is booking little children on basic economy a travel hack?

[ciao_yall]

So what happens on one of those flights when kiddoes seated apart from parents acts up, annoys paying customers, etc?

Not seating young children with their parents is batshit crazy.

[kaysixteen]

Yup, it's batshit crazy alright, but even if Scrooge Airways is doing this, parents have to suck it up and pay the premium class rate to get a guaranteed seat next to junior.  There really is a diff between kiddoes acting up whilst sitting next to mummsie, vs one acting out perhaps rows away from her.   IOW, in the latter case, the unattended child may well do very unacceptable things that mummsie would stop if she were sitting next to him, such as hit, kick, touch the 90yo next to him, etc.   No go, and there has to be some way for flight attendants to do somethng about this.

[onthefringe]

Ok, I am a proponent of not taking the chance that your kid will be seated away from you, and even provided a mechanism to ID airlines where it won't happen. But I also want to push back a bit on the idea that children on planes are always disruptive etc. and that's somehow their parent's fault. By far I have been more bothered by other adults who watch things on their computer without headphones, stick their (occasionally bare) feet on the back of my arm rest, try to take over my armrest or footwell, wear extreme amounts of perfume, pull on the back of my seat for no apparent reason etc. As long as parents are making a game effort to soothe their kid, I'm not going to think anything negative about them. Adults should generally be able to condider others and control their own behavior. Children sometimes can't, and it's just mean to blame that on parents on a plane who don't have access to the best method of calming kids down (removing them from the environment).

[EdnaMode]

My pre-academic job required a lot of travel and I have lifetime status with a particular airline so have a lot of experience flying. It may be a 'hack' to make travel cheaper for families but I have, on several occasions, refused to give up my paid-for seat for someone who could not be bothered to book seats that allowed them to sit with their children. It's really quite inconsiderate of them to ask. The few times I have moved, it's only been to a better seat. I've been seated by both annoying children and annoying adults on planes, have told manspreading men to get their legs out of my space, 'accidentally' dumped ice water on feet that were on my armrest, and tried unsuccessfully to sleep on a long-haul flight with a screaming infant behind me (actually felt bad for the parents, they were trying their best). Annoyances have always been part of air travel, but someone trying to save a few pennies should not inconvenience other passengers. It's just plain rude.

[ciao_yall]

It just seems that children seated away from their parents is a tantrum/freakout waiting to happen.

[lightning]

My pre-academic job required a lot of travel and I have lifetime status with a particular airline so have a lot of experience flying. It may be a 'hack' to make travel cheaper for families but I have, on several occasions, refused to give up my paid-for seat for someone who could not be bothered to book seats that allowed them to sit with their children. It's really quite inconsiderate of them to ask. The few times I have moved, it's only been to a better seat. I've been seated by both annoying children and annoying adults on planes, have told manspreading men to get their legs out of my space, 'accidentally' dumped ice water on feet that were on my armrest, and tried unsuccessfully to sleep on a long-haul flight with a screaming infant behind me (actually felt bad for the parents, they were trying their best). Annoyances have always been part of air travel, but someone trying to save a few pennies should not inconvenience other passengers. It's just plain rude.

I should be clearer about something, and I should have specified this detail earlier: I never once asked anyone to switch seats. That's Bull$hlt. It was the airlines themselves (without me asking) that seat-assigned Lightning children together with me, at check-in.

It seems that I am either really lucky, or I'm really, really lucky.

Also, I should add that I did this "travel hack" starting in the the Lightning childrens' tween years. I generally avoided travel on planes with them, when they were younger than the tween years. Traveling with very young children, in general, is a PITA, whether by plane, car, or train, so I just tried to avoid travel with them altogether, until they were older. (For example, Lightning childrens' grandparents had to come visit us during the holidays--not the other way around.)

[Parasaurolophus]

My pre-academic job required a lot of travel and I have lifetime status with a particular airline so have a lot of experience flying. It may be a 'hack' to make travel cheaper for families but I have, on several occasions, refused to give up my paid-for seat for someone who could not be bothered to book seats that allowed them to sit with their children. It's really quite inconsiderate of them to ask. The few times I have moved, it's only been to a better seat. I've been seated by both annoying children and annoying adults on planes, have told manspreading men to get their legs out of my space, 'accidentally' dumped ice water on feet that were on my armrest, and tried unsuccessfully to sleep on a long-haul flight with a screaming infant behind me (actually felt bad for the parents, they were trying their best). Annoyances have always been part of air travel, but someone trying to save a few pennies should not inconvenience other passengers. It's just plain rude.

When I fly alone (or with other adults) I always give up my seat to someone who's looking. I think it makes everyone's life easier. And let's be honest: I'm not flying first class, so the comfort difference between the seats is marginal at best.

