←back to thread

663 points duxup | 5 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 #
jermaustin1 ◴[] No.45363283[source]
> 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.

I don't understand this. When you book a flight, do you not chose your seats so you sit together? Why should it be up to the airline to ensure you get a seat with your baby, that is part of planning a trip.

When I rent "the cheapest car on offer", if it is a 2 seater, and I have 3 passengers, that's on me for not planning for my passengers.

People who chose to not pick their seats (to save the $25 or whatever) shouldn't then punish people like me who paid to sit in a specific seat with specific neighbors.

replies(1): >>45367112 #
1. afavour ◴[] No.45367112[source]
> if it is a 2 seater, and I have 3 passengers, that's on me for not planning for my passengers.

Well, no, it’s on all of you in the sense that all of your passengers pay the price for your mistake. But as the guy behind you in line at the rental place, makes no difference to me.

If a parent isn’t sat with a child everyone sat anywhere near the kid pays a price.

replies(1): >>45372055 #
2. jermaustin1 ◴[] No.45372055[source]
I 100% agree that a parent should be required to sit next to a child under a certain age, but I don't agree that is the responsibility of the airline. They should enforce that the parent/guardian traveling with the child should have to pick seats (so yes, pay for seat selection if it costs money), and if there aren't seats available, too bad.

Again, I (who paid for a selected seat assignment) should not even be asked by anyone (staff or passengers) to get up because they didn't pay for a seat with their baby.

replies(1): >>45372994 #
3. afavour ◴[] No.45372994[source]
You're still not really engaging with my point. A parent sitting next to their kid (without choosing specifically where they are sat) is to the benefit of everyone on the plane. You sitting where you want is to the benefit of you and you only. So it makes sense one has to be paid for and the other does not.
replies(1): >>45374460 #
4. jermaustin1 ◴[] No.45374460{3}[source]
Again, 100% agree, parents sitting next to child should be a requirement. I agree that a child should not be sat away from their parent, because that is a bad time for everyone involved.

I just disagree that a child's seat should be allowed to be picked at random by the airline, forcing people to move who DID pick their seat. If an adult is booking a flight with a child, they should be required to book the child+parent seat even if that costs extra.

I believe all seats SHOULD be picked by passengers at the time of purchase, full stop. That was the way it had been as long as I had been flying, until they realized they could make more money by charging "seat selection" fees, now you have people who are the last to board because they got the cheapest seats who complain they aren't sitting with their travel partner. Which shouldn't be the problem of the airline or the passengers that picked their seat.

replies(1): >>45375019 #
5. afavour ◴[] No.45375019{4}[source]
So you agree that a parent and child being sat together is beneficial for everyone but you want parents to bear that cost alone? Simple economics would tell us that results in parents not paying and more miserable passengers. Which isn't in anyone's interest.

Sometimes we're so focused on the concept of "fair" that we lose sight of the bigger picture.