Isn't this a slippery slope kind of if the airline 'forces' the issue? Where would this stop then? What about when traveling with an individual that needs boarding assistance? Should the airline force you to sit next to that person as well in case they need assistance on the flight? I doubt they'll want to allow free seat selection as it takes away incremental revenue and the rules are clearly stated in BE.

i agree the line needs to be drawn somewhere. however having a 2 year old sit alone is not acceptable. there are some things that can be annoying to the traveler and some things that are basic common sense.

I kinda get it, mom purchases tickets on expedia because that's what she uses for travel and finds it easier, doesn't even realize it's basic economy and assumes common sense would be that they're seated together. I have a 3month old and a 3 year old, and I would not let him sit somewhere else with a stranger. I would've expected the G/A to actually think reasonably rather than say it's not possible. The OP says they flights were not full or near full, couple of seat changes should've been enough. I feel for the guy that stiffed with a middle seat, but these things happen.

The fact that someone had to switch into a middle means the cabin was full.

And I still don't get why OP, the brother-in-law, didn't offer to take the middle to help out the family.

I don't have a ton of sympathy for people who don't read terms and conditions before they purchase, and just assume that they will get special treatment because they have kids. If you're traveling as a family, do a little research before you buy!

This story doesn't hold water since Expedia makes it clear seat assignments aren't offered with Basic Economy, and there is no commitment anywhere from Expedia to guarantee a family will be seated together. (A family sitting a few rows apart isn't ideal, but it's also not the end of the world. Perhaps the OP's family should broaden their horizons a bit and have some more faith in humanity to be good seat-mates to their younger children who have to sit in a middle seat by themselves, and also trust the F/As to do a good job of keeping the flight safe and secure.)

I recently purchased more-expensive tickets when travelling with 2 young children so the 3 of us could sit together. I would be displeased if I were asked to sit somewhere else so that someone who bought Basic Economy tickets and didn't bother to secure seat assignments could be seated together.

On a recent IAD-PIT flight, I did hear a good solution: the flight attendant announced that there were open seats in Economy Plus and she was ready and willing to swipe passenger credit cards if they'd like to set up here. Perhaps United should have offered that option to this family, and then given the passenger forced into a middle seat a refund or other compensation. Alternatively, United could have re-accommodated them on a flight at a later date that has more open seats.

Parent of three kids under the age of six, but not sure if that makes us "truly parents" or not, but we do fly a fair amount with the kids, and I would be on a negative comment side.

In the real world, I suspect United in the vast, vast majority of cases would accommodate the family here, but the family paid the lowest price they could pay, with relatively clear messaging that they could not pick seats. It is not like it was hidden from them.

The headline "United Splitting up Families" could be "Mother cares so little about her children that she sits them next to strangers to save a few dollars". Now, both of those headlines would be stupid, but the latter is actually more accurate than the former. United didn't split them up. They were never seated together.

In a better world, United wouldn't sell BE to people with kids under some specific age (that would undoubtedly piss off some people because that age would be wrong for some family's situation and kid).

bingo problem solved

i AM A MILLION MILER, i BOOKED A SEAT (NOT IN BASIC) FOR ME AND MY COMPANION.
UNITED SWITCHED HER SEAT.
SAID "WE DON'T KNOW WHY" BUT WE CAN DO IT.
SORRY YOU CAN NOT SIT TOGETHER

Could United come up with a way to better handle this? Sure, but I'd guess it's not incredibly easy. Should the OTA make it much clearer that these fares don't offer advance seat assignment and that seats together are not guaranteed? Absolutely. I'm not running UA or the OTA, but if I were, I would make it a stronger effort to better manage expectations, since customer disappointment and anger often occur when reality doesn't meet expectations.

