Proposed rule would ban airlines from charging parents to sit with children
A proposed U.S. rule would bar airlines from charging parents extra to sit with their young children, challenging the growing practice of seat-selection “junk fees.” Commenters weigh the fairness and economics: supporters argue that seating families together is a safety and caregiving necessity and that airlines deliberately separate them to upsell, while critics warn this kind of regulation will simply raise base fares for everyone and see it as government overreach into pricing. The debate widens into questions of market transparency, price discrimination, and how much inconvenience airlines are allowed to impose to extract additional revenue.
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.