It is no more ridiculous to suggest that using the "toilet" is a choice than it is suggesting sitting next to your 3 year old is.
Whether it is a charge to use it/sit next to your child, or a discount to not is simply semantics.
So you are saying they can be the same then. You would be happy for airlines to "charge" for having access to the toilet, as long as you can choose whether or not to do so.
But you need to look at this from the other side, I dont really have a choice about needing to sit next to my 3 year old, and you are living in a different planet if you think it's okay to put a 3 year old on the other side of a plane from a parent.
So I am being forced into paying a charge for both of us so that I can actually supervise my child. You can say there is a choice but there is t really.
From reading some of the responses here, there seems to be open hostility to the idea that the airlines will do something to keep children with an older guardian short of requiring families to pay for it. I even sense a wish that the rule passed last year doesn't get implemented or perhaps is implemented in a way that effectively doesn't change a thing.OTOH I find it appalling that these days airlines aren't automatically ensuring young children are with parents or passengers on the same ticket booking aren't kept together. So to me that's where the real responsibility lies
From reading some of the responses here, there seems to be open hostility to the idea that the airlines will do something to keep children with an older guardian short of requiring families to pay for it. I even sense a wish that the rule passed last year doesn't get implemented or perhaps is implemented in a way that effectively doesn't change a thing.
Adult passengers can usually do fine though.
Always. I hate the aisle. Can't stand all the people who batter you with their crud as they walk past.I would hope you sit in a window seat in case someone else in your row needs to get up to use the bathroom.
I think that comes from the introduction of the 'premium' tiered seat costs which didn't used to be a thing. So to my mind economy should be economy, premium economy is premium economy and so forth. Extra nickel and diming for window or aisle or close to the front irritates me and is a huge part of why this issue now exists.From reading some of the responses here, there seems to be open hostility to the idea that the airlines will do something to keep children with an older guardian short of requiring families to pay for it. I even sense a wish that the rule passed last year doesn't get implemented or perhaps is implemented in a way that effectively doesn't change a thing.
Adult passengers can usually do fine though.
Maybe because if an airline is charging for seats, then everyone should have to pay for seats. Having kids should be an automatic "out" out of having to pay.
I think that comes from the introduction of the 'premium' tiered seat costs which didn't used to be a thing. So to my mind economy should be economy, premium economy is premium economy and so forth. Extra nickel and diming for window or aisle or close to the front irritates me and is a huge part of why this issue now exists.
Yes, if nothing changes and you want guarantees, then you have to pay. For me it goes back further than that, and lies with all the changes thecairlines have done which have created the situation.
From reading some of the responses here, there seems to be open hostility to the idea that the airlines will do something to keep children with an older guardian short of requiring families to pay for it. I even sense a wish that the rule passed last year doesn't get implemented or perhaps is implemented in a way that effectively doesn't change a thing.
Adult passengers can usually do fine though.
I just think the burden lies on the consumer. If you can't book seats together, don't book the flight. This covers the code shares. Mummabear admits that she could book separate flights and pick seats. She doesn't want to pay more money or spend a longer layover to do so. But she COULD. I COULD fly economy and not pay extra for a seat assignment or legroom. I COULD pick a red eye or a flight with an 12 hour layover to save a few hundred bucks. But I choose not to. That's what's maddening. The assumption that single people (or adults) aren't affected by these fees. I pay for these extras all the time and just consider them part of the fare. Because to me they aren't extras. They're something necessary for my sanity. Sitting with your two year old is a necessity. You need to ensure that happens.
Whether we like it or not, paying for seat assignments is now a thing. If you want one, you pay. If you don't want one, don't pay. Whatever. It's fine with me. But, to insist that you get to go on a plane and insist that you get seats with your family together without paying is absurd.
I truly do not understand the mentality of wanting something for nothing.
I've not read it that way. More that if they've thought ahead and paid a premium why should they then be forced to give up that seat, thus now paying for the parent who may not have had the foresight to book ahead.Ya think?
