Infants on LCY>JFK route
Sep 24, 2014, 7:36 am
#16
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Programs: Tufty Club (Gold), BAGA Gymnastics level 4, 440yds swimming certificate
Posts: 2,533
Since its inception thought this route isn't only targeted at the business traveller. After the first 12 months of service this has become quite regularly one of the bargain JFK Sale Fares and is also a good one for Avios redemption, which shows that topping up the service with well heeled leisure pax is also important for its survival.
While im sure many at BA would love it to be filled with full fare paying business pax - these days this isn't the case sadly.
While seats are regularly available for <£1400 then you'll get more and more holiday makers - with and without kids in tow.
While im sure many at BA would love it to be filled with full fare paying business pax - these days this isn't the case sadly.
While seats are regularly available for <£1400 then you'll get more and more holiday makers - with and without kids in tow.
Sep 24, 2014, 7:53 am
#18
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
Here's a section from the fare rules of one fare that I found very quickly that seems to be valid for travel on LCY-JFK:-
Code:
CHILDREN DISCOUNTS
FARE RULE
CNN/ACCOMPANIED CHILD PSGR 2-11 - CHARGE 75 PERCENT OF
THE FARE.
TICKET DESIGNATOR - CH.
MUST BE ACCOMPANIED ON ALL FLIGHTS BY ADULT PSGR.
OR - INS/INFANT WITH A SEAT PSGR UNDER 2 - CHARGE 75
PERCENT OF THE FARE.
TICKET DESIGNATOR - CH.
MUST BE ACCOMPANIED ON ALL FLIGHTS BY ADULT
PSGR.
OR - INF/INFANT WITHOUT A SEAT PSGR UNDER 2 - CHARGE 10
PERCENT OF THE FARE.
TICKET DESIGNATOR - IN.
MUST BE ACCOMPANIED ON ALL FLIGHTS BY ADULT
PSGR.
OR - UNN/UNACCOMPANIED CHILD PSGR 5-11 - CHARGE 100
PERCENT OF THE FARE.
TICKET DESIGNATOR - UM.
Sep 24, 2014, 8:54 am
#19
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Left
Programs: FT
Posts: 7,285
It's your bad luck - I've flown on this route a number of times (with my own children a few times 
) and have never encountered this problem.
If the SS at JFK and the pilot/crew who felt that it was not appropriate for people to travel with infants on this route have executive responsibility within IAG / BA on who should be sold tickets for the flight, then they can simply not permit children or infants to be sold tickets. However, they don't, and it is public transport. However, they do discourage children and infants through not giving a discount on the base fare for BA1-4, which they do on other TATL flights.
Ear plugs and noise cancelling ear phones do the trick for me, and it also blocks out the loud snoring, which I find to be more of a problem.
Karfa - I agree with you on a great many things but on this we'll have to disagree. It sounds like the employees, trying to be empathetic, were going against the corporate policy which is that it is public transport, and anyone with the cash can fly on it. I had issue with a 747 captain who, upon signing the children's logbooks, said "they've flown BA1, the parents must have more money than sense", not realising that I was sitting in the row behind the cockpit. Personal opinions should be personal opinions, but what is said to customers should be the party line.
) and have never encountered this problem.If the SS at JFK and the pilot/crew who felt that it was not appropriate for people to travel with infants on this route have executive responsibility within IAG / BA on who should be sold tickets for the flight, then they can simply not permit children or infants to be sold tickets. However, they don't, and it is public transport. However, they do discourage children and infants through not giving a discount on the base fare for BA1-4, which they do on other TATL flights.
Ear plugs and noise cancelling ear phones do the trick for me, and it also blocks out the loud snoring, which I find to be more of a problem.
Karfa - I agree with you on a great many things but on this we'll have to disagree. It sounds like the employees, trying to be empathetic, were going against the corporate policy which is that it is public transport, and anyone with the cash can fly on it. I had issue with a 747 captain who, upon signing the children's logbooks, said "they've flown BA1, the parents must have more money than sense", not realising that I was sitting in the row behind the cockpit. Personal opinions should be personal opinions, but what is said to customers should be the party line.
Sep 24, 2014, 9:13 am
#20
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: London
Programs: BA CCR/GGL, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,483
Is it?
Here's a section from the fare rules of one fare that I found very quickly that seems to be valid for travel on LCY-JFK:-
The fare is IR07AP for AMS-NYC.
Here's a section from the fare rules of one fare that I found very quickly that seems to be valid for travel on LCY-JFK:-
Code:
CHILDREN DISCOUNTS
FARE RULE
CNN/ACCOMPANIED CHILD PSGR 2-11 - CHARGE 75 PERCENT OF
THE FARE.
TICKET DESIGNATOR - CH.
MUST BE ACCOMPANIED ON ALL FLIGHTS BY ADULT PSGR.
