I still remember the first time I ever really asserted myself as an adult. I was 20 and flying back from Japan and had reserved an aisle seat. A woman asked me to switch with her 12 year old in the middle row ahead so she could sit with him. I said no because there was no way I was spending a 14 hour flight in a middle seat, especially for an older kid. If it had been a toddler, maybe. Everyone around me gave me dirty looks but I noticed no one else offered to switch either. The lady made a big scene and the flight attendant instructed me to give her my seat and then bumped me to first class. It was amazing. I flew back and forth from Japan regularly for several years and that was the only time I ever arrived feeling okay and not exhausted from the flight. But obviously wouldn't happen now with the way flights are over-subscribed.

Anyway, whatever. The man paid for the seat, he wasn't wrong. He could have been kinder if he'd wanted but that's not the same as being wrong.

Anonymous wrote:I'd never ask someone in a better seat to switch with me but I'd give up my two better seats to sit next to my child.

The person who paid for his better seat has every right, moral and etiquette accounted for, to refuse to move in this case.

Yup. If it's worth it to sit next to your child, you offer to trade with someone who has a WORSE seat, not a better seat.
And you do your very best (including paying for reserved seats) to avoid this outcome.

I'd never ask someone in a better seat to switch with me but I'd give up my two better seats to sit next to my child.

The person who paid for his better seat has every right, moral and etiquette accounted for, to refuse to move in this case.

So stupid. All the seats (not in first class) should be the same price. The difference between seats is minimal.

You've never spent a long flight in a middle seat between two fat people, have you?

Maybe it's confusing and there is no ill intent. It's always hard to say in a given situation.

If it really is confusing, then the standard fare should be to be able to choose this. If you don't need the ability to chose and are willing to take a less desirable seat, then there can be non-standard pricing for those willing.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/two-kids-two-parents-no-overhead-bags-or-reserved-seats-could-they-survive-economy-light/2019/08/08/b6332854-afbd-11e9-bc5c-e73b603e7f38_story.html

This thread made me think of this article. Despite saying that the fare was not family-friendly for seating, the writer booked anyway.

They are really entitled. They had two seats together. The 9 year old and parent sit together and when they get to the gate, they try to get the 12 year old with a parent. They should not all expect to sit together.

Anonymous wrote:Airlines need to stop extorting parents. It should be automatic parents get seated next to their minor child. They shouldn’t have to pay extra fees to be able to supervise their own child.

They are extorting everyone. Don't like it, don't fly.

I agree with the PP that the default should be to a middle price (and the ability to chose seats), with an *offered* discount if you agree to be assigned seats without ability to chose in advance; i.e., often solitary middle seats that nobody wants.

There is something about the mindset that changes when it is reframed. It's also harder to act surprised if it is called something like "the unassignable seat discount", rather than the basic fare. Make it unavailable to people who are flying with children or anyone needing their assistance, and make that a screen you have to scroll through and click to accept.

I mean, some people will still get outraged, but it's harder to justify that, even to yourself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes the airlines make it very hard, you book seats together and then when you show up at the airport your young child gets a seat rows away. I think this should be on the airline to deal with, why do their systems even allow a young child to be seated away from the adult they are flying with? I get why this guy was annoyed and completely empathize with the parent.

This has happened to us when we have been required to book on the US carrier b/c of USG rules and the flight is a code share. It can be really difficult to select seats.

That said - two things - 1) I don't think this guy is wrong. The airlines have the ability to save the bulkhead for families with very young kids. In fact, they used to do just that! Our regulatory agencies and we as passengers have allowed them to monetize every single piece of air travel. 2) Congress has actually tried to address families being seated together - the airlines came up with basic economy in response to being required to seat families together.

Slightly puzzled as to how basic economy is a response to families wanting to be seated together—now they just buy the cheapest seats and then make a fuss.

Yeah, they should warn people who are about to buy those tickets that they won’t be able to sit with their family. Oh, wait…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes the airlines make it very hard, you book seats together and then when you show up at the airport your young child gets a seat rows away. I think this should be on the airline to deal with, why do their systems even allow a young child to be seated away from the adult they are flying with? I get why this guy was annoyed and completely empathize with the parent.

This has happened to us when we have been required to book on the US carrier b/c of USG rules and the flight is a code share. It can be really difficult to select seats.

That said - two things - 1) I don't think this guy is wrong. The airlines have the ability to save the bulkhead for families with very young kids. In fact, they used to do just that! Our regulatory agencies and we as passengers have allowed them to monetize every single piece of air travel. 2) Congress has actually tried to address families being seated together - the airlines came up with basic economy in response to being required to seat families together.

Slightly puzzled as to how basic economy is a response to families wanting to be seated together—now they just buy the cheapest seats and then make a fuss.

Anonymous wrote:Sometimes the airlines make it very hard, you book seats together and then when you show up at the airport your young child gets a seat rows away. I think this should be on the airline to deal with, why do their systems even allow a young child to be seated away from the adult they are flying with? I get why this guy was annoyed and completely empathize with the parent.

This has happened to us when we have been required to book on the US carrier b/c of USG rules and the flight is a code share. It can be really difficult to select seats.

That said - two things - 1) I don't think this guy is wrong. The airlines have the ability to save the bulkhead for families with very young kids. In fact, they used to do just that! Our regulatory agencies and we as passengers have allowed them to monetize every single piece of air travel. 2) Congress has actually tried to address families being seated together - the airlines came up with basic economy in response to being required to seat families together.

Anonymous wrote:So stupid. All the seats (not in first class) should be the same price. The difference between seats is minimal. Parents shouldn’t have to pay extra to sit next to their kid. There would be a lot less seat bickering is all the prices were equal.

Agree that's how it SHOULD be, but in the meantime, its not a stranger's job to accommodate that. Period.

Airlines need to stop extorting parents. It should be automatic parents get seated next to their minor child. They shouldn’t have to pay extra fees to be able to supervise their own child.

So stupid. All the seats (not in first class) should be the same price. The difference between seats is minimal. Parents shouldn’t have to pay extra to sit next to their kid. There would be a lot less seat bickering is all the prices were equal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/travel/two-kids-two-parents-no-overhead-bags-or-reserved-seats-could-they-survive-economy-light/2019/08/08/b6332854-afbd-11e9-bc5c-e73b603e7f38_story.html

This thread made me think of this article. Despite saying that the fare was not family-friendly for seating, the writer booked anyway.

I'd vote for:

- People who paid extra for good seats shouldn't ever have to move to cheaper seats, except in a life-or-death emergency. Example: To get that person with the great seat away from someone with Ebola.

- Nice people with ordinary seats should accommodate parents of children under about 8 if the parents and the children have been separated because of unexpected travel problems, such as flight cancellations that have disrupted a family's travel plans, or because the airline changed planes and failed to give a parent and small child adjacent seats.

- Other travelers don't have any moral obligation to move if parents had a chance to book adjacent seats and were too cheap or foolish to do so. But, in a situation like that, I personally would probably move, just to be nice.

How would anyone ever know?