However, in this case, some parents make an assumption that even if the airline doesn't offer them advance seat assignments, that they would be seated together. That's not an unreasonable expectation, but on the other hand, if something is very important to me, I make the time to research it. Yes, I know parents are busy – and believe it or not, plenty of people without children are also busy. I just searched "basic economy seat assignments together" on Google, and the first result was the below. The fourth result was a blog post that discusses how group or family seating is not guaranteed. I'm not saying the airlines and OTAs didn't contribute to this problem – the latter especially should have made it much clearer. But, at the end of the day, the parents bought the fare and are the ones who are ultimately responsible for their children. One minute spent searching on something that was important to them could have saved them the hassle. I'd share my feedback with the airlines and OTAs and chalk it up as a lesson learned for the future.

Basic Economy frequently asked questions United Airlines
https://www.united.com/web/en-US/con...onomy-faq.aspx
A: With Basic Economy, if you do not purchase advance seat assignments, we're not able to guarantee that your family will be able to sit together. If it's important ...

And just one more note . . .

UA, unlike many other airlines around the world, does not charge for advance seat assignments in economy so long as you do not buy its very cheapest, basic economy fare. So I really don't see this as a UA caused problem. The problem was caused by the consumer choosing the one fare that doesn't allow advance seat selection in order to save a few dollars.

It is perfectly clear, whether you buy via UA or OTA, that this expectation on a BE ticket is not reasonable.
You have a point.

{W}hen the airline markets multiple "products" throughout the cabin at different price points, situations like this -- caused by customers who either don't understand the difference, or try to get more than they paid for -- are inevitable, and at some point those customers are not always right. BE has been around long enough for its buyers to understand they are the airline's least-loved, lowest-priority customers. The general drift of this board notwithstanding, it is wrong to cover for customers who, in effect, booked a Kia but can't believe they didn't get a Buick and are willing to dissemble to effect the free upgrade.

In at least the US, it is a parent's duty to assure the safety and security of their minor children. This thread is all over the place on the minutiae of what font some third-party website does and does not use to disclose whatever about a given fare.

None of that changes the parent's responsibility to either know or research all of this and to make decisions accordingly.

The title of the thread is misleading in the extreme as a result.

Several observations:

1. There is no US law, rule or regulation which requires that parents/guardians be seated with their kids. Even the proposal which failed would only have required seating together if that did not require infringing on paid seating arrangements (such as E+ in the case of UA).

2. If a child is too young to be seated without a parent close by, then it is unsafe for the child and thus the parent to board (presumably it is not a good solution to leave a 2 YOA at the gate and fly off). Common sense suggests asking others to switch. But, if asking does not work, the only option is to offload the parent and child and accommodate them on a flight where suitable seating is available.

This all sounds harsh and it all ususally works out, but blaming anyone other than the parent in this situation is simply wrong.

Don't underestimate the expectations of people that don't travel often. My cousin thinks the airlines should "know" that her family needs to be seated together, period. So far, at least on FB, she has bashed every airline in the US. She doesn't understand how things work, and given what she posts, she never will. I've offered advice, and in doing so she thinks I'm a prick as well.

Can you imagine the DOB fudging that some parents would put through to save $30?

I don't think it matters whether someone is "truly" a parent (whatever that means) to opine on this issue. Even more than the DYKWIA stores, I see this with parents on flights constantly. As if somehow having a child is the trump card to all other issues. Whether someone has personally experienced what you're going through does not excuse basic civility. Indeed as demonstrated upthread, it looks like the OP may have been able to give up his seats. Or what about nicely asking folks to trade with you? Or not making up a law that entitles you to get what you want. I give up or change my seat all the time for lesser reasons, but only if asked nicely. I suspect that someone in basic economy may have done the same.

Could UA, Expedia or whoever do this better? Probably. However there are so many people claiming that their personal circumstances entitle them not to have the rules apply to them that they have to at some point assume that folks will use rational thought in their daily lives.

yet you can still reserve a seat (for a fee obviously) with them!

