Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

United Splitting up Families (Basic Economy ticket)

United Splitting up Families (Basic Economy ticket)

Old Aug 28, 18, 9:25 pm
  #151  
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: AUS
Programs: AA Gold, Hilton Diamond, SPG / Marriott Gold.
Posts: 152
There is an easy fix here. Children should be seated with parents regardless of fare class and should be seated in the rear of the plane (unless elite). This is a win win. They get their own section and we get to not have to deal with them.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Aug 28, 18 at 9:32 pm Reason: OT; OMNI; inflammatory comments removed
AUSINSIGHT is offline  
Old Aug 28, 18, 9:31 pm
  #152  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Navajo Nation, Northern Arizona
Programs: ex-Con *Gold (earned)
Posts: 8,881
Originally Posted by Collierkr View Post
The solution to this problem is very simple. Buy the fare and pay fees necessary to ensure all in your party sit together.
I agree that the solution is simple. UA should abolish BE.
wrp96 likes this.
kale73 is online now  
Old Aug 28, 18, 9:41 pm
  #153  
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: 82,594
Another solution is to prohibit children from flying if they're too young to sit away from their family. Then BE prices could still be offered to adults. <joking somewhat, as this would never be considered acceptable>
MSPeconomist is offline  
Old Aug 28, 18, 9:44 pm
  #154  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; AS MVPG75K; Marriott Titanium; Hilton Diamond (Aspire); Hyatt Refugeeist
Posts: 40,940
Originally Posted by AUSINSIGHT View Post
This is a win win. They get their own section and we get to not have to deal with them.
Does it have to be on the inside of the aircraft?
MSPeconomist, wrp96 and MarkyMarc like this.
Kacee is offline  
Old Aug 28, 18, 10:45 pm
  #155  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: FLL/LAX/YYZ/TPE
Programs: CO Platinum 1K, United 1K, SPG LT Platinum, National Executive Elite, Platinum TSA Hater
Posts: 33,349
I need to ask - how was this other passenger forced into a middle seat? They were asked/shamed into it, or an employee somehow forced them to move? I would be beyond livid if this happened to me and would flat out refuse to move - either I keep my seat, or I should receive IDB.

I am really sick and tired of these entitled soccer-mom types showing up (not just at airports) without any preparation, research or forethought and demanding everyone else yield to their personal needs and those of their annoying "little precious" children.

Both United and Expedia make it very clear that a customer is NOT receiving a seat assignment with a Basic Economy fare, among other things. It's right there in a clear, unambiguous print, and only takes seconds to read and comprehend. No different than a BE customer demanding to put their bag in the overhead. The rules are clear. The purpose of the fare is to scavenge bottom of the bucket customers from Spirit and Frontier who already need to pay extra for any of these features when they fly on those airlines, and these fares are extremely easy to avoid.

Sorry, I have no sympathy here except for the customer who was forced to move into a middle, and for that, should receive compensation.
bocastephen is offline  
Old Aug 28, 18, 10:57 pm
  #156  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,963
Originally Posted by pedrofs View Post
I'm hearing that BE has been a failure, and AA has already modified the rules, UA to probably follow.
It's misdirection. BE has been a smashing success, although (apparently) somewhat less so than their original rosy predictions.

The entire point of the exercise was to create a product that nobody wanted to buy. Delta saw a sneaky way to raise fares. United copied them, but took it a step further, and then AA copied United. The overhead bin access might get rolled back, but that was the one positive of the system -- a noticeable reduction in the number of bags in the overhead on some fights.

I believe United's stats were that BE represented about 30% of their customers. That is a colossal win for them. Take out, say, 20% of passengers on paid first class or flexible tickets, that leaves you with about half of your customers left who would otherwise have bought the lowest available fare, but who went one level up to avoid BE. In what other context could any business offer such similar products at two different price points and get 50% to opt for the higher one?

As much as I hate it, BE is here to stay.

Originally Posted by pedrofs View Post
The baggage charge program has created a nightmare for GA's and FA's with frequent demands at the gate that require gate checks, and onboard delays while people try to place oversize bags in the OH, while FA's try to jam them in, sometimes with no success. Airlines thought they would probably save money with fewer ramp people required with fewer pit bags, but now some flights need several ramp folks to get gate check bags down the jetway stairs and into the pit.
Source? I have serious doubts that any airline executive thought that charging for bags would save them money. AFAIK, it was done purely as a way to increase revenue and was assumed to be more-or-less cost neutral.

Originally Posted by pedrofs View Post
After tales like heard in this topic, I assume the Big 3 will quietly drop the program, or keep modifying it (i.e. families travelling with children) so it becomes meaningless.
There's a reason that the ULCCs are so profitable. No matter how any of us may feel individually, collectively, this is the product that sells.

