FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   United Airlines | MileagePlus (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus-681/)
-   -   United Splitting up Families (Basic Economy ticket) (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/1927588-united-splitting-up-families-basic-economy-ticket.html)

USA_flyer Aug 28, 18 9:35 am

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.

jsloan Aug 28, 18 9:39 am


Originally Posted by Kacee (Post 30139458)
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.

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

smithdb Aug 28, 18 9:51 am

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.

omaralt Aug 28, 18 9:57 am

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?

Kacee Aug 28, 18 9:58 am


Originally Posted by smithdb (Post 30139533)
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.

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.

elbejt2 Aug 28, 18 10:01 am

If I were United I would see this as a customer service issue as opposed to one of law or regulation.

threeoh Aug 28, 18 10:02 am


Originally Posted by smithdb (Post 30139533)
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.

The Airlines do this. UA adds a ton of friction and big pop-ups when buying BE.

(1) People will click through anything and not read it.

(2) People buy tickets not directly from the airline (e.g. on Expedia), and those OTAs don't do as good of a job.

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...592188a28e.png

Aknoff Aug 28, 18 10:05 am


Originally Posted by jsloan (Post 30139408)
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?

Would she have liked it? No, of course not. But would she have purchased it without thinking twice? Yes, absolutely. This wasn't some attempt to game the airline or inconvenience someone else. This was sheer ignorance. And from what I can tell a very easily avoidable situation that should have been considered alongside BE fares.

I never said the flight attendant moved the gentleman. I believe they asked him directly and he, being a decent person, agreed. The real question is why the gate agent didn't move him (or anyone) elsewhere?

Meola10 Aug 28, 18 10:10 am


Originally Posted by Aknoff (Post 30139613)
I never said the flight attendant moved the gentleman. I believe they asked him directly and he, being a decent person, agreed. The real question is why the gate agent didn't move him (or anyone) elsewhere?

Is this a serious question? Aside from extraordinary or operational reasons I really donít think that a gate agent would involuntarily move a (likely) paying passenger to accomodate a passenger who paid for a ticket that did not include seat selection.

USA_flyer Aug 28, 18 10:16 am


Originally Posted by Meola10 (Post 30139643)


Is this a serious question? Aside from extraordinary or operational reasons I really donít think that a gate agent would involuntarily move a (likely) paying passenger to accomodate a passenger who paid for a ticket that did not include seat selection.

I think you're conflating two discrete services.

1. Seat selection i.e. a paid for service that allows you to pick where you and your party sit on the plane.

2. Auto seat allocation of a party either together or apart.

I would accept service one as being paid for but expect some common sense from the airline with regards service two.

COSPILOT Aug 28, 18 10:18 am


Originally Posted by USA_flyer (Post 30139460)
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.

UA didn't sell the ticket, Expedia did based on the OP.

Often1 Aug 28, 18 10:29 am

Take responsibility for your own actions and this won't happen to you.

USA_flyer Aug 28, 18 10:33 am


Originally Posted by COSPILOT (Post 30139690)
UA didn't sell the ticket, Expedia did based on the OP.

same applies.


Originally Posted by Often1 (Post 30139748)
Take responsibility for your own actions and this won't happen to you.

Not everything is the responsibility of the consumer. The vendor has an obligation to be transparent. I don't think that happened in this case.

omaralt Aug 28, 18 10:39 am


Originally Posted by omaralt (Post 30139568)
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?

for all those who are saying itís the OPs fault I really want to hear your opinion on the above scenario. Parents are fine with 2 year old being seated separately. Who takes care of the two year old? Whoís responsible for her seat belt compliance?

COSPILOT Aug 28, 18 10:43 am


Originally Posted by Aknoff (Post 30139613)
Would she have liked it? No, of course not. But would she have purchased it without thinking twice? Yes, absolutely. This wasn't some attempt to game the airline or inconvenience someone else. This was sheer ignorance. And from what I can tell a very easily avoidable situation that should have been considered alongside BE fares.

I never said the flight attendant moved the gentleman. I believe they asked him directly and he, being a decent person, agreed. The real question is why the gate agent didn't move him (or anyone) elsewhere?

I've been the decent one and moved to help a mom and kids, but really, is it my job to get screwed for lack of planning on someone else's part? Your family member is at fault, assuming family trumps all, and I say that as I travel with my wife and kids. We plan for everything, not just airplanes, but hotels as well, heck even the car rental. Should I give up my large SUV rental that I reserved for the poor woman that booked a sub compact rental?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:47 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.