https://www.cbsnews.com/news/child-seating-airlines-us-ban-proposal-buttigieg-department-of-transportation-dot/
Airlines would be required to put kids 13 and under next to an accompanying adult for free under a new proposed rule.
13 only? I'd like that option all the way to 18. 1) 14 year olds can be harassed or taken advantage of. 2) If I'm legally responsible for their behavior, I want to be nearby.
Between this and the airbag thing, the USA just continues to blow my mind like, "Just when you couldn't think they couldn't be second-class citizens any more..... BAM!!! Here's some shit developed nations didn't even consider could be a thing."
We'd send aid, but with that GDP, just assumed everyone super rich. You're all super rich, right? Well looked after? Healthy? Educated?... Aight I'll stop.
You're all (mostly) actually really nice people and don't deserve this shit. Excellent huggers too.
My girlfriend is Mexican. Her family have property all over the country. She's also a Chilean resident. We're considering Santiago. (Mexico is a mess most places.) I've also considered a few locations near the Spain/France border, but that would take more effort.
I'm an independent consultant and can work anywhere.
Ahhh, that’s a nice set up. Lucky! Really, I was asking because people love to say “fuck this country, I’m going to another!”, without really taking into consideration the figurative mountain you will have to climb to get there. That is to say, it’s extremely difficult to immigrate out of the US.
Also, I’d love a job like that. I’d be more interested in WFH flat out, but being able to do “whatever you want” and not have that negatively impact work would be nice as well.
Most Americans are so fucking brainwashed to think this the best country. Tell me you've never been overseas without saying you've never left the country.
Every time I return, I go into a massive depression.
I know it all too well, from liberals to conservatives. I’ve been out of the country only a handful of times and it’s pretty incredible experiencing other cities. I’ve only been to London, Frankfurt and Venice, but it’s so cool not having a car and not needing it. There are some examples of that in the US, but it is NOT the norm.
Not to mention the violence (or, lack thereof comparatively)
Ooo. Near the Spain/France border is where I want to be. Climbing, wine, a melting pot of culture, and the beautiful Pyrenees range.
I give it about 4 minutes before airlines add a completely unrelated fee and a credit for not picking seats.
So I don't get all this. Everything I buy tickets, I choose my seats unless I fly southwest. And even they are going to move to assigned seats.
Is this a new thing that you don't get to pick your seats on some airlines? And if so, do they not seat everyone in your reservation together?
You've never flown budget airlines like Frontier, Spirit then. They'll charge you $20-$100 to pick seats (per seat)
And also even on mainline carriers like American/Delta with Basic Economy fares they do much the same
So I don’t get all this. Everything I buy tickets, I choose my seats unless I fly southwest. And even they are going to move to assigned seats.
At least when my kids were young, you'd have to pay extra to pick a seat, at least if you purchased through Expedia or Travelocity.
And if so, do they not seat everyone in your reservation together?
You know how you print your boarding pass and it has your seats? When my kids were young on multiple trips via United, AA and Delta, the boarding pass would not have a seat assignment and we'd have to go the gate agent at every gate, even on the same airline if it was not a direct flight and get our seats assigned last minute. So no, we weren't always seated together. On one flight, none of us were in the same row with anyone in our family.
Since we were scraping by back then we always booked months in advance for cheaper tickets. I thought originally it was a fluke with just United but after the next trip, I had learned to pay extra and pick seats ahead of time.
That has to be seriously outdated before digital tickets. I’ve been flying United with kids for 16 years and haven’t had to pay extra to pick seats.
United only instituted a family seating policy last year so that people with kids under 12 could freely pick seats next to each other.
Seat selections are extra most of the time. If I'm traveling on a budget the cost of the seat is the same as a meal so I don't pick it
The worst offender is Turkish airlines that charges $40 per person per leg of trip, so I'd need to pay $160 to pick seats for my upcoming trip to SEA
Lately, airlines tend to separate travellers who reserve together, probably so they'll spend extra to change seats.
Early next year.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/southwest-seating-change-what-it-means/
There's hundreds of stories on this, not sure what the best news source is for this info, but there's a ton.
Inb4 the airline companies cry "Chevron" and the Supreme Court gets to decide strike it down.
That's not what the Chevron doctrine was. The Chevron doctrine stated that courts should defer to agency interpretations of the law.
If they don't have this instituted already, if I were a parent, I'd say "Yeah, ok. You can keep me not seated with my kid. But what are you going ho do when they start crying, and kicking and punching because they're in an unfirmiliar environment, surrounded by strangers, with no firmiliar faces? How are YOU going to calm my kids down? Because you're saying right now that you're taking away MY ability to do so, so then it just becomes YOUR legal responsibility who he hits, or kicks, or bites, because he's scared. Because what are YOU going to do? Smack a kid? You think you could calm him down without violence? The whole reason he's scared is because planes are scary, and strangers are scary. You think you, a stranger, will in any way help the situation? Oh, you just found seats together for us? Yeah. I thought so."