I follow a lot of cruise boards, and the advice there to families generally is "don't worry if you can't get assigned seats together in advance, the airlines have to seat you together, just ask at the gate and they'll make someone switch with you." It doesn't matter how many times others show this is incorrect, someone invariably argues to the death that this is true (like the OP citing a law that doesn't exist).

I've had two friends fly Spirit in the past year or so. Both had total disaster experiences, including one "I slept on the floor at LAS." Of course they railed on and on about how terrible the airline was. I just kept my mouth shut. Because seriously, how hard is it figure out in advance that not only does Spirit totally suck, but it's not such a great deal when you calculate the all-in pricing. Do you not have an internet connection and ability to type "spirit airline reviews" in Google? Same concept holds with Googling "united basic economy family seating." Here's what you get (#1 result):

Not only that, but the number of threads on FT with posts from people who are generally-speaking honest, giving advice that it's fine to commit fraud to save the $30 because it's for a kid or it's only UA and UA was mean to them about an overweight bag 32 years ago.

Not worth it...

You are correct that it's not hard to search these things, but there is no end to the stories of people who complain about not knowing about the add-on fees at Spirit and/or Frontier. Same holds true for the BE fares at United. Let's face it, there is a pretty large segment of the population that doesn't really research these topics.

I am embarrassed to read the replies here. People seem to sincerely believe that a kid sitting with mother is a luxury and mother needs to pay extra for it...

i guess demands to pay for carseats and strollers in cargo are not far behind - clearly those parents are getting away with free allowance other pax are not getting...

The problem with this -- and it's a core problem with the entire Basic Economy idea, which is a terrible one in the first place -- is that the optics are terrible. "United charges more for families with children" is the headline you'd see, and if you think this thread is heated, wait until you see that one. (It might also be illegal discrimination, depending upon the jurisdiction).

It seemed as if the first, less friendly GA was UA staff while the second, friendlier one was contracted staff. MSN is a mixed bag.

Airlines should allow people traveling with kids free seat selection. It benefits everyone. Surprised people think differently.

But what qualifies as a "kid"? Is every minor considered a "kid"? That opens up the door for a lot of free seat selection. And if there is a set age, parents will surely find a way to alter DOBs to get the benefit.

Nah, people here only care about your FF status, and if you booked a cheap ticket cause you know, that's what you could probably afford, then you're out of luck and no one should care about your needs.

Yes, I do. UA was able to hand-wave BE as an "enhancement" to give people extra "choice." It would be much more difficult to market "families can't buy BE" as anything but a fare increase -- and that's even assuming that they have age information for all passengers. (Hint: they don't, necessarily, until the deadline for transmission of the Secure Flight data).

Trust me, no matter how bad you think the optics of BE were originally, they'd have been much, much worse if they appeared to be discriminating against families.

For starters, I DID NOT buy her fare, so please keep that in mind. Likewise, I've advised multiple times to just buy a "real" fare from the airline directly.

Also, I did try to help out by moving our seats, but again the GA was unhelpful. I received a premier upgrade, so my wife and 2-year old were all of a sudden sitting together. I offered to give up my upgrade if it helped make more seats available in economy to play with and the answer I received was "You can turn down your upgrade, but then I'm going to put you in a random seat in economy away from both your wife/son and your sister-in-law's family." This is where it seemed common sense should have prevailed, but I dropped it and walked away. My wife obviously couldn't move because she was with our 2-year old.

Finally, I didn't browbeat the GA. I very nicely asked/inquired as to if there was a requirement that families sit together. If you read the original post you'll see that I admitted I was confused as to what, if anything, this law (or lack thereof, it seem) says. I'm now clear that there really is no requirement.

To those who have expressed some sympathy, much appreciated. I told my sister-in-law that she put herself in this situation, so I in no way think what happened was fair to the other traveler. But, I do think it could be clearer. Several folks have mentioned that you all are the experts and unfortunately most infrequent travelers don't read the fine print (not an excuse, just reality). There should be some sort of override or refusal to finalize the sale until seats are selected/ourchased based on DOB. Seems like an easy way to avoid these issues in the future.

