Some pretty stark and mind blowing comments by UA's Kirby who doesn't seem to care that parents can wind up sitting apart from their children because of all the latest charges and fees to pay for just about everything; Kirby actually defends family separation on airplanes. He compares buying a ticket for a flight to that of buying a ticket for a performance or a concert. I mean, when I go to a concert, its because I want to enjoy a performance and therefore will pay to get closer to the stage, when most people fly, its because they have to, not because they fly purely for the enjoyment factor.

I will reserve comment (for obvious reasons) but he comes across sounding very arrogant and not caring at all about families that wish to travel and sit together but cant because of the latest move to restrict the selection of free seats even more. I think sometimes its better to keep your mouth shut or at least pretend that you care.

That makes business sense. But is it fair? These policies make it tough for families to sit next to each other without paying extra fees.

Kirby: Look, when you go to a concert, do you think you should pay the same price to sit in the nosebleed seats or to sit up front?

Really? That's the best excuse he can come up with?

https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com ... ment-fees/

The concert example is wrong IMo.
You’re getting better “service” for sitting at the front of a concert, just like F seats on a plane, thus you pay more. It’s not about together or not.
Young kids sitting by themselves should be a safety issue.

I recall having to pay more for upfront seats at theater just like I have to pay more for a seat in the upfront cabin of an aircraft, however I can't recall having to pay extra for neighboring seats in theater

alex0easy wrote:

The concert example is wrong IMo.

It is. It was a pretty poor analogy.

c933103 wrote:

I recall having to pay more for upfront seats at theater just like I have to pay more for a seat in the upfront cabin of an aircraft, however I can't recall having to pay extra for neighboring seats in theater

True, but only if you book early enough. Leave it too late and you'll be lucky to find a block of seats for the nuclear family of four all together. Same with planes.

My argument to Kirby would be "Fine. You seat my kids away from me, your FAs can look after them, because, you know, I have to keep my seatbelt on."

Nowhere does he say that families should have to pay more to sit together, nor does he say that there should or will be such a fee. I don't think the headline or OP are accurate.

He is defending the soon-to-be UA policy of charging for seats at the front of the E- cabin. The interviewer asks about whether that reduces options for families wanting to sit together, but he dodges the family part of the question to more plainly defend the new fees for the seats in the front.

Quoting this so people can see it in here without having to open the link:

You’ll soon start charging extra fees for what you consider more desirable coach seats. They won’t have extra legroom or any other amenities. Why?

Kirby: Well, we’ve got Economy Plus today, which has more leg room. There’s also rows that don’t have more leg room but they’re at the front of the airplane. Other airlines do this too. And so, we’re now going to let people select those seats as well for a fee.

That makes business sense. But is it fair? These policies make it tough for families to sit next to each other without paying extra fees.

Kirby: Look, when you go to a concert, do you think you should pay the same price to sit in the nosebleed seats or to sit up front?

I don’t know why airlines are unique. Every other business that has something like that charges more for a better product. It’s a better product. You know it’s a better seat. I don’t know why airlines would be unique by offering lower prices for a lesser product. That’s what we do.

He doesn't really give a clear opinion as to whether families should or will end up paying more to sit together. It still could be possible that there will be enough seats in the back on any given flight that a family will still be able to sit together without having to pay.

IMO sitting in the front of the Y cabin is overrated. I've now started trying to pick seats in the back with the greater chance of getting an empty seat next to me. So far, I have a pretty good track record — better than when I bought or had access to E+.

Typical response by another member of the "how to screw the passengers so the stock goes up and I make money" class and mentality of Doug Parker.

He may be referring to when a family waits to the last minute to book a flight and there are no seats together like at a concert. The seats that are together are the more expensive ones but the family books the scattered seats to book the flight because they have already scheduled themselves for a vacation or committed to a family event. Now the unsuspecting Counter Agent, Gate Agent or possibly Customer Service Counter Agent is pressured either by time to get the flight out on time (now the possible delay is dropped in their lap to deal with) or by the fact that this family is standing in front of them expecting to fix the problem that they the family created. These agents are then pressured to go and find volunteers to give up their isle or window seats that they booked well in advance or possibly paid extra to have. He is saying there should be a cost for the families that do not book far enough ahead to get seats all together when there are plenty of seats. It's not a right, you are purchasing a product and at point of purchase you by a number of single seats scattered on a plane, then you should have booked at another flight or postponed the trip. Just Saying!

AA has been charging for the "better" seats for a while now. I guess I've missed all the news stories about separated families. I still don't understand what makes it "better" to sit closer to the front. I could see window and aisle costing more than middle but sitting in the same seat closer to the front isn't really a better experience. I guess you get off the plane 2 minutes faster but your time were worth $750 an hour (the 2 minute benefit vs $25 charge for example) then you'd be flying F anyway.

phlswaflyer wrote:

Typical response by another member of the "how to screw the passengers so the stock goes up and I make money" class and mentality of Doug Parker.

Another decision that provides less for your dollar by UA. Screw UA, their CEO is too fat to squeeze into a standard 777 seat & he refuses to sit among his peers. Now UA wants you to buy that no one needs to sit together & we should just grab some safety strap hanging from the ceiling & let them fly everyone around like on subway cars.

I think the major three only have loyal passengers to lose, hence carriers like AS & B6 that happily bend over to work with families & individuals to provide the best experience possible during a flight.

Recently flying out of Maui there were some gate staff who came on-board to help re-arrange a few people, to ensure that a family with small kids were seated together. It took a little help from a few relocated customers who all seemed happy enough to help & two very nice crew members that offered a few free drinks for the flight & a plane full of relaxed passengers & AS made a family happy & no one was pissy & we left on-time.

IMHO, the carriers like AS, B6 & HA are the ones that keep the majors honest & NK, F9 & G4 keep fares in as low as possible in markets where there is competition. If the big 3 were left to themselves we'd all be getting screwed even more to fly & there would be precious extra to go around (like upgrades).

Instead of always wanting to merge these three carriers, we need to be excited they are doing so well & keeping honest pressure on the mega-carriers who ONLY answer to shareholders. There is only going to be a small window in aviation history that either keeps bringing new opportunities & a new flair or edge to an otherwise normal flight.

If left unchecked flying will soon be like a pair of Yeezy sandals, neutrally boring, no style & always far too small for comfort & everyone one including your wife, will ridicule you for your poor choices.

It's crazy - I want to sit next to my kids because it would make the flight more enjoyable for other people, not me. Given the choice, and assuming I could abrogate all sense of parental responsibility, I'd much rather sit by myself somewhere else far away from them! But it's easier to make sure they're not disrupting other people if we're all sitting together. Why would they want to make flights less tolerable for their customers?

intotheair wrote:

IMO sitting in the front of the Y cabin is overrated. I've now started trying to pick seats in the back with the greater chance of getting an empty seat next to me. So far, I have a pretty good track record — better than when I bought or had access to E+.

Exactly, the front seats aren't any better, I don't understand the rationale of paying more for them. The only exception is when you are in a major hurry to get off at the other end.

I'm not one to defend the airlines, but he's said nothing wrong.

If the first couple of rows are perceived as superior and are sold as such, then folks shouldn't be *expecting* to get upgraded for free.

If someone books multiple tickets at the 11th hour for flights, then they should not be expecting to be sitting together. They certainly shouldn't expect one of them having a 1st class ticket to mean the rest will get free upgrades to sit together. If they volunteered the 1st class seat to the passenger in the adjoining economy seat then they'd possibly be able to come to an agreement (at the gate) and have at least 2 sitting together, but a satisfactory outcome should not be *expected* (given the other passengers' circumstance might not suit), just hoped for.

jumbojet wrote:

That makes business sense. But is it fair? These policies make it tough for families to sit next to each other without paying extra fees.

Kirby: Look, when you go to a concert, do you think you should pay the same price to sit in the nosebleed seats or to sit up front?

Really? That's the best excuse he can come up with?

Moronic excuse. If I go to a concert with my family you can bet I will either get seats together or I won't go.
The same will apply to any airline I fly. If I can't get seats together at hist airline, I'll look somewhere else. And if I can't find seats together somewhere else, I just won't go. It's pretty simple.

Having said that, I don't understand how sitting near the front is better than sitting near the back or how this is related to families sitting together.
The only row I try to avoid is the last row. Anywhere else on the plane really doesn't matter to me.

So, we're supposed to get utterly apoplectic over the fact that families have to pony up if they want a particular seat like the rest of us?

Families can either:

a) Buy far enough in advance to get seats in the rear, which should be free (and frankly where they should seat families anyway in order to make things easier for everyone)

b) Pony up the $$ to pay for seats together like the rest of us

c) Take Greyhound if it's that horrific to fly a few seats away for a couple of hours.

I'm all for charging people more for economy plus because you are getting extra leg room, but charging people more for the first few rows after economy plus because they are closer to the front of the plane is ridiculous. This basically equates to UA and other airlines that have a similar policy charging people more to get off the plane. If I'm seated near the back end of an aircraft it does work my nerves at how long it take for people to grab their bag out of the overhead bin and walk off the aircraft. That being said I think crazy to ask customers to pay more just so they are closer to the front end of the aircraft which may allow them to disembark sooner.

Another thing this policy creates is more work for our gate agents because passengers can refuse to pay this fee and if there are no other seats available they will then be assign a seat on the day of departure but as it stands right now our gate agents already have to assign seats to economy basic customers now when you throw this into the mix in some cases there is going to be a lot of people standing in line waiting for a seat assignment and some narrow body aircraft still only have one gate agent.

Personally I hate this policy shift, it is wrong and bad for business.

ricport wrote:

So, we're supposed to get utterly apoplectic over the fact that families have to pony up if they want a particular seat like the rest of us?

I would be apoplectic if they were *deliberately* seating families apart within the one seating class.

But that is not what these comments are about.

ricport wrote:

So, we're supposed to get utterly apoplectic over the fact that families have to pony up if they want a particular seat like the rest of us?

Families can either:

a) Buy far enough in advance to get seats in the rear, which should be free (and frankly where they should seat families anyway in order to make things easier for everyone)

b) Pony up the $$ to pay for seats together like the rest of us

c) Take Greyhound if it's that horrific to fly a few seats away for a couple of hours.

Or d) book their tickets normally like everyone else and be assigned at the whim of the airline and then have unsuspecting passengers seated next to unsupervised kids which IMO is a lose-lose all around, highly undesirable and yet the most likely scenario.

This will get implemented and two weeks later every flight to Orlando suddenly starts taking 15 extra minutes to complete boarding.

In my opinion, when somebody (family or not) books under a single PNR, the airline system should automatically block those seats together on the part of the plane they consider non premium. If there are not enough seats or the arrangement of the plane doesn't allow for keeping the group together, a rational split should be made. It is easy, keeps everyone happy and it will cost almost nothing to the airline, as the family with kids will most probably not have paid the extra for the seats assignment.

I don't have kids myself, but as somebody said a few posts ago, if they don't want to seat me together with my kids, the airline will have to take care of them during the flight, as staying in the each day narrower aisle is neither an option.

AitorL wrote:

In my opinion, when somebody (family or not) books under a single PNR, the airline system should automatically block those seats together on the part of the plane they consider non premium. If there are not enough seats or the arrangement of the plane doesn't allow for keeping the group together, a rational split should be made. It is easy, keeps everyone happy and it will cost almost nothing to the airline, as the family with kids will most probably not have paid the extra for the seats assignment.

I don't have kids myself, but as somebody said a few posts ago, if they don't want to seat me together with my kids, the airline will have to take care of them during the flight, as staying in the each day narrower aisle is neither an option.

This would be great, but how would the airlines extort extra money from families for seating assignments? And who wants to bet that the airline will still hold the right to change your seat at any time.

jumbojet wrote:

Some pretty stark and mind blowing comments by UA's Kirby who doesn't seem to care that parents can wind up sitting apart from their children because of all the latest charges and fees to pay for just about everything; Kirby actually defends family separation on airplanes. He compares buying a ticket for a flight to that of buying a ticket for a performance or a concert. I mean, when I go to a concert, its because I want to enjoy a performance and therefore will pay to get closer to the stage, when most people fly, its because they have to, not because they fly purely for the enjoyment factor.

The real revenue opportunity is charging parents a fee to not have to sit with their kids...and charging other people a fee to not sit with them either. In fact, they should just have an auction in the gate area of who will pay the most to not sit with the most annoying kids.

All kidding aside, security needs to drag Kirby out of a plane so he can experience real UA customer service.

Divorced airline executives have always felt this way about sitting next to their family, why would you want to sit next to drama?

AitorL wrote:

In my opinion, when somebody (family or not) books under a single PNR, the airline system should automatically block those seats together on the part of the plane they consider non premium. If there are not enough seats or the arrangement of the plane doesn't allow for keeping the group together, a rational split should be made.

That seems reasonable to me.

However, if Y- minus fares are only available for middle seats (its obviously impossible to seat all together as a group and, simultaneously, seat everyone in a middle seat) then any more than one person should not be allowed to book a Y- fare as it is clearly unfair on other pax to give the group Y- pricing but better than Y- seating.

If the group wants to book everyone separately to get Y- pricing, then they can be all split up and shouldn't dare open their mouths to complain about the seating.

N867DA wrote:

This will get implemented and two weeks later every flight to Orlando suddenly starts taking 15 extra minutes to complete boarding.

And then the airlines will complain that passenger civility continues to decline as they throw gasoline on every possible situation with rules like these.

jumbojet wrote:

Some pretty stark and mind blowing comments by UA's Kirby who doesn't seem to care that parents can wind up sitting apart from their children because of all the latest charges and fees to pay for just about everything; Kirby actually defends family separation on airplanes. He compares buying a ticket for a flight to that of buying a ticket for a performance or a concert. I mean, when I go to a concert, its because I want to enjoy a performance and therefore will pay to get closer to the stage, when most people fly, its because they have to, not because they fly purely for the enjoyment factor.

I will reserve comment (for obvious reasons) but he comes across sounding very arrogant and not caring at all about families that wish to travel and sit together but cant because of the latest move to restrict the selection of free seats even more. I think sometimes its better to keep your mouth shut or at least pretend that you care.

That makes business sense. But is it fair? These policies make it tough for families to sit next to each other without paying extra fees.

Kirby: Look, when you go to a concert, do you think you should pay the same price to sit in the nosebleed seats or to sit up front?

Really? That's the best excuse he can come up with?

https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com ... ment-fees/

the analogy sucks but he is 100% right.

in absolutely NO WAY should someone who bought their ticket, picked a seat and did everything right be moved because "muh family" (who is probably on a $4 dollar basic economy fare and were too damn stupid to read the fine print or were too damn stupid to figure out how to preselect seats)

ricport wrote:

So, we're supposed to get utterly apoplectic over the fact that families have to pony up if they want a particular seat like the rest of us?

Families can either:

a) Buy far enough in advance to get seats in the rear, which should be free (and frankly where they should seat families anyway in order to make things easier for everyone)

b) Pony up the $$ to pay for seats together like the rest of us

c) Take Greyhound if it's that horrific to fly a few seats away for a couple of hours.

exactly this. If you can't figure out how to pre-select seats together and/or pay for it then you simply shouldn't be on the airplane. Punishing those who were smart enough to figure it out is a pretty dumb way to go about it.

scbriml wrote:

alex0easy wrote:

The concert example is wrong IMo.

It is. It was a pretty poor analogy.

c933103 wrote:

I recall having to pay more for upfront seats at theater just like I have to pay more for a seat in the upfront cabin of an aircraft, however I can't recall having to pay extra for neighboring seats in theater

True, but only if you book early enough. Leave it too late and you'll be lucky to find a block of seats for the nuclear family of four all together. Same with planes.

My argument to Kirby would be "Fine. You seat my kids away from me, your FAs can look after them, because, you know, I have to keep my seatbelt on."

Or you know, you could control your kids and rase them right so that you don't need to push them off on someone else........
Amazingly when i flew non-rev as a child I was never a pain in the ass even if my parent was 15 rows away. It is truly amazing how that worked out.

At what point do airlines run out of places where they can charge passengers more money?

B752OS wrote:

At what point do airlines run out of places where they can charge passengers more money?

When people stop flying.

ricport wrote:

So, we're supposed to get utterly apoplectic over the fact that families have to pony up if they want a particular seat like the rest of us?

Families can either:

a) Buy far enough in advance to get seats in the rear, which should be free (and frankly where they should seat families anyway in order to make things easier for everyone)

b) Pony up the $$ to pay for seats together like the rest of us

c) Take Greyhound if it's that horrific to fly a few seats away for a couple of hours.

What's the problem with families sitting in the front? What makes it easier? If it's boarding/deplaning I can tell you I've seen plenty of single, entitled adults who lounge around the aisle during boarding making sure they have all the pieces of their electronics. In other words I've seen some six-year-olds which have it together more than adults. Bad generalization to me.

Any complaint about a legacy carrier and the defenders always run to "take Greyhound". What does this say about the legacies these days?

As someone with two kids under 6 I see no issue with them saying we can be assigned seats together in the back. It’s where we should be.

1. Because we board first, being in the back makes it less disruptive for others boarding
2. It’s closer to the bathrooms. And the cart spends less time blocking access to the bathrooms. (Narrow body)
3. It’s closer to the galley if we need water or milk or juice.
4. Dealing with a car seat for he littlest, when we deplane, we wait until the end anyway at so I don’t care that we are in back.

enilria wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Some pretty stark and mind blowing comments by UA's Kirby who doesn't seem to care that parents can wind up sitting apart from their children because of all the latest charges and fees to pay for just about everything; Kirby actually defends family separation on airplanes. He compares buying a ticket for a flight to that of buying a ticket for a performance or a concert. I mean, when I go to a concert, its because I want to enjoy a performance and therefore will pay to get closer to the stage, when most people fly, its because they have to, not because they fly purely for the enjoyment factor.

The real revenue opportunity is charging parents a fee to not have to sit with their kids...and charging other people a fee to not sit with them either. In fact, they should just have an auction in the gate area of who will pay the most to not sit with the most annoying kids.

All kidding aside, security needs to drag Kirby out of a plane so he can experience real UA customer service.

Imagine the premium you could charge on red-eyes. People would be willing to pay a lot to guarantee they won't be sitting within a 3-seat radius of a baby!!

In all reality, the title is misleading. Kirby is $ first (as is his, and UAs, want). Ton's of airlines already charge you to pre-book more 'desirable' seats, and have never heard this once be an issue.

dmstorm22 wrote:

enilria wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

Some pretty stark and mind blowing comments by UA's Kirby who doesn't seem to care that parents can wind up sitting apart from their children because of all the latest charges and fees to pay for just about everything; Kirby actually defends family separation on airplanes. He compares buying a ticket for a flight to that of buying a ticket for a performance or a concert. I mean, when I go to a concert, its because I want to enjoy a performance and therefore will pay to get closer to the stage, when most people fly, its because they have to, not because they fly purely for the enjoyment factor.

The real revenue opportunity is charging parents a fee to not have to sit with their kids...and charging other people a fee to not sit with them either. In fact, they should just have an auction in the gate area of who will pay the most to not sit with the most annoying kids.

All kidding aside, security needs to drag Kirby out of a plane so he can experience real UA customer service.

Imagine the premium you could charge on red-eyes. People would be willing to pay a lot to guarantee they won't be sitting within a 3-seat radius of a baby!!

In all reality, the title is misleading. Kirby is $ first (as is his, and UAs, want). Ton's of airlines already charge you to pre-book more 'desirable' seats, and have never heard this once be an issue.

Also, right after you book, a family can call the airline and they will do what they can, free of charge, to rearrange things to get you sitting together. They will also tag the record locator to prevent it being monkeyed with and protect you during IROPS and equipment change. Just don’t expect that if you wait until you check in or arrive at the airport.

ikramerica wrote:

As someone with two kids under 6 I see no issue with them saying we can be assigned seats together in the back. It’s where we should be.

1. Because we board first, being in the back makes it less disruptive for others boarding
2. It’s closer to the bathrooms. And the cart spends less time blocking access to the bathrooms. (Narrow body)
3. It’s closer to the galley if we need water or milk or juice.
4. Dealing with a car seat for he littlest, when we deplane, we wait until the end anyway at so I don’t care that we are in back.

Honestly as parent with three kids under 11 and two under 4, it's not hard to be organized. Even with the little ones. Not quite sure why we need restart Jim Crow-like segregationist ideas in regards to families who want to fly on the legacies. Somehow B6 and AS can handle it regularly.

Anyway, Kirby didn't really say all this. Surprised at how some are reacting here though.

Friendly skies, eh?

AitorL wrote:

In my opinion, when somebody (family or not) books under a single PNR, the airline system should automatically block those seats together on the part of the plane they consider non premium. If there are not enough seats or the arrangement of the plane doesn't allow for keeping the group together, a rational split should be made. It is easy, keeps everyone happy and it will cost almost nothing to the airline, as the family with kids will most probably not have paid the extra for the seats assignment.

I don't have kids myself, but as somebody said a few posts ago, if they don't want to seat me together with my kids, the airline will have to take care of them during the flight, as staying in the each day narrower aisle is neither an option.

Last 2 rows or so would be best. This way they are together but you can always pay to move up.

This way the value of paying for seating isnt diluted but we dont have issues of separated kids and parents

ricport wrote:

So, we're supposed to get utterly apoplectic over the fact that families have to pony up if they want a particular seat like the rest of us?

Families can either:

a) Buy far enough in advance to get seats in the rear, which should be free (and frankly where they should seat families anyway in order to make things easier for everyone)

b) Pony up the $$ to pay for seats together like the rest of us

c) Take Greyhound if it's that horrific to fly a few seats away for a couple of hours.

There are a couple of problems here:

1) Sometimes families can't buy far enough in advance to get seats together, and sometimes this is the airline's fault. I recently bought 4 DL tickets to OGG about 15 hours before the flight due to an AA IRROP. We got two sets of two seats on the 712 (it was a Saturday afternoon hub-hub flight, so not very full) on our own and the gate agent found us four seat reasonably close together on the LAX-OGG flight. At booking and checkin, the LAX-OGG flight did not have four seats together, paid or not.

2) Relatedly, when carriers monetize some seats, it makes it harder to find seats together regardless of when you book because the inventory in a given group of seats is smaller. A single 100 seat cabin is more likely to have four seats together than two 50 seat cabins.

Why does a family of 4 all need to sit together? Yes, it's preferable, but hardly necessary. Been traveling with my family of 4 for many years and when the kids were younger, we couldn't always get seats together, but it's generally not to hard to pair one child with each adult. The vast majority of flyers are not ogres and are generally accommodating for families with small children. If you insist that the airline seats you altogether, that's often going to mean they have to move other passengers around without their consent. Not exactly fair to those other passengers (who in some cases may be already seated next to family members on separate tickets).

I don't see how having a family gives you priority over other passengers.

Do you want to sit together as a family in first class? Ok. Book your family in first class. \

Economy class? I have a question. If a family of 3 books together on a single PNR, by default aren't they going to be seated together if there is space available? Are we talking about Basic Economy, where seat reservations don't exist until check-in time? Is that what we are talking about here? What has changed since 1985, if anything? If there is no 3-seat block available on the airplane, sorry, you are SOL because you don't just bump other passengers around with your sense of entitlement alone.

planecane wrote:

AA has been charging for the "better" seats for a while now. I guess I've missed all the news stories about separated families. I still don't understand what makes it "better" to sit closer to the front. I could see window and aisle costing more than middle but sitting in the same seat closer to the front isn't really a better experience. I guess you get off the plane 2 minutes faster but your time were worth $750 an hour (the 2 minute benefit vs $25 charge for example) then you'd be flying F anyway.

Indeed and so has DL with their "preferred seats." This entire thread is a lot to do about nothing and is, as usual, a click bait article further refined by the OP to start a bash UA thread which is something he enjoys.

If you actually read the blog you will find out that Matt actually thinks the new policy is fair and even likes the direction Kirby is taking UA.

"My commentary is meant to be tongue and cheek, although the I hope the satire isn’t lost. United’s new move makes sense from a logical perspective and is actually fair."

Flighty wrote:

I don't see how having a family gives you priority over other passengers.

Do you want to sit together as a family in first class? Ok. Book your family in first class. \

Economy class? I have a question. If a family of 3 books together on a single PNR, by default aren't they going to be seated together if there is space available? Are we talking about Basic Economy, where seat reservations don't exist until check-in time? Is that what we are talking about here? What has changed since 1985, if anything? If there is no 3-seat block available on the airplane, sorry, you are SOL because you don't just bump other passengers around with your sense of entitlement alone.

A family wanting to sit together is "entitled"? C'mon. If this is where the legacies are headed (which I don't believe) then Greyhound has already passed them.

Flighty wrote:

I don't see how having a family gives you priority over other passengers.

Do you want to sit together as a family in first class? Ok. Book your family in first class. \

Economy class? I have a question. If a family of 3 books together on a single PNR, by default aren't they going to be seated together if there is space available? Are we talking about Basic Economy, where seat reservations don't exist until check-in time? Is that what we are talking about here? What has changed since 1985, if anything? If there is no 3-seat block available on the airplane, sorry, you are SOL because you don't just bump other passengers around with your sense of entitlement alone.

Parents are legally responsible for the care, welfare and actions of their minor children. It’s fairly common knowledge.

Good lord, there will only be a slight extra fee for seats near the front of the cabin. For Christ sakes, your beloved Delta does the same damn thing with their "preferred seating". There are still a LOT of regular old economy seats in the back for families if they so choose on booking.... If you really want to take your anger out on an airline that doesn't give families a "guaranteed" chance to sit next to eachother look no further than Southwest: "You choose to check-in at the airport and not 24hrs ahead of time? Too bad, hope there's enough seats for you..."

When you purchase a Basic Economy fare, the airlines display what is included in the cost. They disclose that you will not be assigned a seat until check in therefore you risk not being seated together. If you want to book a flight and you are a family of 3, 4, Brady Bunch, whatever, Basic Economy is NOT FOR YOU. You need to purchase your tickets at the regular main cabin fare and then you have your choice of sitting together. Another thing to consider is that most family trips are likely planned well enough in advance to where there will be plenty of seats open and parents may choose their own seats where there are enough of them to seat everyone together in some way, shape or form.

Just to clarify: I don't have an issue with what Kirby or UA is doing here but some responses border on the ridiculous. People are preaching but not responding to what the OP posted.

For example: I just don't think parents are "entitled" when they want to sit next to their children or families are the big reason why the boarding process is slow. Give me a break.

Kirby might be on to something here. I'm sure many would pay an extra fee not to have someone's screaming kid next to them. I know I would.

GCT64 wrote:

AitorL wrote:

In my opinion, when somebody (family or not) books under a single PNR, the airline system should automatically block those seats together on the part of the plane they consider non premium. If there are not enough seats or the arrangement of the plane doesn't allow for keeping the group together, a rational split should be made.

That seems reasonable to me.

However, if Y- minus fares are only available for middle seats (its obviously impossible to seat all together as a group and, simultaneously, seat everyone in a middle seat) then any more than one person should not be allowed to book a Y- fare as it is clearly unfair on other pax to give the group Y- pricing but better than Y- seating.

If the group wants to book everyone separately to get Y- pricing, then they can be all split up and shouldn't dare open their mouths to complain about the seating.

GCT64 - it's truly refreshing to see someone use "then" and "than" properly. Thank you.

I'd say it depends on the situation. If families plan things out in advance and book their seats early then no, they shouldn't have to pay more to sit together, but if they book at the last minute and expect special treatment then they should have to pay for it. Another example: You shouldn't expect a window or aisle seat on WN if you're at the end of the C group. You also shouldn't expect your group to sit together if you are all boarding in the C group. Basically, you shouldn't expect to get special treatment or sit together if you wait until the last minute.

If you want to sit together with your family it is your responsibility to make the proper preparations in order to do so. Other passengers may have booked seats they specifically liked and it's not fair to move them around because a lack of preparation on another group's part.

And yes, I know that the airline screws up sometimes and even if you booked seats sitting together you can get moved around. Too bad! Life isn't fair. Get over it.

intotheair wrote:

Nowhere does he say that families should have to pay more to sit together, nor does he say that there should or will be such a fee. I don't think the headline or OP are accurate.

He is defending the soon-to-be UA policy of charging for seats at the front of the E- cabin. The interviewer asks about whether that reduces options for families wanting to sit together, but he dodges the family part of the question to more plainly defend the new fees for the seats in the front.

Quoting this so people can see it in here without having to open the link:

You’ll soon start charging extra fees for what you consider more desirable coach seats. They won’t have extra legroom or any other amenities. Why?

Kirby: Well, we’ve got Economy Plus today, which has more leg room. There’s also rows that don’t have more leg room but they’re at the front of the airplane. Other airlines do this too. And so, we’re now going to let people select those seats as well for a fee.

That makes business sense. But is it fair? These policies make it tough for families to sit next to each other without paying extra fees.

Kirby: Look, when you go to a concert, do you think you should pay the same price to sit in the nosebleed seats or to sit up front?

I don’t know why airlines are unique. Every other business that has something like that charges more for a better product. It’s a better product. You know it’s a better seat. I don’t know why airlines would be unique by offering lower prices for a lesser product. That’s what we do.

He doesn't really give a clear opinion as to whether families should or will end up paying more to sit together. It still could be possible that there will be enough seats in the back on any given flight that a family will still be able to sit together without having to pay.

IMO sitting in the front of the Y cabin is overrated. I've now started trying to pick seats in the back with the greater chance of getting an empty seat next to me. So far, I have a pretty good track record — better than when I bought or had access to E+.

I sat near the front of an airplane too, an A380. I didn't pay more to get that seat. I was actually the first off the plane, ahead of first class passengers and business class passengers. So no, Mr Kirby, not all other airlines do this, just the stingy and nasty ones.

And something else interesting, the passengers with young children and strollers boarded first, ahead of everyone else. Although it didn't stop some passengers without young children rushing to the counter to board the plane, only to be told to wait.

Flighty wrote:

Economy class? I have a question. If a family of 3 books together on a single PNR, by default aren't they going to be seated together if there is space available?.

Not if the systems of the airline deliberately scatter families far away from each other, in order to force them to pay to sit together.

It's worth noting that Families that have an infant in arms (so strictly speaking domestic flights here) must be located on the right hand side of the airplane due to oxygen mask requirements. So that cuts the number of seats available to anyone with an infant in half. International flights infants require a seat so it doesn't really matter.