I've flown with a 2 and 3 year old on budget airlines. And just not booked seats because. They legally can't separate toddlers from parents. Every time they just seat us in the back all 4 together.
Makes sense. Otherwise, the flight attendants end up having to ask for volunteers to play musical chairs to make sure they have a place to sit together.
On flights with sufficient seating, I’ve seen families shuffle themselves around to find seating together. Glad there will be a better way to do this now
Biden ordered the FAA to tell airlines to not charge to seat families with young kids together. This was respected by most airlines, but not all, I think. Alaska Airlines, at least, was good about it, but it was annoying since you always had to do it at the gate and was subject to availability.
I'd pay not to sit next to kids.
Maybe that's the route they should take. Doesn't even matter if you're a parent, perhaps you're just sick of the little shits
You mean you dont enjoy getting your seat kicked while listening to wailing for hours in a cramped cabin?
airlines would be required to seat parents and kids 13 and younger together free of charge when adjacent seating is available at booking.
They should even go further and require to move other passengers if neccessary, so that the families can sit together always, no matter what.
No they shouldn't go even further. A parent's inability to plan ahead should not penalize those of us who do.
I specifically purchase my seat because that's where I want to sit, center aisle because I have a slight medical condition and the extra (occasional) leg room helps mitigate it.
Check your unearned parental privileges at the door mate.
Don't airlines usually charge a bit extra to pick your own seat? I'd imagine/hope that there are enough people selecting the cheaper "whatever" option that they're going to bump one of those.
What I would not like is for a parent to pay for the upgraded seat next to me and then I get bumped to accommodate their child.
I'd imagine this system would bump the parties to the cheapest seats of the group, since the airline would NOT want to deal with people using this to steal upgrades
Nah, that ain't it. If I book my seat and then find out that I got moved for a kid, I'll be pretty annoyed.
What happens when the only way to seat a family together is to break up another family. What if you need to separate a couple who is engaged and traveling together?
I would be sad if my wife and I got split up to accommodate a parent and child. But we'd get over it because we're adults and the parent/child need adjacent seats more than we do.
Would that couple want to sit next to an unattended child bc the airline refused to keep the family together?
What happens when the only way to seat a family together is to break up another family.
Then their software may be clueless, so it needs some Natural Intelligence [tm], and maybe even an experienced person to solve that.
I am sure there will be a way. Most planes can carry more than 2 families.
What if you need to separate a couple who is engaged and traveling together?
They are going to survive ;-)
No problem at all.
separate a couple who is engaged and traveling together?
we call those people adults and understand that they have less requirements than children.
Fuck that noise. Plan ahead. I’ll repeat what someone else said. Parents shitty planning doesn’t become my problem. I pick the seat I want.
This only became a problem because airlines started charging extra to pick your seats. That practice is what should be made illegal. Splitting up a group because they didn't want to pay your extortion fee is BS.
I guess I don’t have that problem with Alaska Airlines. I agree with no fees for choosing seats. But after that it’s fair game.
I'm usually sat together with my wife but a couple of times we have been separated by a row or two. We have always been able to switch seats with someone so it's not a huge deal for us but it's annoying. Especially when we buy are tickets at the time as one purchase and one of us gets sat next to someone flying alone or another person separated from their party... Those cases its obvious the airline separated you for no reason other than to punish you for not paying the fee.
That’s totally fair and I agree there should be no fees for that. My airline doesn’t charge for choosing seats, at least when booking directly with them. So that’s my frame of reference. My only point of contention is that while boarding I don’t wanna move my seat because someone else couldn’t pay or didn’t plan in advance. At least, I want it to be my decision and not forced on me.
How do you expect someone to plan ahead for a death in the family?
Not everyone is flying on vacation...
And so they MUST sit together? How many people are flying for a death in the family or emergency vs a vacation or planned trip anyways?
You realize that this is about people under the age of 13 right?
So it's just having two people sit together, a parent/guardian and a child.
What needs does a 10 year old have for a 3 hour flight? Besides go to the bathroom or hears your snacks.
Your sacred planning (as well as your convenience) isn't worth more than their right to take care of their children. Sorry, you loose.
LOL what a load of entitled BS.
Again, taking care of your children means taking care of your children. Your failure to be a good parent is not the responsibility of the seat I paid to sit in.
Ridiculous. Quit projecting your own shitty parenting on other responsible adults.
You lose, by the way, not “loose”. Maybe you should take some of those grade school English classes with your kids.
I mean apparently not since that’s not the case in today’s reality. So I guess I don’t lose?