OR - INS/INFANT WITH A SEAT PSGR UNDER 2 - CHARGE 75
PERCENT OF THE FARE.
TICKET DESIGNATOR - CH.
MUST BE ACCOMPANIED ON ALL FLIGHTS BY ADULT
PSGR.
OR - INF/INFANT WITHOUT A SEAT PSGR UNDER 2 - CHARGE 10
PERCENT OF THE FARE.
TICKET DESIGNATOR - IN.
MUST BE ACCOMPANIED ON ALL FLIGHTS BY ADULT
PSGR.
OR - UNN/UNACCOMPANIED CHILD PSGR 5-11 - CHARGE 100
PERCENT OF THE FARE.
TICKET DESIGNATOR - UM.
Sep 24, 2014, 9:29 am
#21
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
* plus the infant children of LON-based TP runners, of course
Sep 24, 2014, 9:34 am
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
As I said: "The fare is IR07AP for AMS-NYC."
Last edited by LTN Phobia; Mar 1, 2019 at 6:56 am Reason: Image removed at original author's request
Sep 24, 2014, 9:41 am
#23
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London
Programs: AA Executive Platinum
Posts: 779
Even before MH17 and MH370, wasn't MH one of the worst performing airlines in the world? Isn't majority state owned, through a state investment vehicle? Wern't they suffering from empty seats and discounting, even prior to this year?
Sep 24, 2014, 9:48 am
#24
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: London
Programs: AA Executive Platinum
Posts: 779
Since its inception thought this route isn't only targeted at the business traveller. After the first 12 months of service this has become quite regularly one of the bargain JFK Sale Fares and is also a good one for Avios redemption, which shows that topping up the service with well heeled leisure pax is also important for its survival.
Commercial flights are pubic transport, therefore the full cross section of the public including infants are permitted on board.
I will repeat the advice I usually give when someone complains that they don't like some aspect of air travel or think certain passengers should do certain things even when there is no airline or legal (or moral) requirement for them to do so:
The easiest way for you to get what you want is for you to charter your own airplane for your travel needs. Then you can decide when you go and who if anyone travels with you.
Sep 24, 2014, 10:01 am
#25
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: JAX
Programs: Ex-BA/AA/CP/LY staff, BA Executive Club Blue, IHG Diamond, Marriott Silver, Chick-fil-A Red
Posts: 3,587
I just checked the IR07AP AMS-JFK fare too - and I'm not seeing the routing or flight application restriction I would expect to see either. The UK fares are still filed separately for LHR and LCY, as they have been since the CWLCY service started - the AMS fare is either misfiled or intentionally doesn't have the infant/child discount exclusion.
Sep 24, 2014, 10:36 am
#26
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London
Programs: Mucci. Nothing else matters.
Posts: 38,644
Sep 24, 2014, 10:50 am
#27
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: London, UK
Programs: BAEC
Posts: 2,286
Yes infants and children need to be banned from F and BA1-4.
I don't really care if kids pay twice the adult fare or not. Children have a much higher risk of involuntarily and uncontrollably disturbing all other pax in the cabin than an adult. BA cannot reasonably ban an infant from flying whereas an adult passenger causing similar disturbance can be warned and eventually banned.
For those who counter that snorers also disturb the whole cabin: (i) they are far less audible than a baby screaming; (ii) they can use nasal strips and/or have surgery if this is a continued problem. If someone is snoring loudly I feel the CC should wake them to prevent disturbing other pax. This is clearly not an option with a child who is awake and crying.
Public transport does not mean the operator has no say over who can fly or in what cabin. The operator simply needs to make rules and apply them uniformly.
I don't really care if kids pay twice the adult fare or not. Children have a much higher risk of involuntarily and uncontrollably disturbing all other pax in the cabin than an adult. BA cannot reasonably ban an infant from flying whereas an adult passenger causing similar disturbance can be warned and eventually banned.
For those who counter that snorers also disturb the whole cabin: (i) they are far less audible than a baby screaming; (ii) they can use nasal strips and/or have surgery if this is a continued problem. If someone is snoring loudly I feel the CC should wake them to prevent disturbing other pax. This is clearly not an option with a child who is awake and crying.
Public transport does not mean the operator has no say over who can fly or in what cabin. The operator simply needs to make rules and apply them uniformly.
Sep 24, 2014, 11:13 am
#28
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,964
As usual, infants, children, snorers should be allowed on aircraft, but only in someone else's cabin to disturb other people that aren't me. me. me. me.
Sep 24, 2014, 11:19 am
#29
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Glasgow
Programs: BA Gold, QF NB
Posts: 675
I agree with creampuff - if you don't like having infants in your cabin on your flight, charter a private jet.
This thread links nicely with another current thread - at the end of the day, companies prioritise revenue over loyalty.
