AIRLINES are increasingly charging to let passengers reserve window and aisle seats, leaving families stuck paying extra to sit together. This is good news for some business travellers—some of the extra-fee seats are being handed out free-of-charge to high-status frequent flyers. But the airlines have to be careful here as the shifts in policy are drawing increased scrutiny from the media. The Associated Press had a story earlier this week that was fairly critical of the phenomenon. And now Chuck Schumer, a Democratic senator from New York, is wading into the issue. The AP again:
Schumer is asking Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to issue rules preventing airlines from charging parents more to sit next to kids. He is also asking the industry's trade group, Airlines for America, to persuade carriers to voluntarily waive the fee for families.
"A parent should not have to pay a premium to supervise and protect their child on an airplane," Schumer wrote in a letter expected to be sent Sunday to Nicholas E. Calio, the trade group's president.
The airlines would note that they still make efforts to seat families together. But it's becoming increasingly difficult to make such arrangements online, in advance. Sometimes, you have to call a special number listed in the fine print that many customers may not notice.
In 2010, Mr Schumer got five big American airlines to promise not to charge fees for carry-on bags, so it's possible that a voluntary pledge could resolve this, too. But airlines struggling to expand profit margins in a not-very-profitable business are going to keep running into customer pushback and threats of government regulation as long as they keep introducing policies that are easy to criticise. (Advising politicians to stop weighing in on these issues is as futile as telling grass to stop being green.)
Here's a hint: politicians and consumer advocates are going to have a very hard time protesting against increases in base ticket prices. If airlines think the market will bear it, they should just charge more and stop making everyone's life more difficult with complicated added fees. We're moving towards a system that both hides the true price of flying and adds to travellers' annoyances. That's too bad. There's something to be said for simplicity.
Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
I'm not sure what it costs for airlines to provide certain services. But, I think offering more services as a standard and raising the cost of every ticket accordingly would be fair. I think they should raise the cost of every ticket by let's say 10 dollars on flights longer then 3 hours to cover the cost of a meal for those who mention that they would like one or perhaps an additional 5 on top of that to cover the cost of free wifi. As for baggage, free carry-on's and depending on length of flight, a free checked bag as well or perhaps more reasonable fee. Or perhaps just simply base cost on weight of a customer plus an averaged amount for luggage etc... i'm not trying to pick on big people... but with fuel costs and whatnot, weight is a factor and fuel is a huge cost to airlines.
When we flew to India, I had put our family of five (including kids 5,7, and 10) together. I had to do this twice, since the airline reorganized the seats without notifying me by the email I had supplied. When we came to the airport, the seats had again been changed. The airline refused to accommodate us, leaving us to plead with other passengers to trade seats with us, both with Chicago passenger and passengers in Frankfurt, which was a sudden addition to our nonstop flight. We were not even given the choice of paying more to be put together.
Remember the "Ransom of the Red Chief" by O. Henry?
By my experience, the families still get to sit together if they complain loudly enough. I have had airplane staff try to muscle me and other passengers out of window and aisle seats into last-row middle seats for a long-haul flight, so that a family could sit together in a more comfortable part of the airplane. :-P Why they do not just address these items in the terminal is beyond me.
A harassed passenger might pay a fee to move one of those disruptive children away and next to the parent. That might generate some revenue.
This is an atack to the families and to the person too. They are exploiting your customers and we have to do something about it. God bless America! It need so much!
I have been telling my friends for years that it is a contest between the airlines and the Federal government to determine who can do the most damage to the air travel industry. The airlines are in the lead right now -- time for TSA to issue a monumentally stupid announcement to make up lost ground.
AMTRAK just keeps looking better and better.
Too bad that Amtrak has lousy connections to Europe and Asia. :-)
In that case, build a railway connection from Fairbanks all the way to Nikolayevsk-Na-Amur, and connect into the Siberian Railway, with an option to extend across Mamiya and Soya straits to Japan. :-)
I get the sense that the airline industry is on the cusp of being taken to the woodshed. Enough with this; "you're just lucky we're letting you fly" attitude. I'm resigned to never experience the glamor of the travel of yesteryear, but I will not go softly into the barbaric night either. Enough!
http://heresheisboys.com/2011/11/13/grieving-on-a-jet-plane/
The issue of airlines wishing to charge for family seating really does not make sense.
