I just had to pay $240 for advance seat selection to sit with my young children on a return trip to Hawaii, and it sure wasn’t fun.
I don’t mind paying extra for frills, but as much as I love my children, I’d be hard-pressed to describe sitting with them on a plane as a frill.
Sure, maybe you didn’t get to sit with your spouse or friend on your last flight. But I hope I’m safe in assuming your spouse is an adult and unlikely to have difficulty opening his or her juice, or troubleshooting the on-screen entertainment, or resolving pressing concerns about the relative safety of air travel.
And yes, this is clearly a First World problem, but I think it says a lot about our attitude toward children in North America that airlines would even consider seating small children away from their caregivers.
I addressed my concerns via email to Air Canada, and was told by a customer service representative that because I had booked cheap seats (she said this much more politely, but I could hear the chicken cages rattling under the seats in her email response), I was not entitled to free advance seat selection. She also referred to the $240 as a “nominal” fee and said that it represents “economic reality” at a time of lower fares.
If it is so nominal, I replied, why not forgo it in the interests of generating tremendous PR for the airline in the family-travelling sector? So far, I have received no reply.
But here is an economic argument Air Canada might want to consider.
Airlines have been scrambling to reduce the amount of weight each aircraft carries to cut down on fuel costs, causing some in the travel community to raise the spectre of charging more for heavier passengers, the way travellers are charged for heavier baggage.
It’s an idea that hasn’t gained traction, and might never fly, but here’s a thought: My 55-pound eight-year-old pays the same fare as a 250-pound adult. I’m willing to bet her tiny pink carry-on is also a fraction of the weight of many XXL three-piece luggage sets.
So by encouraging families with younger children to fly by forgoing that “nominal” advance seat-selection fee, airlines could more than make up for it in fuel savings.
A child-free plane might sound great to some passengers, but it’s no benefit for airlines trying to save on fuel costs.
There are other reasons to take the step of automatically seating parents with kids under 12 without charge. A friend on a recent flight overheard a mother with a babe in arms reassuring her five-year-old: “Don’t worry, sweetheart — you’ll be able to see Mommy.”
Is that really what airlines want? Five-year-olds flying solo?
Trying to seat families with young children together at the last minute must be a headache for check-in staff, not to mention flight attendants.
It’s also annoying for passengers seated next to a stranger’s kid, or being asked to swap seats.
And what happens in an emergency if a child is not seated with his or her caregiver? You can bet that caregiver will be carving a path to their kids, using brute force if necessary — just pray you’re not in the way.
The Canadian Press reported in September that then-transport minister Lisa Raitt had quietly written to the heads of every major airline in the country last year to stop the practice of seating kids separately from their parents on flights. She told airlines that the then-government was “exploring opportunities to address this issue,” and was looking for input.
While the CP story said Sunwing holds back seats so kids can sit with their parents during flights (which is consistent with my own experience with that airline), most airlines take the position that they will do their best to accommodate families, but can’t offer any guarantees.
That’s not good enough. If airlines can’t provide a fair and practical solution on their own, they should be regulated. They should not be charging more for parents to sit with their small children — it’s simply unconscionable. And not that much fun, either.