Their lack of planning and inability to plan ahead is their own problem to deal with and not the problem of people who can actually plan ahead to handle their own affairs. Cope harder
No. Removing fees for parent and young children makes sense, but if I've paid extra to choose my seat I'm not OK with being moved for someone else's lack of planning. Not my parent and not my kid so my life doesn't revolve around them. If someone were to ask me if I could move in that situation that's one thing. But even then it would be well within my rights to say no.
I agree to an extent. It would be beneficial if they could book any AVAILABLE seats together for free. This practice should be standard for everyone.
being surrounded by entitled twat passengers who think the world is obliged to accommodate them is one of many many reasons i refuse to ever fly again
Disagree. I have a four year old and have flown with them. I made it a point to select for seat reservations when booking everything. That’s my responsibility and someone else shouldn’t lose their selected seat because I planned poorly.
I’m not entitled to someone else’s seat.
Why? Can people not sit apart for a few hours? I agree with no charging but moving because you didn’t book in advance with enough time to sit together shouldn’t result in others being inconvenienced.
This specific thread is responding to this comment, not the original article:
They should even go further and require to move other passengers if neccessary, so that the families can sit together always, no matter what.
Which is maybe why there's a big disconnect between you and all the comments you're replying to
Do not move my fucking seat without my consent. I booked early to make certain I could have it. The families can take another flight. Fucking hell. Flying is miserable enough already without being shuffled into a middle seat because of someone else's problem.
Why is this something that needs to be mandatory by law? Some airlines voluntary do it, and there is usually more than one airline to choose from unless you're flying to a really small airport. Recently I flew on an airline that charged $50 for carry-on luggage (I didn't bring any because it was cheaper to buy new clothing when I arrived) and $5 for a glass of water. I deliberately chose this airline because it was the cheapest. I like having the "lowest price but we deliberately treat you like shit" option available if the alternative is paying even a little more and apparently lots of other people do too. I don't want to lose it.
Next stop, you'll be defending having the option of "even cheaper but they may have skipped some security and safety checks on the plane"... I DoNT waNT tO LOse iT!
Possibly I would defend that option. Flying is so safe that even a large increase in relative risk corresponds to a tiny increase in absolute risk. Absolute risk rather than relative risk is what matters to me, so maybe I would choose to fly on an airline that was, say, twice as dangerous in order to save fifty bucks. I suspect that the FAA prioritizes safety over cost savings significantly more than most consumers would if given the choice.
(And I might even pay more to fly on an airline with reduced security.)
so maybe I would choose to fly on an airline that was, say, twice as dangerous in order to save fifty bucks
so your life, as per your own evaluation, is worth about $50 savings... good to know, now I can value your opinion based on that.
You're confusing "an increase of 100%" with "an increase to 100%". An increase of 100% means something is twice as dangerous as it was before, not that it will certainly cause death.
The last flight I took covered a distance of approximately 2,500 miles. Estimates of aviation safety vary based on the time period considered but Wikipedia says:
The number of deaths per passenger-mile on commercial airlines in the United States between 2000 and 2010 was about 0.2 deaths per 10 billion passenger-miles.
If we use that estimate, a 100% increased risk corresponds to an additional chance of dying of 0.000005%. According to actuarial tables, a person my age has a chance to die on any particular day of roughly 0.001%. This means that doubling my chance of dying on that flight is about as dangerous as just living my normal life for 432 seconds.
(The data from the actuarial table is the weighted average over the large majority of time that a person is very safe and much shorter intervals of much greater danger, so 432 seconds is actually an underestimate. I think my point stands.)
You’re confusing “an increase of 100%” with “an increase to 100%”. An increase of 100% means something is twice as dangerous as it was before, not that it will certainly cause death.
No, I understood it. The thing is I would never want a corporation deciding what risk I should take so they are more profitable.
What you describe is a race to the bottom and even when it's currently more or less hypothetical, we have already seen, recently in this industry, how penny pinching can lead to people's deaths.
There is zero (ZERO) logic for airlines to charge customers to chose a seat except greed. You are so brain washed by the idea that it is the right of corporations to be as greedy as possible that you are now completely blind to it.
I also wouldn't want a corporation deciding what risk I should take. That's why I support safety ratings. They're probably not practical for airplanes, but they work well for automobiles. The government tests how safe cars are and then lets me make an informed choice between buying the safest car or prioritizing something else.
As for greed: price discrimination is the reason why airlines have all those charges for things that don't cost anything to provide. It actually benefits people who can't or won't pay much at the expense of people who can and will. (Of course it benefits the airlines too.) Here I trust greed more than I trust government regulation because deregulation made tickets a lot cheaper. Even the Atlantic (not exactly a conservative publication) is in favor of fees because they make flying more affordable.
