HNLbasedFlyer

Huh? No. Unless the rules are changed - my aisle seat with my status certainly trumps anyone with children that has no status or a lesser status.

This isn't terribly complicated - parents can abide by the rules, fly a different airline, or not fly at all.

DaveWM_SFBay

As a 1K, I would prefer not to be seated next to anxious children who would clearly prefer to be seated with their parents. Maybe United should charge ME for not putting me in this situation. (Yes, I am joking.) United, please rethink this policy.

bocastephen

There is no policy that states families cannot sit together, there are only actions taken by people buying tickets online who refuse to pay up for advance seat assignments to ensure everyone is seated together. We're not talking about a glitch like an aircraft swap that scatters reserved seats, this is a deliberate action taken by the customer to knowingly avoid paying for seat assignments in advance and kicking their self-created problem down into someone else's lap.

Let them eat cake.

greg99

Sorry, but perspectives like these are why you see such negative opinions of travelers with children around here.

I have traveled with my kids for 14 years now, domestically and all around the world, in economy and international first class. I've used Group 1 pre-boarding, and we've cattle car boarded Air Asia. I've booked seats 300 days in advance, and I've upgraded my entire family on CPU's at the gate. My kids are fantastic travelers, and with the exception of one flight to Australia, where my *wife* was allergic to a blanket, there were no extraordinary hiccups that weren't easily dealt with.

The responsibility for ensuring that those trips went smoothly with my kids was and continues to be 100% mine, *unless* the airline makes a change between the time I booked my kids' seats and the departure of the flight. Then I believe the airline has a responsibility to get at least one parent sitting next to each kid. Other than that, it's my obligation to seat my family together.

If that means I have to pay more for seats for my family, that's what it takes, and we do it all the time - if we *had* to be on a certain flight, we've purchased F, but that's the exception rather than the rule. I certainly wouldn't expect UA to move somebody out of an aisle seat, or give me something for free, simply because there's a child involved.

Again, in the case of IRROPS or aircraft changes, then I do believe UA has an obligation to keep a parent next to each kid, so moves may be necessary, but absent that, it's all on the parents.

MarkOK

For what it is worth, when I have booked Basic Economy with AA (for myself, my wife, and my kid) we have always gotten three seats assigned together by AA at the time of booking (near the back of the plane). Changes to those seats cost money, but their system recognizes the common decency to put a minor with parents (and their policy I believe is that minors must be seated with at least one of the parents).

So, I'd be furious with United over this. I travel a decent amount (no longer on United though), and it would never occur to me, despite all the language in United's policies, that they would split minors away from a parent (no matter the ticket type).

greg99

joe_miami

There's no way United is splitting up 5-year-olds on purpose. If there aren't three BE seats together, there aren't three BE seats together.

MarkOK

I am saying that if someone buys a BE ticket for a minor within a PNR, the airline chooses seats that keeps that minor with a parent. Charge the customer for any changes to this seat. Being seated with your minor children and choosing your actual seats are not the same thing. Again, this is how AA has done my reservations in BE, and it makes perfectly sound sense.

No need to change anything in the fare rules or the way they are described.

joe_miami

Does United even have three-across BE? I've never booked it, but it seems like it's mostly middles and some windows.

MarkOK

No, but it sure seems United created a problem for themselves. United could pick the seats at the time of booking (as AA does) in these cases, and have a small block usually a few rows of seats near the back of the plan to allow them to seat children with parents if such a case happens that parent/children don't have seat assignments yet at the gate (I don't know about United, it's been a few years since I've flown with them, but this is also something that AA does).

WineCountryUA

As has been discussed earlier in the thread, UA does this also but not as big of a block as AA -- so, in this case, the blocked seats had previously been consumed. So a potential solution is a larger block.

dilanesp

And because society rightly sees child welfare as more important than preventing an occasional parent from "working the system", we correctly let them work it.

WineCountryUA

Discussions are taking on a very OMNI feeling --- let's focus back on the original issues (what the OP's SIL could/should have done, what UA could/should have done & should do in the future. is it really that clear what the limitations of BE are, ...) and leave the greater societal discussions for the folks in OMNI.

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

NauticalWheeler

AA doesn't seem to have this issue (which I realize could be an exception rather than the rule at UA).

Tonight my girlfriend was paged by the gate agent. The GA asked if she would be willing to give up her standard aisle seat for an aisle seat in MCE which includes complimentary cocktails and extra legroom.

She accepted.

Reason for the request: A mother wanted to sit with her two children.

It could have been a last minute booking when 3 seats together were not even a posibility for all I know. The judgment on this forum regarding parents not reserving seats with their children is deafening.

greg99

The entire point of BE-type fares is to create an incentive structure to encourage you to buy more expensive fares or add-ons. Precisely the opposite of what you're suggesting.

What you're proposing creates a moral hazard. Parents want the cheap seats, but also want to be protected from the diminished amenities that come with those cheap seats. That doesn't make any sense to me, either from an economic perspective for UA, or from a fairness perspective to other passengers.

The parents have an alternative, which is to pay more for seats that allow you to book specific seats in advance. UA warns passengers booking these fares that they're going to be stuck with whatever seats they're assigned - if they're not comfortable with that risk, for whatever reason, pay more for the ticket. Personally, I agree with the suggestion that united.com should explicitly block parents with children under 14 from booking these fares.

This isn't like preboarding - what people are suggesting is that families with children should fly at a lower effective price than other passengers. I'm fully in support of the former, but the latter is just fundamentally wrong.