3 ms·

The upside of this is that you save $50 on your flight if you're willing to sit alone in a middle seat, thus making air travel more accessible to more people.

The upside of this is that you save $50 on your flight if you're willing to sit alone in a middle seat, thus making air travel more accessible to more people. $50 means a lot to some people. It's really all about how you perceive this. You see it as a hidden cost, others see it as a discount.

bruceb 3y ago
This is right. Cheap seats enable lower income people to travel. Airfare is (generally) cheaper than when it was regulated. That being said the US rule that requires airlines to give you 24hr window to cancel a flight after booking is great.
eigenvector 3y ago
It's not a hidden charge because as you said, you can still travel without paying it. And it provides a method of price discrimination between people who care where they sit and those who don't. A hidden charge would be if you had to pay for seat selection to sit anywhere at all and it wasn't included in the original price.
dghlsakjg 3y ago
The problem is that the person that a kid gets put next to isn’t a babysitter, and shouldn’t have to be one. I don’t want to have to explain to a kid that they need to put their phone in silent or use headphones, I don’t want to have to keep them from kicking the seat in front of them, etc. The reality is that there is a base level of decency that should exist. That includes not splitting up children from their guardians. If you want to charge people for picking their seats, fine. Charging parents to not be separated from their kids is just plain evil. Choosing your seat for $50, and seating a person with their legal companion (or disability aide), even if you didn’t pay extra, are possible at the same time. As an aside, I’m not entirely convinced that my ticket is $50 less than it would have been with seating fees.
- brewdad 3y ago
  It is quite obviously $50 cheaper. The people who picked their seats paid that $50. Again, you have an option here. If you must sit with you're party, you pay the fee. This isn't a junk fee. It is clearly presented when you select the type of ticket you wish to purchase. Your complaint has to do with price discrimination. Different levels of service have different prices the same way a Volkswagen costs less than an Audi made in the same factory.
  - dghlsakjg 3y ago
    You might have missed my point about the $50. I’m not saying it’s a junk fee, I’m saying it’s abusive to charge it to guardians of children. I’m also wondering if before the fee was added as an option the price was $50 more since everyone got to choose their seat. I suspect that the fare is about the same, but now you get to pay $50 more to choose your seat. You are also missing that there is an external cost of splitting up parents and children. The airline is shifting the cost of babysitting onto other passengers when it should be forced to be a responsibility/cost of the guardian. By the logic of the airline if I don't get to pick my seat, and get placed next to a minor, shouldn’t I get compensated more for that than someone who is sat next to a person who doesn’t need my assistance in an emergency? Should I also get compensated for not getting a drink, what about if I don’t use the restroom. At a certain point, it is ok to say that a part of living in society is that you don’t get to separate parents from their children. I understand the economic argument (You’ve used “price discrimination” incorrectly here, incidentally, since price discrimination has to do with receiving the same product at a different price, not receiving an additional service for an additional price). I’m just saying that this is irresponsible and unethical corporate behavior even if it is economically maximizing profit (in the short term anyway)
    - boring_twenties 3y ago
      How is babysitting the child next to you your problem? Just put your noise canceling headphones on and ignore them. If they're kicking the seat in front of them, that person can complain to the flight attendant or whatever

bruceb 3y ago

This is right. Cheap seats enable lower income people to travel. Airfare is (generally) cheaper than when it was regulated. That being said the US rule that requires airlines to give you 24hr window to cancel a flight after booking is great.

eigenvector 3y ago

It's not a hidden charge because as you said, you can still travel without paying it. And it provides a method of price discrimination between people who care where they sit and those who don't. A hidden charge would be if you had to pay for seat selection to sit anywhere at all and it wasn't included in the original price.

dghlsakjg 3y ago

The problem is that the person that a kid gets put next to isn’t a babysitter, and shouldn’t have to be one. I don’t want to have to explain to a kid that they need to put their phone in silent or use headphones, I don’t want to have to keep them from kicking the seat in front of them, etc. The reality is that there is a base level of decency that should exist. That includes not splitting up children from their guardians. If you want to charge people for picking their seats, fine. Charging parents to not be separated from their kids is just plain evil. Choosing your seat for $50, and seating a person with their legal companion (or disability aide), even if you didn’t pay extra, are possible at the same time. As an aside, I’m not entirely convinced that my ticket is $50 less than it would have been with seating fees.

brewdad 3y ago
It is quite obviously $50 cheaper. The people who picked their seats paid that $50. Again, you have an option here. If you must sit with you're party, you pay the fee. This isn't a junk fee. It is clearly presented when you select the type of ticket you wish to purchase. Your complaint has to do with price discrimination. Different levels of service have different prices the same way a Volkswagen costs less than an Audi made in the same factory.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  You might have missed my point about the $50. I’m not saying it’s a junk fee, I’m saying it’s abusive to charge it to guardians of children. I’m also wondering if before the fee was added as an option the price was $50 more since everyone got to choose their seat. I suspect that the fare is about the same, but now you get to pay $50 more to choose your seat. You are also missing that there is an external cost of splitting up parents and children. The airline is shifting the cost of babysitting onto other passengers when it should be forced to be a responsibility/cost of the guardian. By the logic of the airline if I don't get to pick my seat, and get placed next to a minor, shouldn’t I get compensated more for that than someone who is sat next to a person who doesn’t need my assistance in an emergency? Should I also get compensated for not getting a drink, what about if I don’t use the restroom. At a certain point, it is ok to say that a part of living in society is that you don’t get to separate parents from their children. I understand the economic argument (You’ve used “price discrimination” incorrectly here, incidentally, since price discrimination has to do with receiving the same product at a different price, not receiving an additional service for an additional price). I’m just saying that this is irresponsible and unethical corporate behavior even if it is economically maximizing profit (in the short term anyway)
  - boring_twenties 3y ago
    How is babysitting the child next to you your problem? Just put your noise canceling headphones on and ignore them. If they're kicking the seat in front of them, that person can complain to the flight attendant or whatever