gab787

Hi. Does anybody know if the policy on family seating ever been established?

Often1

As was predicted by pretty much everybody, neither Congress nor DOT took any action.

In the clearest terms, because it arises frequently on FT, there is no requirement that a US carrier seat children near their parents. Any action which a carrier takes is at the carriers's sole discretion.

gab787

Sad! Thank you for the quick reply.

gab787

Bonus question: are European carriers bound by some kind of European family seating policy or are they also using their sole discretion? Thanks!

rickg523

I question the necessity of the regulation. I don't care what fare class you've bought, and I don't care if the cabin is full of elites and this one family, the liability exposure of seating small children far away from their parents are so extreme, any airline that chose at it's discretion to do that would doom itself.

Often1

Or on the parents / legal guardians to watch out for their children's safety and book flights where there are seats available which meet their needs.

gab787

Well numerous airlines charge extra now to select seats upfront. When traveling with a family those fees add up and it is worth figuring out if those fees can be avoided.

rickg523

No. Won't matter. Any airline trying to play the "well if you weren't so cheap, your 6 year old wouldn't have been molested by that drunk" is going to get killed. Maybe not here so much. But in the real world, that's a no-go.
And it's not just stranger danger. If the event of an emergency evacuation, you think Dad is heading to the exit in an orderly fashion, or is he throwing people out of his way to get his kid ten rows behind him?
Here the airline that says "well, it was an extraordinary circumstance that we didn't feel required inconveniencing our passengers by accommodating that child" will simply be asked a series of questions about all the other things they make their passengers do in the name of safety in case of an emergency.

TGarza

That's how I view the situation as well since the airline knows the age of the passengers. I see no reason for the entire family to sit together just the children below the age to fly alone should be assigned a seat with a parent.

rickg523

Agreed. Any kid the airline demands a UMC ticket for should not be then seperated by the airline that insists kids need attention.
Small children with a parent, same row.
10-15 years old (typical upper age requiring UMC) can sit adjacent to a parent, anywhere in the row in front or behind the parent's row (though I'd always swap with the kid to have him in front of me).
Over 15, no requirement.
Special needs children excepted of course. But that's not really at issue here.
No accommodating both parents. I know this can make traveling with little kids much easier, but they need to book for that level of convenience.
​​​​​

Boraxo

It is not just seats up front - take a look at the seat map for any AS or AA flight and you will see the only "free" seats are the last few rows in the back of the plane. Once those are gone (and they are often gone months before holiday travel) the only choice is a paid seat.
Now the question of course is what to do with families with children <12 that full well know that they have to pay for seat rez but are too cheap to do so. Maybe force their hand by requiring them to pay seat fees before checking out. However that is very difficult to do when selling across many platforms. And then you have airlines like Southwest with open seating, though it would seem even less difficult for WN to require EBCI for families.

I really have no sympathy for the airlines which brought this upon themselves by adding garbage fees for seat rez, but also zero sympathy for the once a year travelers who are too cheap to pay the fees. Anybody flying now (except literally first time travelers) knows the drill.

pinniped

I have sympathy for the family that has the very simple expectation that a small child gets to sit next to 1 parent. A child in a middle seat in the back is sufficient. Nobody's advocating free premium seating, upgrades, etc.

I do believe that should be a regulation, as there is a clear safety (speed of egress) rationale for it. Give the airlines the opportunity to make an ethical choice, and they do the wrong thing like clockwork. That's why government involvement is necessary here. We have a horrible track record of relying on corporations to police themselves and then acting all surprised when it goes wrong.

rickg523

Once free seats are sold out, the seat fee should them apply to all remaining seats. So a parent will be guaranteed seating next to their small child, but not a free seat as a reward for gaming the system. Knowing our carriers and regulatory agencies, my guess is all seats will be paid for soon. If DL, AA, and UA decide that's the new model, what can American passengers do? Complain online? Write their congressman? In other words, nothing, except fly WN, which honestly families always should if they can. Free seating and free checked bags? WN could cost 60 bucks more per ticket and still come out cheaper for a family of four.
But matter what, airlines should not be allowed to extort a fee simply to keep your kid safe. Imagine a school bus saying pay a seating free or your kid rides on top. For just a few dollars more, we'll provide a bungee tiedown.

pinniped

The only counter-argument to charging for *all* seats is that as inept as our regulatory agencies are in the U.S., I can actually see them saying that the purchase of a ticket should entitle you to board the plane and occupy a seat. They may all go to the Spirit model where if you don't pay it basically fills in from the back when you check-in, but I have to think there will always be a way to buy a ticket and get *some* seat with that.

Then again, I'm putting *some* faith in a government that is more often than not defined by its incompetence and in some cases gross negligence, so there's that...

rickg523

Not to mention cronyism and plain old graft.
Anyway, the fact is the seat fee could be embedded into the ticket price (some say WN does this), but for marketing purposes, and since they got a sweetheart ruling from the regulators, why bundle it when you can just make a separate mandatory fee and advertise the "lower" fare. What's all this nonsense about capitalism only working with informed consumers, anyway?