drewguy

As a former parent of a <2 yo, I can't imagine wanting to take a EWR-TLV or SFO-SYD with a child on my lap the entire time, whether 1.99 years old or even 1.95 years old. I get it - 10% is better than 100% of the fare but by age 2 they're not really lap-capable for such long distances. And, given the rule, I certainly wouldn't be pushing my luck on slipping 2.01 yo past the ticketing machine.

Anyway, the post above suggesting an accommodation at the return price when bundled with R/T at time of purchase seems like a reasonable request. The kicker is that for many UA tickets it's cheaper to buy R/T international than just the return, which OP probably didn't consider at the time.

mahasamatman

More precisely, the scheduled date of departure.

In my mind, all this talk of whether United should have issued the ticket are off-base. It's 100% up to the traveler to know and follow the applicable laws, rules, and regulations.

JimInOhio

That's not how it really plays out, though. For decades, there's been an announcement on every flight to not tamper with the smoke detectors in the lavatory. Apparently, it's not fully up to us to know that even though we all do.

Isn't the bigger question Why isn't it obvious when dealing with UA or any airline how to ticket a toddler who will be turning two mid-trip if they start out on a lap?

Lux Flyer

You act like it's the airlines decision to make that announcement or not. The FAA mandates that any flight operating with flight attendants under Part 121, that among other announcements, the smoke detector statement be made during the oral preflight briefing (https://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/.../ac121-24c.pdf). I'm sure that most people can figure out how to buckle their seatbelt too, yet we get told how to do that before every flight too. But just because an airline doesn't tell you something doesn't somehow pardon the passenger from needing to abide by the requirement. The airline might face their own penalties for not meeting their regulatory obligations, but just because an airline flys you without checking your passport for validity (as an example) doesn't mean the destination country is going to permit you entrance.

It is as clear as anything else an airline publishes - namely the requirements/standards are spelled out in the fare rules. To be clear - the normal expectation is that a seat is being purchased. If someone is availing themselves to a discount or special exception to the fare, then they should be checking the requirements as spelled out in the fare rules to be sure they're being met. There is a reason these are made available every time a ticket is being purchased. When your booking direct with an airline you are representing yourself as your own travel agent competent to read/understand the fare rules/contract of carriage you're agreeing to. If you're booking through a travel agent, then that is their job to make sure they're booking you in compliance with the requirements of the fare being purchased.

JimInOhio

If an airline can figure out that a lap passenger is over the age of two and then cancel their reservation, they can also figure out that the ticket should never have been issued in the first place. And who is in a better position to understand the arcane situation of a toddler turning two mid-trip… the airline or the passenger?

Lux Flyer

Its not a question of who is in a better position. Its a question of who is responsible, and every airline/industry standard is that it is unequivocally the passenger's responsibility to make sure they meet the rules/requirements of the fare they are purchasing. Just because the industry has shifted to make purchasing fares more accessible to the end customer without the use of a travel agent, doesn't mean the industry has shifted their position on who's obligation it is to ensure fare rules are being met. If you don't want to figure this out for yourself, then use a travel agent. And while I'm sure there are plenty of people who would love to debate whether this is appropriate in our modern era, the airline industry has been abundantly clear on this position for the past 50+ years and I don't expect it will change anytime soon - they publish fares for travel, the passenger utilizing that fare needs to meet the requirements of the fare, or will either be refused travel or required to pay for a fare that they do meet requirements for.

This is the fundamental misunderstanding that most consumers have about airfare - the airline is not your travel agent when you purchase directly through them. When you purchase direct, you are representing yourself as your own travel agent. And it is the travel agent's responsibility that the passengers using the fare meet the requirements of the ticketed fare. When you use an actual travel agency, you have recourse against them when they screwed up and didn't put you in the correct fare, When you are your own agent, the only recourse you have is to yourself.

s0ssos

Can you show the reference for the law, as with a google search I cannot seem to find it?

jsloan

Are we really doing this?

For UA, it's covered under 14 CFR 121.311(b) (emphasis added):

And, since the return travel was on AC, here are some quotes from the Canadian Aviation Regulations, SOR/96-433:

If either UA or AC were to allow a lap child beyond their second birthday, they would be in violation of their certificate. So when someone says "it's against the law," it's not that the parents would be arrested; rather, if the FAA (or Transport Canada) found out, they could suspend the operating certificate of the offending airline and/or punish them with fines.

There's no ambiguity here.

(Oh, and while I was doing the Google work to find this, I had to skip several pages, one of which was "What do I do if my child turns two during the trip?" The answers, unsurprisingly, were "you need to buy a child ticket, not an infant ticket.")

erik123

A while back (I believe about 10 years ago except for BA), KL, LH, BA, (maybe CX) and likely others allowed lap children over two if under two on the outbound. Sometimes allocating a seat for the return portion. So it is used to be possible on some carriers.