I'm puzzled that you'd be both so unhappy to be sitting next to an unaccompanied child, but also so invested in punishing the child and the parents that you wouldn't trade seats with one of the parents. I mean, isn't that by definition a move to a better seat for you? Why make yourself miserable to make them miserable, when you could all come out of it happier?

[EdnaMode]

My pre-academic job required a lot of travel and I have lifetime status with a particular airline so have a lot of experience flying. It may be a 'hack' to make travel cheaper for families but I have, on several occasions, refused to give up my paid-for seat for someone who could not be bothered to book seats that allowed them to sit with their children. It's really quite inconsiderate of them to ask. The few times I have moved, it's only been to a better seat. I've been seated by both annoying children and annoying adults on planes, have told manspreading men to get their legs out of my space, 'accidentally' dumped ice water on feet that were on my armrest, and tried unsuccessfully to sleep on a long-haul flight with a screaming infant behind me (actually felt bad for the parents, they were trying their best). Annoyances have always been part of air travel, but someone trying to save a few pennies should not inconvenience other passengers. It's just plain rude.

When I fly alone (or with other adults) I always give up my seat to someone who's looking. I think it makes everyone's life easier. And let's be honest: I'm not flying first class, so the comfort difference between the seats is marginal at best.

I'm puzzled that you'd be both so unhappy to be sitting next to an unaccompanied child, but also so invested in punishing the child and the parents that you wouldn't trade seats with one of the parents. I mean, isn't that by definition a move to a better seat for you? Why make yourself miserable to make them miserable, when you could all come out of it happier?

I didn't say I was particularly unhappy, definitely not miserable, to sit by an unaccompanied child. I did say I'd been seated by annoying people, both children and adults, because that's all a part of air travel. I don't see me not wanting to move as punishing a child, perhaps it's punishing their parent for poor choices. The times I've been asked to move and I didn't, if I recall correctly, it was to a middle seat, no thanks, or from a seat with extra legroom to one further back that didn't have it, definitely not going to do that. I like my window seats with people on one side only, and seats that have enough legroom to be marginally comfortable because I'm tall. I still hold that parents who won't pay up front for seats by their children, and expect others to accommodate them, are selfish and cheap. And when I have flown with others, including children, I/we paid to make sure we were all seated together, and if the flight could not accommodate that, I/we did not ask other passengers to switch, nor did I/we ask the airline to switch things for us.

[Parasaurolophus]

I don't see me not wanting to move as punishing a child, perhaps it's punishing their parent for poor choices. T

Hmm. I guess it seems to me like not being seated with at least one parent is harder on the four year-old than the parents. But mine's only two, so maybe I'm wrong about that.

[Katrina Gulliver]

It just seems that children seated away from their parents is a tantrum/freakout waiting to happen.

You might be surprised then by how many parents book tickets for themselves in business/first and put their kids back in coach (not tiny children, but 10+). The kids aren't freaking out, they're kicking seats, spilling drinks, pestering the FAs every 2 minutes for another coke, watching all their videos on high volume without headphones, etc.

And they're not "unaccompanied minors" so they don't get that treatment either: their parents are on the plane, just blissfully out of earshot.

[apl68]

It just seems that children seated away from their parents is a tantrum/freakout waiting to happen.

You might be surprised then by how many parents book tickets for themselves in business/first and put their kids back in coach (not tiny children, but 10+). The kids aren't freaking out, they're kicking seats, spilling drinks, pestering the FAs every 2 minutes for another coke, watching all their videos on high volume without headphones, etc.

And they're not "unaccompanied minors" so they don't get that treatment either: their parents are on the plane, just blissfully out of earshot.

So they're effectively using the flight attendants as babysitters?  That's not cool.  It sounds a bit like the problem libraries had before smart phones became universal.  Parents would come to the library and spend hours on social media on library computers, while the children ran around unattended.

[kaysixteen]

Random observations and questions:

1) If mummsie and daddie decide to park the kiddoes in coach whilst living it up in first class, and the kiddoes behave poorly during the flight, methinks the lead FA should order that one of the parents give up their first class seat and trade it with an aggrieved involuntary coach neighbor of the kiddoes.   Both parents if necessary. What would induce the airlines to allow paying adult customers to be bothered by naughty children, in such instances?

2) Related to this, does anyone here who would be old enough to have flown as an adult say, 50 years ago, to note how different things in this respect were on US airline flights back then?

3) WRT apl's exposure to adults who occupy themselves with library computers or other things, allowing their children to rumpus about, bothering patrons, etc., is not the appropriate solution to tell parents to take their children and decamp?

