit together. We see each other all the time. But I don't want to have my four-year-old sitting in between two strangers, six rows in front of me where I can't see him. That's not fair to the two strangers, but also I don't trust strangers.

I get the idea of paying for the privilege, but at the same time, it's not like they roll out the red carpet for someone who flies with their kids. Pretty much every time that I can remember them ever rearranging seats to get us together, we always wind up sitting in the rows at the very back of the plane close to the bathroom, which is fine with me. If I wanted red carpet treatment, I'd pay for first class for everyone. But I'm not about to do that.

All I do know is that if they were to stop rearranging seats, it would make the frequency of our flying go down quite a bit. At a minimum, if they went that route, I would want there to be a guaranteed payment to be able to get everyone to sit together. That way I can at least plan for the extra cost. Knowing airlines they would probably use a sliding scale based on age or something.

replies(2): >>45361423 #>>45363283 #
euleriancon ◴[] No.45361423[source]
This exactly. For parents it is not a choice, you absolutely must have a parent sitting by a young child. The effect of not automatically putting parent and children next to each other would just be making tickets more expensive for parents.
replies(4): >>45362176 #>>45362341 #>>45362402 #>>45362843 #
raw_anon_1111 ◴[] No.45362341{3}[source]
And? They are your kids. Why should someone who has paid to reserve their seat have to move because you were to cheap to pay to choose your seat.

Also see, I’m not going to work extra hours because a parent can’t work late. Just because I have grown children doesn’t mean that I don’t have a life outside of work.

replies(1): >>45362644 #
mothballed ◴[] No.45362644{4}[source]
Ah yes I love modern society "they're your kids" until every busybody on earth calls CPS or police at the first sign of doing something they disapprove (happened to me because I shit you not, my kid is a different race and that was 'suspicious' to be a kidnapping -- thanks FOIA for the bodycam revealing that bullshit).

Or when it comes time to tax the shit out of the grown kid made possible by the massive time and money investment made by the parents, the lion's share of the total. "No no no, that was society's investment -- now they owe us those taxes as part the social contract!"

When it comes time to do the gangster shit it's all on the parent, but when it comes time to reap the benefits suddenly "we're a society."

replies(2): >>45362778 #>>45363508 #
1. renewiltord ◴[] No.45362778{5}[source]
Haha, it's very true. Everyone is an individualist when it comes to paying for kids but when it comes to social security, we should raise that to high heaven so that the current kids will be slaves to the geriatric majority.

"I don't mind paying more money in taxes" they always say, knowing full well that the majority of the incidence is on the next generation.