Originally Posted by bocastephen View Post
The purpose of the fare is to scavenge bottom of the bucket customers from Spirit and Frontier who already need to pay extra for any of these features when they fly on those airlines, and these fares are extremely easy to avoid.
More marketing spin. BE never had anything to do with the ULCCs except for airline executives saying "hey, that's smart; let's do that." UA couldn't have been more clear during their rollout; for heaven's sake, they offered Y-BN fares initially.

BE is a fare increase, plain and simple.
narvik and Often1 like this.
jsloan is offline  
Old Aug 28, 18, 10:58 pm
  #157  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Portland OR
Programs: United 1K 1MM, Marriott Rewards Gold, Hilton HHonors Silver
Posts: 439
Originally Posted by AUSINSIGHT View Post
There is an easy fix here. Children should be seated with parents regardless of fare class and should be seated in the rear of the plane (unless elite). This is a win win. They get their own section and we get to not have to deal with them.
There are easy fixes and some have been covered on here. My I suggest another.

Much as it pains me to give a comparison to RyanAir (and no I donít for one moment think UA is FR quality) Ryanair had similar issues and fixed it as follows -

With any families with children, the adults have to pay the seat selection fee, mandatory no questions asked, no fee paid by the adults no check in. The children (no seat fee required) would then be assured of being seated next to a parent/guardian (though not necessarily having the entire family seated together).

Thatís something that with a bit of effort from UAĒs IT geeks (and given the app I mean that on a good way) can be accomplished.

Though in this particular case I have no sympathy with the OP. It was his sister in law and her children (the OPís nephews/nieces) and he did diddly squat in volunteering to change his seats to help out and stuffed another passnger.
usbusinesstraveller is offline  
Old Aug 28, 18, 11:01 pm
  #158  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 9,963
Originally Posted by usbusinesstraveller View Post
With any families with children, the adults have to pay the seat selection fee, mandatory no questions asked, no fee paid by the adults no check in. The children (no seat fee required) would then be assured of being seated next to a parent/guardian (though not necessarily having the entire family seated together).
I'm shocked this is legal in Europe.
jsloan is offline  
Old Aug 29, 18, 12:38 am
  #159  
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 5,964
Originally Posted by bocastephen View Post
I need to ask - how was this other passenger forced into a middle seat? They were asked/shamed into it, or an employee somehow forced them to move?
I would also like to know this. In all my years of flying, I've only seen one incident where an employee actually forced someone to move to a different seat, so my guess is that they were either shamed into it, or decided to comply because they didn't want the flight delayed any further.

Originally Posted by bocastephen View Post
I would be beyond livid if this happened to me and would flat out refuse to move - either I keep my seat, or I should receive IDB.
If you "flat out refuse to move", you will probably be removed by law enforcement. The contract of carriage is very clear that seat assignments are not guaranteed, and you are required to follow crewmember instructions. IDB is when you are denied boarding, and has nothing to do with a seat assignment.

Originally Posted by bocastephen View Post
I am really sick and tired of these entitled soccer-mom types showing up (not just at airports) without any preparation, research or forethought and demanding everyone else yield to their personal needs and those of their annoying "little precious" children.
So am I, but society as a whole values children and is willing to give preferential treatment to parents with children in certain cases. That's just the reality.

Originally Posted by bocastephen View Post
Both United and Expedia make it very clear that a customer is NOT receiving a seat assignment with a Basic Economy fare, among other things. It's right there in a clear, unambiguous print, and only takes seconds to read and comprehend. No different than a BE customer demanding to put their bag in the overhead. The rules are clear.
It may be clear to Flyertalk-types, but I don't think it is very clear to an occasional flyer. Does no seat assignment mean you can still sit together? Does it simply mean you can't sit in certain areas, like premium economy? Does it mean you can select seats upon check-in? We know the answers to these questions, but not everyone does.