If we choose not to pay this fee, then a very vocal and active 6 year old would be seated elsewhere on the plane next to a stranger who will then need to be able to cope with her needs during a trans-Atlantic light while my wife and I are able to take a nap. We get a free, in-flight baby-sitter - what a great idea!
Perhaps the airlines should consider charging single/non-family passengers a fee NOT to have lone children next to them on a flight? I am amazed that this does not seem to have occurred to any of them - surely the number of potential passengers that could then be ripped off would be much greater?
Beeyem, TX
I had an airline tell me there would be a $15 fee to sit next to my two year old. I declined, and asked the ticketing agent to page the person who would be sitting next to my daughter so that I could explain her dietary restrictions and current toilet training procedures. She gave me a dirty look and changed our seat assignments to seat us together.
I had the same reaction - do I want to pay extra to sit next to an air-sick child or should I let the airline charge someone else extra for the privileged of looking after the sick child?
Don't think the airline would get much repeat business from the business traveler who paid to be next to a sick un-accompanied child.
It is so sad to see how children each day more become an annoyance to society - and an object of exploitation for business.
There's another issue with charging families to sit together - negative impact on other passengers.
I don't want to pay to choose a first row aisle seat, only to find the middle seat occupied by a scared, noisy child with rest of the family elsewhere in the cabin. The disturbance it'll cause me is worth exchanging seats with them even if it's a non reclining middle!
If anything, families should be given free, priority seating together to spare rest of the cabin any negative impact.
Also, strongly agree on the need to re-mark the base fares to include all kinds of fees and surcharges. Not just in the US, but here in UK/Europe and back in India as well.
That's what I thought. Instead of charging families to sit with children, the airlines could make more passing a collection plate among the other passengers to reunite mommy with her little darling.
As a parent to young children, I would like to remind other adults that they were also children at one point. They very likely were also noisy and restless when they were young. We are all born to become barbarians and the process of civilization does not occur overnight. In fact, it may take decades to occur.
My children are not the worst in behavior, but neither are they perfect Victorian angels. They did fairly well on our long hauls to India, but sometimes they are tired.
I would suggest that people who prefer to to be accosted by children and other adults travel by car or merchant marine, where you can be by yourself most of the time. The idea that one would travel and not be exposed to the noise and tumult of humanity might surprise travelers like Mark Twain.
There are plenty of things airlines can do to improve their profits and service without adding charges to every aspect of flying.
Last week, on a flight from Cincinnati to Chicago, my husband, six-year-old son and I were given seats in entirely separate parts of the cabin. We had to beg our way into having two seats together, so that at least one of us could look after our son. What I don't understand is how airline policy could potentially allow a six-year-old to travel by himself, and have him dependent on strangers sitting next to him. How could it even have been possible for the seating arrangement to have happened in the first place?
I almost wish we'd stuck with the original seating plan and seen what some uptight business travellers had to say to the airline about the unscheduled babysitting they'd be forced into.
Doesn't FAA have any safety standards regarding minimum age at which a child can be seated alone in an aeroplane?
I don't know about the US specifically but on British Airways the youngest age that a child can fly unaccompanied (no parents at all, just the stewardess to look after you) used to be 5 years old. This was about twenty years ago now. My parents managed to get them to take my brother and me, even though my brother was actually a week short of his fifth birthday. I was six. I should add that we were both very good and didn't disturb the other passengers at all.
I am puzzled as to how the airlines don't realise that such measures make them look petty, rather than seeming to charge fairer prices.
Maybe because airline CEOs ARE indeed petty?
I don't think they care how they look. Even if you don't like 'em, you're still going to fly. There's just no alternative.
Of course there is, for many circumstances: drive, train, don't go. That certainly covers a lot of my vacations. I used to fly a couple times a month for pleasure. No longer - flying is too unpleasant and the charges too petty.
