TMM1982

A better way to handle it is just to force every airline to offer seat selection for free at time of booking. Seat selection is required to ticket. Seats can't be changed after booking. That way, when a family tries to book tickets, they will know exactly what they're getting themselves into.

ProleOnParole

What about dysfunctional families that might not want to sit together?

TMM1982

Pick different seats for seat selection

GRALISTAIR

Worth thinking about. I still see the whole idea of forcing airlines as fraught with difficulty.

Loren Pechtel

No--I'm saying that if they booked together originally they have to move people as needed to keep them together, but that they aren't responsible if the seats weren't booked together originally.

Sheikh Yerbooty

It should not be that difficult for an airline to figure out through their reservation system, perhaps by simply adding an option called 'family seating'. If 'family seating' is not possible on a selected flight, or if it comes at a surcharge, the system should let you know and then - via a deliberate act - leave the choice up to you.

The key issue here, is that the customer shall be made responsible for the choice he/she made during the booking phase, not walk a family of 6 up to check-in, demand to be seated together and let it be the airlines headache.

TMM1982

They may still demand to sit together though. Nothing is stopping them from demanding it or trying to strong arm a seated passenger into switching seats so all their snow flakes can sit together.

Loren Pechtel

If it's something that's part of the reservation and marked on the ticket someone they're trying to get to switch can see if they're the victim of irrops or cheapskates.

CDTraveler

Airlines created this problem by creating so many different price categories for seats in the same flight/same cabin. Why should one seat cost $60 more than the one in the row behind it? (saw that on my last flight)

Unless you're booking 364 days out, you're likely to find a whole lot of random single seats taken in the non-upcharge section making getting adjoining seats extremely difficult. Often passengers traveling solo will select a favorite aisle or window in a row where no one else has selected a seat in the hope of having an empty middle seat (there must be a hundred threads on that strategy...) and making sitting together cost extra. Call the airline about trying to book adjoining seats and you'll be told to either to pay up or wait until you get to the airport and the uncharge seats are released for last minute assignment.

Why should you have to pay extra for adjoining seats? Maybe the problem could be solved by prompting single passengers to choose a seat in a row where there is another single passenger instead of allowing their desire for a extra space to raise the cost for groups?

TMM1982

Not a good solution. That would be discriminatory against single passengers. If a single passenger books early, why should they be forced into a row with other passengers, so that a group who books LATER has free reign?

ProleOnParole

Maybe it would superficially solve this immediate issue but why should single passengers be discriminated against so that accommodations for groups booking at a later date can take precedence?

Also, why would airlines want to stop charging people for anything they can get away with? Their very business model is about making the basic product nearly unbearable, so that all kinds of "premium" upgrades can then be sold. Air Asia makes it now pretty much a certainty you will not sit together with your travel companion unless you pay the "seat selection fee." This is where we're headed.

CDTraveler

And why should a selfish single passenger be allowed to cause problems for both the airline and other passengers?

If you consider that most flights these days are going out close to full if not overbooked, booking your favorite aisle seat and hoping one or two seats in your row stay vacant so you can be more comfortable is pretty much a waste of time. From the airline's point of view, grouping solo passengers might be an effective solution to the problem of seating groups. If the flight is (near) full, why would the airline want the headache of rearranging things later on instead of preemptively clustering singles to accommodate groups?

Oh, and "discriminatory" hardly applies here. The airline's goal is to cram as many paying pax on a plane as possible; why should they allow individuals to mess up their revenue streams by trying to use more seats than they paid for?

CDTraveler

To avoid re-regulation and laws curtailing some of their activities. I think that's more likely where we're heading in the US.

Don't agree. I think in the US the recent airline profit numbers combined with public outcry and a certain level of bipartisan political motivation will result in some regulation on how far the airlines can go with charges.

ProleOnParole

I wish you were right but are we talking about the same US with exorbitant resort fees, hotel taxes, licensing fees, concession recovery fees, customer facility fees, airport rental surcharges, service prices inclusive of mandatory tips, shelf prices exclusive of sales tax, as well as all kinds of other hidden fees, some which only become apparent once seen on the final bill? In such a regulatory climate how could it suddenly become not OK just for the airlines to come up with any kinds of extra fees as they please?

TMM1982

They're not. The problems are only caused by late booking families who think they have a God given right to sit next to each other.

Then don't rearrange. You sit where your ticket says you're seated. Simple.

Earlier you stated that most flights are near full or full these days. So the airline's goal of maximizing revenue is typically attained yes? So "individuals" aren't messing anything up.