Southwest Airlines will no longer board passengers with children ahead of other passengers

[DeepModem Mom]

LAT: Airline to end policy of letting families board first
By David Colker, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 19, 2007

Southwest Airlines has a new way of getting children on a plane -- by no longer putting them first. As of Oct. 2, the airline will end its long-standing policy of allowing people with young children to board ahead of most other passengers, Southwest spokeswoman Beth Harbin said Tuesday.

Although the Dallas-based airline has been looking for ways to boost revenue, the push behind Southwest's policy change appears to have more in common with that age-old play-group complaint: No fair. "We certainly have had customers express their concerns when they see 20 or so people pre-boarding," Harbin said. "This levels the playing field."...

***

Disabled passengers will still be allowed to pre-board, followed by Southwest's traditional three groups of boarders: A, B and C. Children under 5, and those traveling with them, won't be stripped entirely of privilege. If they and their entourage don't get boarding passes in time to be part of group A, they'll be allowed to board right after that group, before B and C. This is to ensure that passengers with small children will find seats together. "That's what's paramount to those traveling with a child," Harbin said....

Andy Obert, a Carrollton, Texas, account executive who travels with a 3-year-old and a 1-year-old, said families might seek out more friendly skies....

***

Seeing the children-first policy end will give these business travelers a measure of satisfaction. "You get there and stand in line early," (Dean Headley, associate professor of marketing at Wichita State University and coauthor of an annual study of airline quality) said, "then in comes a mom at the last minute with all the kids and they breeze right onto the airplane."..."I think business travelers will be saying, 'It's about damn time.'"

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-southwestkids19sep19,0,1438600.story?coll=la-home-business

[terrya]

1. Good.

I'm all for allowing any disabled passengers to board first. But there's no reason whatsoever why people with children should be allowed to board ahead of others.

[BOSSHOG]

4. You are right, no reason whatsoever, but

per my other post here, I think it makes sense to seat them last when there is a modicum of calm on the plane with all the adults seated and strapped in.

[LeftyMom]

6. the reason is that small children's child safety seats need to be installed,

which both takes time, takes up space and is hard to do in a crowd, and only works in certain seats.

[Dora]

10. Mmm. Adult supervision is one good reason to allow preboarding.

I'm speaking as the parent of a two year old. He travels well, when he's allowed to be seated with his parents.

We recently had a flight where we were not given three seats together. We politely asked the woman sitting in the third seat in the row if she would be willing to trade with my husband so that he could sit with me and my son. She refused.

Once we were inflight, my son had a 15 minute fuss because he wanted to see his Dad. I did what I could, distracted him, talked with him, played and read books with him, but he wanted to see his dad.

The woman who shared the row with us looked decidedly annoyed, but I had NO sympathy for her. She was given the opportunity to trade her seat for a different one, and she turned it down.



If Southwest is going to disallow preboarding for parents with young children, I hope they will start assigning seats. Otherwise, they're bound for a raft of complaints and ultimately, lost ticket sales.

[Ilsa]

76. Not just two year olds. I don't want my eight year old having to

sit with strangers. He'd behave, but be very unhappy. Great way to have a trip, huh, because some adults got all pissy about who got on board first?

I quit flying SWA when some man with a large suitcase behind me in line kept pushing me and I almost fell down.

[renate]

160. this policy sounds like a great way to get strangers to babysit other people's kids

I can seriously imagine exhausted parents saying "okay, if you insist, I'll leave the kid in this row and sit back here and read a book."

Judging by how infrequently parents stop their kids from kicking or pulling on my seat back, the idea of not having to monitor their kid's behavior for a whole flight would be very tempting for a lot of people. (I'm a parent, so I know how difficult and incredibly frustrating it can be to keep a kid from wigging out while stuck in a small seat for four hours. I'm not unsympathetic. What bugs me is when people don't even try to stop bad behavior. And crying, chattering, etc doesn't bother me at all; that's not misbehavior, that's just behavior.)

But anyway, I can see this policy backfiring not just for Southwest as a business but for business travelers who find themselves sitting next to a kid with no parent nearby.

