Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > Southwest Airlines | Rapid Rewards
Reload this Page >

Does GA verify age of child for Family Boarding?

Community
Wiki Posts
Search

Does GA verify age of child for Family Boarding?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Sep 11, 2018, 2:25 pm
  #31  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
Won't somebody please think of the children!
wrp96 and steved5480 like this.
ursine1 is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2018, 2:44 pm
  #32  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Programs: avis southwest us airways
Posts: 4
Family boarding is a mess with all carriers. Congress passed a law that will require airlines to sit families with kids ages 13 and under together without having to pay for it, but it has no teeth and has not been enforced.

Personally, I am the guy who moves when a parent cannot sit with a child. I've been there before with a late connection and hope that good karma comes back to me.

While 6 is the SWA policy, I personally think that is too young. While I am happy to pay to board earlier , I would also support enforcement of HR 636 and have the Secretary of Transportation legislate a standard policy.

Last edited by estrait; Sep 17, 2018 at 2:54 pm Reason: grammar
estrait is offline  
Old Sep 17, 2018, 3:11 pm
  #33  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 5,813
Originally Posted by estrait
Family boarding is a mess with all carriers. Congress passed a law that will require airlines to sit families with kids ages 13 and under together without having to pay for it, but it has no teeth and has not been enforced.
.
Last time I checked DOT had not published any rules, probably because they can't figure out how to make it work in practice without making the current situation worse.
rsteinmetz70112 is offline  
Old Sep 22, 2018, 9:21 am
  #34  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 32
Sure, it's unethical. There are rules and you're deliberately breaking them, really for no reason. It is almost impossible if you check in at T-20 that one parent won't be within touching range of your kid, either next to, or in an adjacent center row (in front or behind). If if was important, you could do two EBCIs (one for a parent, one for the child, no savies!) for what, $50? Isn't that worth setting a good example?

Personally, My 7 year old would prefer to not sit with her parents. It's a sign of independence and there's no one to regulate her screen time!

When I was a kid, my dad was tried to game lines by lying about my age and I hated it.

Have you had a discussion with your child about this?


Just go with the system.
xasyh is offline  
Old Sep 23, 2018, 2:08 am
  #35  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
Originally Posted by xasyh
Sure, it's unethical. There are rules and you're deliberately breaking them, really for no reason. It is almost impossible if you check in at T-20 that one parent won't be within touching range of your kid, either next to, or in an adjacent center row (in front or behind). If if was important, you could do two EBCIs (one for a parent, one for the child, no savies!) for what, $50? Isn't that worth setting a good example?

Personally, My 7 year old would prefer to not sit with her parents. It's a sign of independence and there's no one to regulate her screen time!

When I was a kid, my dad was tried to game lines by lying about my age and I hated it.

Have you had a discussion with your child about this?


Just go with the system.

The Southwest system allows "savies."
ursine1 is offline  
Old Sep 23, 2018, 8:39 am
  #36  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Nashville -Past DL Plat, FO, WN-CP, various hotel programs
Programs: DL-MM, AA, SW w/companion,HiltonDiamond, Hyatt PLat, IHF Plat, Miles and Points Seeker
Posts: 11,072
Originally Posted by xasyh
...Have you had a discussion with your child about this?...

Very good point.

You could ask if they are okay with this.
Make sure they do not yell out they are over 6.
NoStressHere is offline  
Old Sep 23, 2018, 10:29 am
  #37  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,866
Originally Posted by xasyh
one for a parent, one for the child, no savies!
Why not? WN has no policy prohibiting this.
smmrfld is online now  
Old Sep 23, 2018, 11:36 am
  #38  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,502
Originally Posted by xasyh
If if was important, you could do two EBCIs (one for a parent, one for the child, no savies!) for what, $50? Isn't that worth setting a good example?
Teaching "savies" is fine parenting. Everyone gets away with it anyway.
justhere and Kevin AA like this.
LegalTender is online now  
Old Sep 23, 2018, 7:07 pm
  #39  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/UA
Posts: 10,766
start with this, graduate later to how to shoplift
steved5480 and NextTrip like this.
Kevin AA is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2018, 9:07 am
  #40  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 288
Originally Posted by estrait
Family boarding is a mess with all carriers. Congress passed a law that will require airlines to sit families with kids ages 13 and under together without having to pay for it, but it has no teeth and has not been enforced.

I am pretty sure that policy makes sure the kids get to sit with a parent. Not that the whole family gets to sit together. So if two parents are on board, they will get the child next to one parent, but not always both of them.

Couple of things. I have flown a number of times with the kids.

1) When checking in at T-24, I have never had an issue finding 3-5 seats in the same row. Yes you might have to sit near the back of the plane, but it has never been an issue.
2) When people board late, and someone has a child, and no two seats together, normally the FA will ask if anyone is willing to move so they can sit together. Someone always volunteers to move. Most people don't want to sit next to your child without a parent near bye. When flying alone I normally volenteer to move to allow family's to sit together. About half the time the FA then offer a free drink for being helpful.
daw4888 is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2018, 10:42 am
  #41  
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by smmrfld
Why not? WN has no policy prohibiting this.
We're not talking 'policy', we're talking 'ethics'.
xasyh is offline  
Old Sep 25, 2018, 10:54 am
  #42  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,866
Originally Posted by xasyh
We're not talking 'policy', we're talking 'ethics'.
You betcha. And nothing unethical at all about reasonably saving a seat. Thanks for supporting my point.
smmrfld is online now  
Old Sep 25, 2018, 1:55 pm
  #43  
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,286
Related: I've been told that Southwest is "looking at seat saving as an area of focus that could be better improved to be fair to everyone." For what it's worth.
LegalTender likes this.
ursine1 is offline  
Old Sep 26, 2018, 12:56 am
  #44  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: PHX
Programs: AA Gold, WN A+ & CP, HH Diamond, Hyatt Platinum, National Executive Elite
Posts: 3,240
Originally Posted by xasyh
We're not talking 'policy', we're talking 'ethics'.
I'm confused by your use of quotes around the word ethics. Do you mean ethics and the quotes shouldn't be there? Or are you saying that it has nothing to do with ethics? If the latter, I agree with you as there's nothing unethical about saving a seat.
justhere is offline  
Old Sep 27, 2018, 1:11 am
  #45  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: RNO
Programs: AA/DL/UA
Posts: 10,766
Originally Posted by justhere
I'm confused by your use of quotes around the word ethics. Do you mean ethics and the quotes shouldn't be there? Or are you saying that it has nothing to do with ethics? If the latter, I agree with you as there's nothing unethical about saving a seat.
That's why I use the term: greedy seat savers

Ethical/unethical? Hmm, just doesn't fit as well. Greedy? Definitely!
Kevin AA is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.