[mcaravey]

I think that part of the problem is a want versus a need. I don't particularly care if me and my wife don't sit together. We see each other all the time. But I don't want to have my four-year-old sitting in between two strangers, six rows in front of me where I can't see him. That's not fair to the two strangers, but also I don't trust strangers.

I get the idea of paying for the privilege, but at the same time, it's not like they roll out the red carpet for someone who flies with their kids. Pretty much every time that I can remember them ever rearranging seats to get us together, we always wind up sitting in the rows at the very back of the plane close to the bathroom, which is fine with me. If I wanted red carpet treatment, I'd pay for first class for everyone. But I'm not about to do that.

All I do know is that if they were to stop rearranging seats, it would make the frequency of our flying go down quite a bit. At a minimum, if they went that route, I would want there to be a guaranteed payment to be able to get everyone to sit together. That way I can at least plan for the extra cost. Knowing airlines they would probably use a sliding scale based on age or something.

[euleriancon]

This exactly. For parents it is not a choice, you absolutely must have a parent sitting by a young child. The effect of not automatically putting parent and children next to each other would just be making tickets more expensive for parents.

[nostrademons]

Playing devil's advocate here, as a parent this sounds great! Have your young children sit next to a couple strangers a few rows away: now you get some peace and quiet while other people have to deal with their seat-kicking, drink-spilling, whining, crying, bathroom trips, diaper changes, requests for entertainment, etc.

You know this is going to happen too: there are going to be some subset of parents that are not going to pay extra and will just choose to let the airline make their kids some complete stranger's problem. Hope the general public enjoys it.

[AtlanticThird]

I have medical issues that require me to fly first class. It's not a choice. I don't expect you to pay for it

[raw_anon_1111]

And? They are your kids. Why should someone who has paid to reserve their seat have to move because you were to cheap to pay to choose your seat.

Also see, I’m not going to work extra hours because a parent can’t work late. Just because I have grown children doesn’t mean that I don’t have a life outside of work.

[mothballed]

Ah yes I love modern society "they're your kids" until every busybody on earth calls CPS or police at the first sign of doing something they disapprove (happened to me because I shit you not, my kid is a different race and that was 'suspicious' to be a kidnapping -- thanks FOIA for the bodycam revealing that bullshit).

Or when it comes time to tax the shit out of the grown kid made possible by the massive time and money investment made by the parents, the lion's share of the total. "No no no, that was society's investment -- now they owe us those taxes as part the social contract!"

When it comes time to do the gangster shit it's all on the parent, but when it comes time to reap the benefits suddenly "we're a society."

[renewiltord]

Haha, it's very true. Everyone is an individualist when it comes to paying for kids but when it comes to social security, we should raise that to high heaven so that the current kids will be slaves to the geriatric majority.

"I don't mind paying more money in taxes" they always say, knowing full well that the majority of the incidence is on the next generation.

[raw_anon_1111]

There is a huge difference between funding education, health care etc which I’m all for paying taxes for and subsidizing your flight.

And if you expect me to defend the police or Karyns about anything, let’s just say I grew up on NWA and “F%%% the police” and my mom constantly told me that don’t think because my White friends could get away with minor criminal mischief that I could.

Well actually she said “don’t let your little white friends get you in trouble”. But close enough.

[mothballed]

If you want to deregulate airlines you have no complaint from me. I couldn't give a shit if there's anti-kid airline who's advertising message is "Fuck dem kids."

If you're talking about a private company choosing who to subsidize once government regulations are removed, then I don't see how you have room to complain. It's not like taxes. You can charter a flight or rent a cessna to pilot if you don't agree to the private terms of carriage of anyone offering tickets.

Taxes are way worse because a guy with a gun can show up and put anyone who disagrees with the majority's idea of charity or subsidy into a tiny cage; if you disagree you can't even escape it by leaving the country because the USA has worldwide taxation. I would classify private flight subsidization as a much more ethical, moral, and wildly less violent regime than taxing people for the healthcare of others.

[raw_anon_1111]

I personally have no problem with the current state of affairs or with the state of affairs that the airlines are proposing. I fly Delta, I don’t buy the cheapest ticket so I can cancel a flight up to the time the flight is scheduled and get a credit.

From the little I do fly other airlines, only the cheapest fares don’t at least give you credits for cancelled flights.