Cars are only good for regional transportation, unless you want to turn your vacation into a road trip. Trains are even less useful connecting only cities within a given region. You can limit your trips, but you can't eliminate them without causing yourself a great discomfort.
The UK tabloids would have a field day with this one. There is already enough paranoia about paedophilia. All it would take was one case rightly judged by Max Clifford or someone of his ilk & any airline enforcing this policy would be shot down in flames.
Could be fun to watch.
Do I understand this correctly: either I can pay more to have my kids sit with me or get free baby sitting? Tough choice.
Wrong, it means either you pay more or your kids will be seated next to a paedophile :P
Yeah except that could also happen to you. You might be sitting next to some strangers kid and now you have to baby sit them. Then I would assume you would rather watch your own child.
I hate to have unattributed studies or articles thrust at me, so forgive me for remembering one (I think it was about a year ago)that claimed that children are molested more by parents than by strangers.
I don't remember what the figure was for kids molesting flight attendants, their parents or strangers, but it might be significant. There is lots of room for conflict here.
"I hate to have unattributed studies or articles thrust at me, so forgive me for remembering one (I think it was about a year ago)that claimed that children are molested more by parents than by strangers."
Considering how intolerant the definition of 'child molestation' has become in the last 20 years (thanks to the PC crowd), I'm not surprised.
I bathe together with my children [common practice in bath-mad Japan] regularly, and THAT would probably be classified as 'child molestation' these days... :P
I like the idea of the avoidance of differential pricing as a status indicator for better airlines.
On a recent Qatar airlines flight I came up with a different wheeze - auctioning the right to sit next to an empty seat. It'd involve some notification of how busy the flight is at the time of posting a bid, so bids could respond to changes in supply. Then the free seats are allocated according to the highest bids. Pricing could also reflect whether your prefered seat is, in itself, a window or aisle.
On a night flight from LHR to Doha, for instance, I'd have easily forked out £20 to keep the seat next to me empty.
@npw99
"auctioning the right to sit next to an empty seat. "
Now, that making something that used to be random luck controllable AND chargeable, so passengers are getting something positive for their money.
Exactly - and allows the airlines to target a very specific group of passengers (probably the same ones who are familiar with sites like seatguru.com!).
Why not buy the sit(s) adjacent to your desired sit - or better fly 1st Class?
This empty-seat option is already offered on some airlines - see www.optiontown.com .
BTW, the reason why airlines don't want to increase the base rate is simple: Frequent flier miles.
Fuel surcharges can be collected even on 'free' flights, so suddenly your gift flight to Hawaii for your parents costs $900 (75,000 yen)! REGARDLESS OF THE AIRLINE CHOSEN. The surcharge was identical for ANA, JAL, UA, and AA. IF this is not a cartel, what is?
You're fortunate they only change you 25% taxes/surcharges. Ibera-fare GYE-MAD = USD 524 + 523 USD taxes, a full 100%
"Ibera-fare GYE-MAD = USD 524 + 523 USD taxes, a full 100%"
Madrid-Guayaquil is similar in distance to Tokyo-Honolulu, so it's the cheap fare rather than the expensive surcharge that has caused the 100% markup.
Cheap, indeed: we pay more or less the same as 20 years ago... But it's all these tricks that makes are fares so mysterious - and definitely user-unfriendly. Other example: environment conscious KLM offers GYE-AMS at +/- 1500 USD, while GYE-AMS-MAD costs 818 USD. And IF you think you can to get cheap to AMS, by skipping AMS-MAD, you're wrong !
Well, the elephant in the living room here is fuel "surchages". When 'surcharge' has been in place for more than 5 years AND exceeds 25% of the rate available from official airline site, isn't it high time to revise the official rates and include the surcharges in the full price? I know why airlines aren't doing it, and I think it's high time anti-trust agencies worldwide should look into a possible cartel case?
FYI, the numbers of 25% of the rate available from official airline site comes from Tokyo-Honolulu route, which is one of the worst one I could find from Tokyo.