The OP should ask for reimbursement based on the historical R/T fare.

JimInOhio

As can sometimes happen, examinations like this can end up in legalistic terms and viewed under a magnifying glass. Since no one is debating whether two year olds can ride on a lap, let's take a step (or two) back and look at this from a 30,000 foot perspective.

What do we know?
1) AC proactively canceled a return reservation to avoid the worst possible situation... an involunatary denied boarding of a two year old.
2) The information that AC used to take this proactive step had to have come directly from UA, the ticketing airline.

So the natural question is Why did AC take the proactive step to avoid the worst situation (IDB) but UA did not? After all, both airlines had the same information. I think all can agree that had the cancelation taken place well before the trip started, it would have been a much better experience for the OP's family members.

So back to the 30,000 foot look. Airlines are fundamentally service companies. Good service companies help customers avoid problems that, in most cases, aren't intentionally created. A potential IDB of a two year old, especially on a return from another country, is a quite bad problem. Bad service companies don't try to catch those problems before the conseqences occur. UA had the info to do that.... but didn't.

emcampbe

UA, at least, doesn't ticket this way....you can buy a R/T for a child, or be a lap-infant, but not half and half. Maybe other airlines can do this, UA doesn't. I do believe UA can add a lap infant on a segment by segment basis - at least domestic (I know I've been asked in the past), but I'm not sure how this might work internationally.

So the option is to book one-ways, with a lap infant on the outbound and as a regular ticket on the return. But as mentioned, this very well could end up being more expensive than a simple roundtrip.

If a parent does simple, basic, due diligence, it is obvious. Once a child turns two, from a regulation perspective, the child can't sit on a parent/guardian lap, full stop. Doesn't matter how old said child is on an outbound, if they are 2 on the return they need their own seat for that and any subsequent flights. Pretty simple (to this parent, anyway).

The parent is responsible for making sure the infant has a proper ticket based on the situation. In this case, they did not, and airline figured it out. Airline would not let them check in if they showed up anyway. One might be able to get away with traveling with a lap infant for a slightly over 2 yo on a domestic itinerary, where they don't check a child ID, but definitely not anything international, where you need to show a passport which includes DOB.

The passenger is. They would know when a child turns two. Again, parents need to be responsible and ensure the child is ticketed properly, In this case, the child was not.

Correct. You don't even need to use a TA, a simple Google search would pretty much suffice, as noted upthread.

This is no different than a passenger being responsible for ensuring they are eligible to enter the destination country, and UA will check documentation to ensure these docs are correct to have ability to enter - if the docs are not in order, you'd be denied boarding also.

Maybe that is correct. However, unless there has been a change to FAA regs, this would not be possible on any of those carriers to/from the US, or any jurisdiction where once you turn 2, you can't be a lap infant. Those carriers still need to follow applicable regs.

The ticket purchaser (who is not the OP, btw) is certainly not entitled to reimbursement for anything (maybe, maybe, the 10% of the return portion, but even than, the refund ability might be based on the adult fare rules, and therefore is possibly non-refundable). Again, responsibility is on the purchaser to buy the correct type of ticket - so in terms of the cancelation, they would be required to buy a new ticket at whatever the walk up price is. Its a lesson learned the hard way, unfortunately. An airline could do the work to determine the historical R/T price and charge based on that, but anything like that would be a favor, not an entitlement.

ijgordon

And hence it seems that it should, in fact, be the airline that is on the hook for determining whether the ticket is valid.

jsloan

Hence why the reservation was canceled, which is what happens when you book a ticket that you're not eligible for.

There seems to be little point in continuing this discussion. It appears clear that there are two camps: "It's United's fault they didn't stop me" and "it's the customer's responsibility to know the rules." I doubt that anyone's going to change each other's mind.

ijgordon

Well I think it's disingenuous to recognize they clearly have the ability (if not the need) to catch/cancel invalid reservations but think it's okay that they wait until the last minute to do so. But to each their own.

emcampbe

well, would it have been better for them to cancel at the check in desk instead when they checked the passport and realized kid could not legally be a lap infant?

computers, despite having the ability depending on specific systems involved, don’t do everything instantly. Maybe this was flagged when an employee was looking into the manifest closer to departure. Perhaps an agent flagged it after the purchaser called in to check on the ticket. Perhaps the computer did this as the flight was going through the normal processes as it gets closer to day of departure. This would have been caught at some point. Could/should it have been caught at time of purchase? Sure. But for whatever reason it wasn’t, and as posted umpteen times in this thread, it is responsibility of the purchaser to make sure they have the right kind of ticket. End of story.