[Scout]

163. did you ask him to back off? or just "punish" the airline for his bad behavior? n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

88. Some people are extremely fearful fliers and fixate on seat locations.

The woman who wouldn't change seats may have been one. Otherwise it makes little sense to stay in a row with a potentially fussy child rather than move to a row without one.

We had someone choose to stay in a middle seat between us (two adults) because she was superstitious about switching seats. I've also encountered it with people who won't move aisle to aisle, or aisle to window, or even middle to an aisle seat forward.

[Dora]

102. It wasn't fear or superstition.

"But I have a connecting flight," is what she said when I asked if she was willing to trade. She didn't want to give up her prime real estate in the third row of the plane.

Yeah, some people are quirky. Others are just self-aborbed and unwilling to forsee the consequences of selfish behavior.

[KansDem]

112. A couple of years ago I took a flight from San Diego to Kansas City...

It was going on to Delaware after KC. Well, I got in the very last row (my favorite) when I noticed a family of four came down the aisle. They were going on to Delaware. There were a father, mother, and two small kids. The mother and two kids sat on the left side (3 seats across) and the father sat on the right side next to the window--I was sitting in the inside seat. I realized they were traveling together so I offered to change seats with the father so he would be sitting just across the aisle from his family. They were most appreciative. I was feeling good about myself when one of the attendants who saw what we did offered me a free cocktail. The airline had a policy of rewarding good-citizen fliers with a free drink. So I had a whiskey (little airline bottle) and felt even better!

Its great to feel good about yourself for doing something nice; it's even better when you can top it off with a little hooch! :9

[Dora]

113. Ain't it true?

:yourock:

[Gormy Cuss]

132. Or naive, or clueless.

Seriously, I've seen people push through from the back of the plane because they have a connecting flight and then later see that we're on the same plane, a connection that I manage to make with no trouble in spite of waiting my turn to exit the first plane. Sometimes one does need to run off a plane to catch another, but most of the time that's not the case.

I've seen plenty of family groups behaving badly too. Once after the gate agents went to great lengths to seat a women and her two kids together in the same row on a full flight the woman apparently only heard the good news about scoring the extra room in the bulkhead row and didn't understand the part about no storage except in the overhead bin. Since I was one row back on the other side I heard the whole rant and the woman was completely out of line.

Another time I saw a family with aisle/seat assignments on both sides of the aisle refuse to rearrange the order so that the hapless center seat people wouldn't be stuck between parent and child for the whole flight. That one I couldn't figure out for the life of me.

IMHO, airlines need to find a better way to deal with the issue rather than relying on the kindness of strangers, because kindness and consideration are rarer commodities in these days of long check-in times, security checks, and crowded planes.

[LisaM]

165. Were you asking her to switch from an AISLE seat?

If so, my sympathies are with her. I hardly ever get an aisle seat because I usually travel alone. I'm often squished in between two men, who promptly fall asleep so I can't get out.

[Buzz Clik]

14. Well, wait till you get caught behind mom traveling with two or three little ones.

Stroller, diaper bag, backpacks. She's only got two hands and two eyes. When the 3-year-old wanders off, the entire line will come to a standstill while she regroups.

And, if she cannot find 4 seats together, people will have to move. It is the law that young children cannot be seated without their parents.

My prediction is that Southwest will be reversing that policy quite soon.

[iconoclastic cat]

27. Doubt it. They are dumb as a box of rocks. nt

[taught_me_patience]

129. Possibly the most successful airlines ever

and now the largest in the United States are "dumb as rocks"? WTF :eyes:

[SammyWinstonJack]

147. Crazy huh?

:crazy: Never any lay-offs or government hand outs even after 9/11 while the other airlines where sucking up to bu$hco at the taxpayers' expense and laying off their employees. yeah that southwest airlines sure is dumb. :rofl:

[fishnfla]

110. Bingo

flights will be delayed

[Xithras]

130. Exactly. Traveling with my family is fun. These guys are going to hate this.

A stroller, a carseat, four carry-ons, kids hyped up about getting to fly. Heck, last time I flew we had the aisle completely blocked for two or three minutes while we packed everything away.