[dismalist]

Random observations and questions:

1) If mummsie and daddie decide to park the kiddoes in coach whilst living it up in first class, and the kiddoes behave poorly during the flight, methinks the lead FA should order that one of the parents give up their first class seat and trade it with an aggrieved involuntary coach neighbor of the kiddoes.   Both parents if necessary. What would induce the airlines to allow paying adult customers to be bothered by naughty children, in such instances?

2) Related to this, does anyone here who would be old enough to have flown as an adult say, 50 years ago, to note how different things in this respect were on US airline flights back then?

3) WRT apl's exposure to adults who occupy themselves with library computers or other things, allowing their children to rumpus about, bothering patrons, etc., is not the appropriate solution to tell parents to take their children and decamp?

Hell, fifty years ago, we dressed up to fly! I even wore a tie.

As for the rest, all this is a standard externality -- spillover -- problem. The way to think about it is: Who owns the aircraft space, those who let their kids run loose, or those who want peace and quiet? From the point of view of the airline, the question is: Who will pay more, those who let their kids loose, or those who want peace and quiet?

From what I've learned from this thread, it's those who want peace and quiet who are willing to pay more. The airlines have learned this and charge accordingly.

The consequence of legislating or regulating peace and quiet standards would be to make it more expensive for those least willing to pay. Many of those people would then use cars or trains to travel rather than planes. But cars and even trains are less safe than planes! Thus, such regulations would cause more premature deaths!

Another way of dealing with externalities is self restraint, culture, though I hesitate to use the word. A norm -- everybody restrains their kids -- would make life easier for many, but not all. That self-restraint has disappeared, and I know of no way to bring it back.

Grin and bear it or pay more.

[Caracal]

My pre-academic job required a lot of travel and I have lifetime status with a particular airline so have a lot of experience flying. It may be a 'hack' to make travel cheaper for families but I have, on several occasions, refused to give up my paid-for seat for someone who could not be bothered to book seats that allowed them to sit with their children. It's really quite inconsiderate of them to ask. The few times I have moved, it's only been to a better seat. I've been seated by both annoying children and annoying adults on planes, have told manspreading men to get their legs out of my space, 'accidentally' dumped ice water on feet that were on my armrest, and tried unsuccessfully to sleep on a long-haul flight with a screaming infant behind me (actually felt bad for the parents, they were trying their best). Annoyances have always been part of air travel, but someone trying to save a few pennies should not inconvenience other passengers. It's just plain rude.

When I fly alone (or with other adults) I always give up my seat to someone who's looking. I think it makes everyone's life easier. And let's be honest: I'm not flying first class, so the comfort difference between the seats is marginal at best.

I'm puzzled that you'd be both so unhappy to be sitting next to an unaccompanied child, but also so invested in punishing the child and the parents that you wouldn't trade seats with one of the parents. I mean, isn't that by definition a move to a better seat for you? Why make yourself miserable to make them miserable, when you could all come out of it happier?

I didn't say I was particularly unhappy, definitely not miserable, to sit by an unaccompanied child. I did say I'd been seated by annoying people, both children and adults, because that's all a part of air travel. I don't see me not wanting to move as punishing a child, perhaps it's punishing their parent for poor choices. The times I've been asked to move and I didn't, if I recall correctly, it was to a middle seat, no thanks, or from a seat with extra legroom to one further back that didn't have it, definitely not going to do that. I like my window seats with people on one side only, and seats that have enough legroom to be marginally comfortable because I'm tall. I still hold that parents who won't pay up front for seats by their children, and expect others to accommodate them, are selfish and cheap. And when I have flown with others, including children, I/we paid to make sure we were all seated together, and if the flight could not accommodate that, I/we did not ask other passengers to switch, nor did I/we ask the airline to switch things for us.

Shouldn't it almost always be possible to be asking someone to switch from a similar seat. Not the same situation but I was on a flight with wife, baby and 6 year old the other day and for whatever reason there weren't seats available all together and I was one row up in the aisle and they were the middle and window behind me. It actually turned out that nobody was in the seat next to them, but if somebody was, I was going to see if they would switch with me, which I assume they would have been happy to do since they'd probably prefer the aisle seat not next to a baby.

Shouldn't you pretty much always be able to switch in a way that is acceptable? I guess if other people are sitting together that might be a problem, but most of the time there should be someone who either can get the same seat with no child or a seat they might actually prefer? At any rate, I've never been asked to switch to a seat that was worse for me.

[Puget]

Shouldn't it almost always be possible to be asking someone to switch from a similar seat.

Nope, because if you book basic economy tickets they are almost always going to be middle seats- so if you and kid(s) all have middle seats, there is no way to ask people to move in a way that lets you sit together without someone giving up a window or aisle seat for a middle seat. As someone who pays extra to have a window seat, sorry, but I'm not going to rectify the poor decision of parents to book basic economy by giving it up for a middle seat.