LarryJ

They do. A number of seats are held for assignment at the airport to accomodate families, disabled passengers, and other issues. On most flights, that is enough to resolve such seating issues as was the case on the OP's second leg.

For whatever reason, it isn't always enough. There will always be situations where all of these passenger needs can't be addressed with the remaining open and blocked seats and it isn't only because of BE fares. Airplane swaps, misconnects, flight cancellations, and other unrelated (to BE) issues can result in these seating issues where the agent is left with no options short of moving other passengers who already have their assigned seats.

There are steps that a passenger can take at booking to minimize the chances of being caught in this situation but, even that, isn't guaranteed as cancellations, misconnects, etc., can disrupt the plan.

The airline could block even more seats from assignment, and maybe they should. That would reduce the frequency of such problems but they'll still occur. I have no idea what the proper amount of block seats would be and what the impact of the reduction is seats available for pre-selection would be on other passengers. You wouldn't want to overdo it and end up with a lot of passenger who needlessly have to wait to have their seats assigned at the gate.

The only way to guarantee that these situations will not go unresolved is to allow the gate agents to unseat other passengers in order to keep families together. Is that what we want? How would it be limited and controlled? What would be owed to the displaced passengers?

azepine00

ya young children, pregnant, elderly, disabled - why should we give them any free favors?.. enough mommy society indeed!

copaflyer

Why should families have to pay more so they can sit together? It is all in the name of profit. More seats at the back should be assigned at boarding.

I do not want some stranger sitting beside and potentially having to look after my young kids. Too many crazies out there

StuckinITH

In the post you quoted, you highlighted "medical issues". It's not people with disabilities, it's people with medical issues. On a flight on USAirways, after we boarded the flight FCO-PHL, the FAs realized that the passenger behind me had a medical issue and his medication was in his luggage in the hold. After further investigation, the captain decided that he needed a note from that passenger' doctor to make sure that it was safe for him to fly. Both that passenger and his wife were asked to leave the plane. The whole thing started with the refusal of that passenger to put his seat in the upright position for take-off.

jsloan

Well, they don't really, though. I just pulled up a seat map for a mainline narrowbody scheduled for April. (The weird 8F "738"). There are 6 seats listed as occupied -- 7DE, 23BC, and 25BC. Even 7F is available. So, assuming all six of those seats are held for gate assignment, the best that they can do is seat pairs of people -- and not very many, either.

What I'm suggesting is that they block rows 36-38 entirely, for example.They would then be able to assign those seats at check-in or at the gate, with preference going to groups.

azepine00

not sure why a refusal to follow crew instruction is brought up as an analogy - the issue in question here is that the airline should not attempt to charge parent extra in order to sit with his or her small child...

this does not make it a "mommy society" as some noted - but a society that doesn't take advantage of those in need

The_Bouncer

The mistake made was booking Basic Economy. Ok, it is a rookie error, but I can't blame the OP's family member for that. There are a lot of rookies out there and rookie errors are made every day.

"Basic Economy" essentially means "take what you get". That means it is not designed for people, who have individual needs, for example, being seated next to children, etc.

Basic Economy is designed for college students and people like me (40yo semi-retirees who just want to get where they are going).

If you care where and with whom you are seated, then Basic Economy is a bad idea.

If you want (or need) to be seated next to a child (or anyone else you care about), then pay the $20 or so (about 3 beers), to book advance seat assignments.

StuckinITH

At the gate would be better since some passengers can check in way earlier if they have a connection. Like that, the gate agent can asses the situation and see which group they should prioritize for those seats: friends wanting to travel together, no; families with small kids, yes. Then if there are no families with small kids, friends traveling together could get those seats.

jsloan

I was trying to steer clear of the prioritization discussion. Ideally, they'd block off enough seats to accommodate all group bookings without assigned seats. They'll never get to 100%, but they could develop a heuristic as to how many seats to block on what flight.

garykung

This logic is completely problematic. As others point out, Expedia has made it clear about BE, as well as UA, so the purported assumption does not even exist.

This actually makes it worse.

Even the existing federal does not prohibit, what you are suggesting is the textbook definition of age discrimination.

I concede it does not make sense. However - don't forget a minor does not have the ability to even purchase a ticket. So shouldn't parents be more responsible in this case?

The parent get charged? FWIW - You can throw UA under the bus anytime you want. The reality remains simple - the parent bought the wrong kind of tickets and failed to pay attention. So blaming UA isn't really the answer here.

Another contradicting logic - we are not living in a world of common sense. In fact - when you mention "lawsuit", it is a straightly black-and-white situation - UA does not force the parent to buy BE. Instead, the parent bought the wrong kind of tickets and failed to pay attention. UA simply fulfilled its obligation for the tickets.

There is something known as UM - minor sitting alone is simply unavoidable.

You can be embarrassed as much as you want. The problem remains simple - 1) UA does not force the parent to buy BE. The parent did it herself. 2) UA simply fulfilled its obligation for the tickets.

I would be embarrassed as well if the parent bought a regular ticket and was forced to spit with the children. But simply this is not the case.

All alone this was a voluntary action by the parent.

StuckinITH

I would say that then they need more than 3 rows. For some destinations, I guess they would need 10 rows.

wrp96

Being seated directly behind the mom and the other child would satisfy the policies of Easy Jet quoted above, as well as BA, if not other European carriers.

Often1

Last time I looked, UA is a for-profit corporation with a fiduciary duty to its shareholders who include retired law enforcement, firefighters, and school teachers.

While it may be all the rage to criticize making money, there is more than one way to look at this.

Besides, it is simply unfair. Families who choose to book BE fares get seats assigned for free while single people don't? What about couples who wish they could have kids but can't? What about families where the child died? Where do you draw the line?

HoustonConsultant

I'm not sure why you are quoting my comment when I'm the one agreeing with you, but I'll be really pedantic here:

"textbook definition of age discrimination."...it would be almost he opposite of a text book case since age discrimination is specified at 40 and over, not any particular age and under.

This is true. There are lots of crazy kids out there.

COSPILOT

To destinations such as Orlando, that might require all of Economy, both e- and e+, and even then it might still be problem. Mom should book properly, not assume it will work out at the expense of others.