Thank you for this clear-headed response. It was a 739 out of MSN on a Sunday, so it was not full. Based on my last check of the seat map at the gate there were a couple open seats in F, at least 8 seats in economy plus and probably half a dozen or so seats in Y. Previous to having status I've been moved to an economy plus seat by the GA to accommodate others so it certainly seems like there was a workable solution.

That's not what you said, actually. To quote: "I gently reminded the gate agent that unrelated to United's fare policies there's actually a federal law that prohibits minors being split apart from their parents on planes." To me, that reads as a passive-aggressive form of browbeating (especially when the law doesn't actually exist). That may not have been your intent, but I hope you can understand why people are taking it that way.

Except it is an excuse. You're asking UA -- and, ultimately, another passenger -- to make accommodations due to your sister-in-law's failure either to read the fine print or to listen to your advice about what to book. The fine print is there for a reason. Nobody's suggesting that an infrequent traveler should have to memorize the intricacies of the MileagePlus program; heck, in this case, it's not even a matter of failure to read the Contract of Carriage -- the finest of the fine print. The screenshots from Expedia are clear. They're not as "in your face" as you'd get when shopping on the United website, but it's not like the restriction was in 6-point type in a footnote denoted by an asterisk.

Apart from the optics issue I mentioned -- do you really think your sister-in-law would have liked being told, "sorry, we won't offer you the $139 fare because you're traveling with a child, so pay $164 instead?" -- airlines don't necessarily have this information at the time of booking. And the last thing we want is for airlines to be able to go back and cancel reservations sometime after purchase due to a missing DOB. :)

Then why did the flight attendant have to put someone in a middle seat?

I wouldn't even call this "fine print," as that implies the disclosure is buried and requires unusual care and attention to discern. In fact, "no advance seat assignments" is pretty clearly disclosed, even on an Expedia booking.

I'm glad the mother and kids were able to sit together in the end.

It was stupid of United to sell a ticket that would inevitably cause problems on board however.

:) Fair point. "Fine print" was the OP's phrase.

It seems like it wouldn't be that difficult for the airlines to add an affirmative check off to any purchase of multiple BE tickets saying "I recognize that...." and state the restrictions. After all, AA at least requires one to check a box agreeing to the terms and conditions of the ticket when purchasing it on site -- how much harder would it be to state what the key T&Cs are? It would seem likely to reduce the surprise many BE purchasers (seem to) feel at the airport.

Apart from that, though I would join those on the side of common decency. Once upon a time, I had young kids (admittedly in the pre BE days). Try as we might, sometimes there was no way to get seats together -- a family emergency, holiday tix even when booked months in advance and so on. Other people were always kind and moved around to help us get together. So I get that I owe that to the universe today and am almost always willing to move to help a family. Have I sometimes ended up stuck in a less desirable seat than I paid for and had a less comfortable flight as a result? Yes, of course. But sometimes it worth it, even if the person who you're helping out might be somewhat to blame for the situation in the first place. Just my two cents.

what you guys are failing to understand, is that no matter what UA puts in it's T/C's young children should NOT be seated apart from their parents, no matter what. imagine a different scenario. parents who dont care. now their crying 2 year old is sitting in a middle seat next to two random strangers and crying and trying to climb out of her seat. whos going to keep her in her seat? whos going to make sure her seat belt is on? is it the passengers next to her responsibility? the FA? the parents dont care; they got their headphones on and watching a movie. hey, its in the rules, right?

UA already does that. You must affirmatively check that "Basic Economy Fits my Travel." That's right under a list of the fare's restrictions, in large font, the very first of which is the warning that you do not get to "Sit with Your Group or Family." I really don't think they could make it any clearer.

I'm no fan of BE fares, but people need to take responsibility for their decisions. Particularly the ones that are motivated by the desire to save a small amount of money.