Transport Minister urges airlines to stop separating parents, children
Apr 30, 2016, 9:01 am
#271
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
http://www.aircanada.com/en/news/160429_1.html
Travelling with Children
April 29, 2016
At Air Canada, our intent is to always seat children with a parent or guardian. For this reason, we offer complimentary seat assignment for parents/guardians and children under the age of 12 who are travelling together*.
In order to ease the travel experience for our young passengers and their parent or guardian, we ask that you inform the Air Canada agent or your travel agent at time of booking that you are travelling with children under the age of 12.
......
Travelling with Children
April 29, 2016
At Air Canada, our intent is to always seat children with a parent or guardian. For this reason, we offer complimentary seat assignment for parents/guardians and children under the age of 12 who are travelling together*.
In order to ease the travel experience for our young passengers and their parent or guardian, we ask that you inform the Air Canada agent or your travel agent at time of booking that you are travelling with children under the age of 12.
......
Hmmm, wording seems so familiar. Timing is interesting.
Apr 30, 2016, 9:04 am
#272
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sudbury-North Shore-Manitoulin
Programs: AP SPG HH
Posts: 631
@ Stuck, I did say J cabins with pods (safety reasons) not all J cabins. The rear of the plane is usually where the washrooms are and the galley and as such most of the FAs since they tend to gather there and talk, eat, read books. Children are usually allowed to board first so they would be filling the rear of the plane first and usually take longer to exit so they would not be holding up other passengers. When smokers were allowed where did they have to sit?
Apr 30, 2016, 9:09 am
#273
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
On my flight right now there is a family of 4 separated (2 parents, 1 child, 1 lap infant). The father is giving a ton of lip and attitude to the FA's and the SD for not seating them ALL together.
The children are all sitting with the mother and switches made to put them in preferred seats.
The father is in the exit row, and he's still griefing and pouting to the crew about not seating them together.
The children are all sitting with the mother and switches made to put them in preferred seats.
The father is in the exit row, and he's still griefing and pouting to the crew about not seating them together.
Apr 30, 2016, 9:18 am
#274
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Anywhere I need to be.
Programs: OW Emerald, *A Gold, NEXUS, GE, ABTC/APEC, South Korea SES, eIACS, PP, Hyatt Diamond
Posts: 16,046
IMHO, the simplest solutions are simpler than any IT solutions.
- do away with the fee. It represents little more than the monetization of a service that has an actual cost of $0, and is fundamentally flawed insofar as it can result in unreasonable outcomes, or requires accommodation from other pax (note that the impact on the airline is negligible).
- incorporate the fee in the fare. That is to say, raise fares. If that means losing the business of price-sensitive pax, the rest of the uninconvenienced pax will be better off for it. If the argument is that people are too price-sensitive, then what's the point of imposing fees they're not going to pay either way, in the first place?
It says a lot that the strongest argument against introducing regulations is the hope that other paying pax will accommodate complaining pax. The problem with these profit-generating, airline manufactured 'problems' is that they inevitably tick people off.
That's a dangerous game to play in a (somewhat responsive) democratic system. Companies like AC don't exist in a vacuum. They exist at the pleasure of the government. Which exists at the pleasure of the people. Upset enough people...and well, enjoy the regulation.
- do away with the fee. It represents little more than the monetization of a service that has an actual cost of $0, and is fundamentally flawed insofar as it can result in unreasonable outcomes, or requires accommodation from other pax (note that the impact on the airline is negligible).
- incorporate the fee in the fare. That is to say, raise fares. If that means losing the business of price-sensitive pax, the rest of the uninconvenienced pax will be better off for it. If the argument is that people are too price-sensitive, then what's the point of imposing fees they're not going to pay either way, in the first place?
It says a lot that the strongest argument against introducing regulations is the hope that other paying pax will accommodate complaining pax. The problem with these profit-generating, airline manufactured 'problems' is that they inevitably tick people off.
That's a dangerous game to play in a (somewhat responsive) democratic system. Companies like AC don't exist in a vacuum. They exist at the pleasure of the government. Which exists at the pleasure of the people. Upset enough people...and well, enjoy the regulation.
(When travelling with my girlfriend, we either have seat selection included with fares/status, or are travelling on a LCC to minimise cost anyhow. Either way, we see each other enough outside of the flight...)
Apr 30, 2016, 9:31 am
#275
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Programs: AC E50k, A3*G, UA*S, MR Titanium, HHonors Gold, Carlson Gold, NEXUS
Posts: 3,669
I have a somewhat-related question for the AC employees who still post here. I read this comment on reddit. Basically, an unaccompanied minor sat next to a solo male traveler, and the FA asked the male traveler to move or risk getting kicked off the plane because AC doesn't allow solo male pax to sit next to solo children. Is that actually true?
(If this was answered further upthread, sorry)
(If this was answered further upthread, sorry)
Apr 30, 2016, 9:37 am
#276
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
I have a somewhat-related question for the AC employees who still post here. I read this comment on reddit. Basically, an unaccompanied minor sat next to a solo male traveler, and the FA asked the male traveler to move or risk getting kicked off the plane because AC doesn't allow solo male pax to sit next to solo children. Is that actually true?
(If this was answered further upthread, sorry)
(If this was answered further upthread, sorry)
Apr 30, 2016, 9:40 am
#278
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Canada
Programs: AC E50k, A3*G, UA*S, MR Titanium, HHonors Gold, Carlson Gold, NEXUS
Posts: 3,669
albeit with the UMs being moved
(even seen a handful of them op-upped to J on a couple of long haul euro flights).
Apr 30, 2016, 9:59 am
#279
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
As a child, me and my cousins travelled as (very young) UMs while visiting grandparents abroad. On one flight - on BA - an uncle on a business trip happened to be on the same flight. He was connecting; we didn't know. At some point prior to boarding, he saw us and walked up. He was shooed away within seconds - and we got a stern talking to. We were too young and intimidated to protest - and our uncle was smart enough to keep his distance.
Apr 30, 2016, 10:08 am
#280
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
I have a somewhat-related question for the AC employees who still post here. I read this comment on reddit. Basically, an unaccompanied minor sat next to a solo male traveler, and the FA asked the male traveler to move or risk getting kicked off the plane because AC doesn't allow solo male pax to sit next to solo children. Is that actually true?
(If this was answered further upthread, sorry)
(If this was answered further upthread, sorry)
Apr 30, 2016, 10:15 am
#282
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,130
This seems really unfair to the solo female customers who therefore are much more likely to get stuck sitting next to a UM. I would hope that they would refuse to move; they should not be obligated to function as the mother of some random brat who's traveling without its own parent.
I'll tell you what though - I recall the experience being very intimidating and I was always on best behaviour. It's a whole different ballgame compared to travelling with people you know. Even as a kid, I realized that. And I probably wasnt the only one.
Apr 30, 2016, 10:20 am
#283
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YHZ/YQM
Programs: Aeroplan
Posts: 1,618
Families are special because there are real consequences to separating kids from their parents. Things like:
(1) Forcing kids to sit alone and bother other people.
(2) Having the FA's try to rearrange people in the middle of boarding, possibly causing delayed departures, missed connections, etc.
Maybe a more acceptable compromise would be to open up seat selection a day earlier for families with children.
(1) Forcing kids to sit alone and bother other people.
(2) Having the FA's try to rearrange people in the middle of boarding, possibly causing delayed departures, missed connections, etc.
Maybe a more acceptable compromise would be to open up seat selection a day earlier for families with children.
Apr 30, 2016, 10:30 am
#284
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sudbury-North Shore-Manitoulin
Programs: AP SPG HH
Posts: 631
Apr 30, 2016, 11:09 am
#285
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Programs: *G
Posts: 2,304
He should have been careful about this. At least for USA carriers, the rules are that anyone traveling with children under 15 CANNOT sit in an exit row, regardless of where the kids are sitting and who else (other adults) might be with the kids. He never should have been put in an exit row seat because if there's an emergency, he'll focus on rescuing the children rather than performing his exit row duties.