Every airline has a credit card that gives you free luggage where the annual fee is cheaper than the baggage fee for a couple flying round trip.

My wife and I also have status with Delta (Platinum Medallion), lounge access, TSA PreCheck, Clear etc so we can do our best to not deal with families and once a year vacationers. We live in Orlando now.

But if I did have small kids. I would definitely pay for reserve seatings.

[unglaublich]

Don't want to play the devils advocate... but if you _must_ sit next to a person in need... you have to reserve the seats. Doesn't matter if it's a child, a dependent parent or a colleague that you need to run through an upcoming presentation with.

Currently, it's just the case that parents get a discount on the seat reservation fee.

[hansvm]

> must reserve

With the current implementation exposed to the end customer, yes, that's required. Reserving specific seats isn't fundamental to the constraint that some people want to sit together.

Plus, the current reservation system is predatory in its own right. When booking you're dumped into a page strongly suggesting you must choose a seat, and all available options cost more than the base ticket.

[unglaublich]

Well, any half decent operator will put you next to each other and the other half at least lets you select seats during the check-in process. If that 90% certainty is not enough for you... just reserve the seats. Yes, it'll cost money, because otherwise there won't be any seats to reserve as anyone will do it.

[mothballed]

Easy solution, just charge more for a child than for an adult, no fees needed.

[unglaublich]

Currently children <11yr get a 20-50% discount/subsidy for a seat. So just rectify it to a 100% and give the seat as a bonus instead. Everyone happy?

[brummm]

I have never seen this. For all flights I have flown recently, the price for a kid and an adult is the exact same.

[mothballed]

Honestly I would be happy if the 5x the price, and I'm a parent. I hate flying with a kid and it would let me convince the wife to drive or take a boat the next time.

I basically only fly with a kid because everyone else is willing to subsidize the massive externality I impose on them.

[jermaustin1]

> All I do know is that if they were to stop rearranging seats, it would make the frequency of our flying go down quite a bit.

I don't understand this. When you book a flight, do you not chose your seats so you sit together? Why should it be up to the airline to ensure you get a seat with your baby, that is part of planning a trip.

When I rent "the cheapest car on offer", if it is a 2 seater, and I have 3 passengers, that's on me for not planning for my passengers.

People who chose to not pick their seats (to save the $25 or whatever) shouldn't then punish people like me who paid to sit in a specific seat with specific neighbors.

[afavour]

> if it is a 2 seater, and I have 3 passengers, that's on me for not planning for my passengers.

Well, no, it’s on all of you in the sense that all of your passengers pay the price for your mistake. But as the guy behind you in line at the rental place, makes no difference to me.

If a parent isn’t sat with a child everyone sat anywhere near the kid pays a price.

[jermaustin1]

I 100% agree that a parent should be required to sit next to a child under a certain age, but I don't agree that is the responsibility of the airline. They should enforce that the parent/guardian traveling with the child should have to pick seats (so yes, pay for seat selection if it costs money), and if there aren't seats available, too bad.

Again, I (who paid for a selected seat assignment) should not even be asked by anyone (staff or passengers) to get up because they didn't pay for a seat with their baby.

[afavour]

You're still not really engaging with my point. A parent sitting next to their kid (without choosing specifically where they are sat) is to the benefit of everyone on the plane. You sitting where you want is to the benefit of you and you only. So it makes sense one has to be paid for and the other does not.

[jermaustin1]

Again, 100% agree, parents sitting next to child should be a requirement. I agree that a child should not be sat away from their parent, because that is a bad time for everyone involved.

I just disagree that a child's seat should be allowed to be picked at random by the airline, forcing people to move who DID pick their seat. If an adult is booking a flight with a child, they should be required to book the child+parent seat even if that costs extra.

I believe all seats SHOULD be picked by passengers at the time of purchase, full stop. That was the way it had been as long as I had been flying, until they realized they could make more money by charging "seat selection" fees, now you have people who are the last to board because they got the cheapest seats who complain they aren't sitting with their travel partner. Which shouldn't be the problem of the airline or the passengers that picked their seat.

[afavour]

So you agree that a parent and child being sat together is beneficial for everyone but you want parents to bear that cost alone? Simple economics would tell us that results in parents not paying and more miserable passengers. Which isn't in anyone's interest.

Sometimes we're so focused on the concept of "fair" that we lose sight of the bigger picture.