Yeah - I see the responses seem to be "I'm paying for it and it's unfair that someone else gets it for free." I understand the sentiment, but it's kind of flying in the face of Congressional action and not acknowledging the recent overload of nearly every airline nickel and diming passengers for baggage, seating assignments, etc. I was looking at a seating chart a few years back to select a seat, and it had maybe four different "premium" seat types in the coach cabin - extra legroom, window, aisle, and exit row (since it typically had extra legroom).
actually you were always paying for the luggage and seats, it was just part of a bundled price. Now they unbundled it. I choose to fly airlines that don't charge for seating (there are some) and choose appropriate seats for my family. Its really not difficult. As the parent, my kids are my responsibility. I choose seats next to me or my husband, periodically check the seating assignments to make sure nothing has changed and if I cannot get seats with each child next to a parent, we choose a different flight. Getting on a plane does not abdicate my responsibility as a parent. Yes stuff happens and when it has I get it resolved before getting on the plane.A lot of this is really just fighting back against every little nickel and dime fee that wasn't there 15 years ago. In 2006 I just wanted to bring something home from Florida, and the airline had two pieces of checked-in baggage included in the fare. But flying the same airline two years later I was paying for the first piece of luggage, then a few years later paying for an aisle or window seat. This is one thing where there's enough governmental action to maybe push back a bit. I suppose not every airline will need to have free seat selection, but if it does then they won't be able to charge that aisle fee if a parent and child book together. It's not really all that complicated. I'd frankly be OK if the airlines decided it wasn't worth it and price their fares accordingly without charging a premium for a window or aisle seat, like they had been doing that for over a half century.
Well - this new rule is patterned after the European Union rule from what I've read. There are some airlines in Europe that charge for seat selection but not necessarily a premium for window or aisle. And in any case an airline like British Airways sounds like they hold back quite a few seats to accommodate younger children flying with guardians.
Most US airlines don't charge per se for seat selection, except maybe ultra low cost carriers like Spirit. And in their case the model they use often allows them to hold back a lot of their seats to put families together. Part of the issue with seats not being together is when solo passengers are allowed to pick from a number of random seats.
I wouldn't be happy for airlines to charge for access to the toilet, but I would understand it's their right as a business to do so. I would have the right as a consumer to frequent that business or not. Even if all airlines decided to impose such a fee, I would have the choice to find another mode of transportation. Your bathroom "choice" isn't really a choice IMO, since if I "choose" to not use the facilities, I risk causing health issues at worst or making a mess (that I then have to sit in the rest of the flight) at best.So you are saying they can be the same then. You would be happy for airlines to "charge" for having access to the toilet, as long as you can choose whether or not to do so.
What's your point? maxiesmom was stating her opinion. I don't think she said Congress has to do what she says.Congress doesn't agree with that assessment or that section of the FAA funding authorization bill would have been scrubbed.
Ya think?
Yeah - I see the responses seem to be "I'm paying for it and it's unfair that someone else gets it for free." I understand the sentiment, but it's kind of flying in the face of Congressional action and not acknowledging the recent overload of nearly every airline nickel and diming passengers for baggage, seating assignments, etc. I was looking at a seating chart a few years back to select a seat, and it had maybe four different "premium" seat types in the coach cabin - extra legroom, window, aisle, and exit row (since it typically had extra legroom).
I certainly don't begrudge the airlines charging more for extra legroom. They're deliberately doing that knowing they can put fewer passengers on the same plane. However, some of those extra legroom seats bely the fact that they've been reducing the seat pitch over the years, and the current premium legroom seats are often about the same as they were 20 years ago.
I just think the burden lies on the consumer. If you can't book seats together, don't book the flight.
Now THAT I can get behind a law for.And what about when you do everything right - book a flight, select your seats together, and the airline changes your seats and separates you? Then refuses to refund you or book you on a different flight where you can be together? I'm just smh at the number of people that expect second graders and even younger to manage themselves, especially in an emergency.
I've not read it that way. More that I'd they've thought ahead and paid a premium why should they then be forced to give up that seat, thus now paying for the parent who may not have had the foresight to book ahead.
If the new rule guarantees a child next to a 13 or older without additional cost, they may still have to pay for the adult seats.
Before all this additional charge nonsense (and so be it if that's what they want to do - I don't see it changing) the airline had no issue seating parties of people together. So somewhere there has to be a little compromise, and it should be on the airline to accommodate it at time of booking, not strangers once boarded.
Having said that DH has moved to help people and in my original post I said I may depending on situation (physical issues). But that's out of kindness not duty