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

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)