Originally Posted by bocastephen View Post
Sorry, I have no sympathy here except for the customer who was forced to move into a middle, and for that, should receive compensation.
Flyertalkers love demanding compensation for every little thing. If the customer paid extra for a seat assignment that he couldn't utilize, I think he should be entitled to a refund of the upcharge. Other than that, stuff happens, shrug and move on.
narvik likes this.
cbn42 is offline  
Old Aug 29, 18, 12:42 am
  #160  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; AS MVPG75K; Marriott Titanium; Hilton Diamond (Aspire); Hyatt Refugeeist
Posts: 40,940
Originally Posted by cbn42 View Post
If you "flat out refuse to move", you will probably be removed by law enforcement.
Nah, UA won't do that anymore after Dr. Dao. They'll offload the entire plane and leave you sitting there alone, while they fly everyone else on a different aircraft.
iluv2fly, narvik and IndyHoosier like this.
Kacee is offline  
Old Aug 29, 18, 6:27 am
  #161  
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Programs: BA, SW, IAG
Posts: 143
Originally Posted by omaralt View Post
am i the only one here who thinks UA is in the wrong? i mean, yes we all know what a BE entails, but most people dont. when they buy a ticket on a legacy carrier they assume they can select seats; or at the minimum be able to be seated together. United is at fault here. they should automatically not allow you to buy BE seats when traveling with minors, or at least force you to pay for seat selection. otherwise they are saying it's acceptable for a 2 year old to be seated alone?? in what world does that make sense? can you imagine the lawsuit if something happened to that child during the flight? common sense needs to prevail here; UA (and all other airlines) need to ensure that a minor does not sit alone; whether it means forcing you into a higher fare or allowing free seat selection

No, you arent alone. UA knows you are traveliing with a 2 and 4 yr old. So should force you to pay for seats during hte booking process. It is a small IT change to add this. Ie if age less than 14, then go to paid seat selection- you can buy the ticket until you do.

And yes the OP is very odd indeed for not offering to swich seats with a his niece.
omaralt likes this.
amanx is offline  
Old Aug 29, 18, 6:35 am
  #162  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 42,448
Originally Posted by amanx View Post
No, you arent alone. UA knows you are traveliing with a 2 and 4 yr old. So should force you to pay for seats during hte booking process. It is a small IT change to add this. Ie if age less than 14, then go to paid seat selection- you can buy the ticket until you do.

And yes the OP is very odd indeed for not offering to swich seats with a his niece.
This simply leads to fraud. FT would be clogged with stories of people who read that they could beat the system by lying at the booking stage and then were called up short at the gate.

Better to clearly draw a boundary here. UA is a for-profit commercial air carrier which offers a variety of products to its customer base. Parents are the legal guardians of their minor children and should choose from UA's product offerings according to their needs.
jsloan and IndyHoosier like this.
Often1 is online now  
Old Aug 29, 18, 7:07 am
  #163  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: between EWR and JFK
Posts: 37
Originally Posted by bocastephen View Post
I need to ask - how was this other passenger forced into a middle seat? They were asked/shamed into it, or an employee somehow forced them to move? I would be beyond livid if this happened to me and would flat out refuse to move - either I keep my seat, or I should receive IDB.

.
My guess, the seating assignment was likely

OP's SIL - Child 1 - Other Passenger
X - Child 2 - X

And between OP's SIL and the flight staff, they said that Other Passenger had to take the child's seat, and leave that row entirely to a family who doesn't plan ahead because it was "the right thing to do".
liverpoolfc is offline  
Old Aug 29, 18, 7:49 am
  #164  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: DCA
Programs: United 1K 2MM, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,582
Probably. And the problem could have otherwise been solved with the OP trading his BP for Other Passenger's and taken Child 2's seat himself.
Miles Ahead is offline  
Old Aug 29, 18, 7:51 am
  #165  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 42,448
Originally Posted by jsloan View Post
It's misdirection. BE has been a smashing success, although (apparently) somewhat less so than their original rosy predictions.

The entire point of the exercise was to create a product that nobody wanted to buy. Delta saw a sneaky way to raise fares. United copied them, but took it a step further, and then AA copied United. The overhead bin access might get rolled back, but that was the one positive of the system -- a noticeable reduction in the number of bags in the overhead on some fights.

I believe United's stats were that BE represented about 30% of their customers. That is a colossal win for them. Take out, say, 20% of passengers on paid first class or flexible tickets, that leaves you with about half of your customers left who would otherwise have bought the lowest available fare, but who went one level up to avoid BE. In what other context could any business offer such similar products at two different price points and get 50% to opt for the higher one?

As much as I hate it, BE is here to stay.


Source? I have serious doubts that any airline executive thought that charging for bags would save them money. AFAIK, it was done purely as a way to increase revenue and was assumed to be more-or-less cost neutral.


There's a reason that the ULCCs are so profitable. No matter how any of us may feel individually, collectively, this is the product that sells.


More marketing spin. BE never had anything to do with the ULCCs except for airline executives saying "hey, that's smart; let's do that." UA couldn't have been more clear during their rollout; for heaven's sake, they offered Y-BN fares initially.

BE is a fare increase, plain and simple.
FT and other social media are simply an echo chamber when it comes to BE. One would think that BE is a total failure and no passenger uses it. DL, AA, and UA all make it clear in their earnings report that this is far from the truth. Companies tend not to lie about this given the consequences with federal prosecutors and the SEC..
IndyHoosier likes this.
Often1 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread