Proposed rule would ban airlines from charging parents to sit with children

Cost, fares, and “junk fees”

• Many argue seat-selection fees are classic “junk fees”: they cost airlines almost nothing technologically, exist mainly to obscure true ticket prices, and enable price discrimination.
• Some claim banning these fees for parents will raise base fares for everyone else; others counter that impact on costs is negligible and airlines already charge as much as the market will bear.
• There is disagreement over airline profitability: one side points to large industry profits and buybacks; another notes thin margins and frequent bankruptcies.
• Several see junk fees as a direct response to consumer pressure for lower headline fares; others stress they reduce price transparency and market efficiency.

Fairness: who should pay?

• One camp: sitting next to your child is an extra feature; parents choosing the cheapest fare should pay, not shift costs to others. Having kids is framed as a personal lifestyle choice.
• The opposing view: young children must be near caregivers for safety and sanity; charging extra effectively taxes families and discriminates against them.
• Analogies are drawn both to disability accommodations (society absorbs some costs) and to weight-based fairness (some suggest charging by passenger weight; others dismiss this as impractical or marginal in effect).

Practical experiences and workarounds

• Common tactic: board, inform flight attendants that kids are separated, and let crew reassign seats—seen by some as reasonable pushback, by others as causing boarding delays and burdening other passengers.
• Some passengers are happy to swap seats, especially to undermine airline monetization; others refuse if it means giving up paid-for or preferred seats (e.g., aisle).
• Families describe stress from late bookings, missed connections, and kids seated alone in dark, late flights.

Regulation and market arguments

• Critics of the rule say the market already offers choices: some airlines bundle seat selection, others don’t, and parents can pick accordingly.
• Supporters argue that policies are often only revealed late in the booking flow, making comparison hard and nudging people into unexpected fees.
• Several see this rule as “humanizing” air travel and high-value/low-cost: airlines already know ages and could algorithmically keep minors with their booking group.

Broader seating/UX issues

• Many lament the shift to universal upcharges for any seat choice, even bad seats, calling it a “tax on relationships.”
• Others note that differentiated seating (aisle/window/front/back) does have real preference value, but contend that family co-location is closer to a requirement than a luxury.