That's why airlines pre-board kids first. They understand that it takes a few extra minutes to get the kids and their gear stowed away, so they get us onboard before the other passengers to prevent inconvenience.

Next time I fly, they can just wait. It's going to take the same two or three minutes for me to get my stuff in place, but now these people are going to spend those minutes standing in a cramped airline aisle waiting for me to finish. Poor them.

[ktlyon]

149. What? Can't the airline personnel organize the seating?

Know they have a small child and have their seat ready for them? What do these people do before the flight other than hang-out and chat. I don't fly unless I have to but a little preflight planning would go along way to eliminating all these problems.

[Buzz Clik]

152. We're talking Southwest.

Cattle car central. Organize seating? No.

[truebrit71]

38. Have you ever travelled with a small child? Do you know how much sh-stuff they require?

It is actually a courtesy to people WITHOUT children to let them go first, that way they don't clog up the aisles, you don't get smacked in the head by errant strollers or diaper bags...

But by all means, after YOU.... :eyes:

[Greyskye]

85. Try a 5 hour flight with a kid that has ADHD

You really don't want to be in the seat next to him, or in front of him. We used this policy to find seats which were least likely to disrupt other passengers.

Too bad folks won't be able to do that as easily in the future. Karma baby. It can be a bitch.


Argh, matey. (obligatory pirate talk in honor of TLAPD)

[gollygee]

101. OK well maybe you'll be behind the 2-year-old who has to say "HI" to every person on the plane

as he/she goes down the aisle.

Or maybe the 2-year-old could get on the plane first so as to not hold up other people.



OR better yet, maybe you'll get to sit next to a solitary 2-year-old because his/her parent couldn't get a seat by him/her.

[midlife_mo_Jo]

143. IF the child is too young to sit alone

I stisll believe that parents with young children should board first; otherwise, attendants might have to ask some of the passengers to switch.

Of course, if ya'll think it's a good idea to plop a 3 year old betweeen two business men because his mom couldn't find two adjoining seats, then - have a nice flight! :rofl:

[ktlyon]

148. in fact shouldn't we board children last to minimize their time in

that polluted cabin (until the plane closes the doors the carbon monoxide is very high) and let's not forget the restlessness factor. The longer the child is confined the more restless they become. I thought seating was assigned before hand. There shouldn't be a question of being seating separately. Also the less time I have to hear their shrill little voices the better. I am not a parent by choice.

[kath]

167. Seating is NOT assigned ahead of time on Southwest - which is the root of the problem here.

SWA has always done it this way - I guess they think it speeds up the boarding process overall.

[mvccd1000]

2. It's a free market

Be interesting to see how that works out for them.

[DeepModem Mom]

8. It will be -- welcome to DU, mvccd1000! nt

[BOSSHOG]

3. I think its a smart move

which should speed up the process of seating passengers. Get the adults seated and in place so there are no obstacles to parents trying to get the kids strapped in.

[Waya]

5. Waaaahhhhhhh.............

.......a round of tissues for the Business travelers.....

[NoPasaran]

7. Hooray!

:bounce::bounce::bounce:
Take THAT, breeders!
:bounce::bounce::bounce:

[Mad_Dem_X]

116. LOL! n/t

[Clark2008]

121. I'd expect that rather rude comeback from someone

with both a Native American slayer and Hillary in their post.

:eyes:

[The Vinyl Ripper]

146. That wasn't even a comeback..

Pure gloat.

Excellent retort BTW..

[saracat]

9. Great. I see no reason why they should be treated as "special" because they chose to have kids.

Perhaps it is more convenient for them but why should it be at the expense of the discomfort of others who may have waited longer? As for the Texan that said he might "seek out more friendly skies" for his family travels, what is his problem? All he has to do is get to the airport in time to be with the first group that he allegedly feels entitled to be in!

[Taverner]

11. They should make allowances for small children

e.g. toddlers

But for kids above the age of 5 this should apply

Trust me, all you kid haters who are applauding this will be the first to whine and puel when the flight is delayed because it took so long to put the seatbelt on the toddler who was part of group C

[Buzz Clik]

16. Yep. Excellent post.

Breeders. Can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em. :eyes:

[Zookeeper]

33. And the kid haters will be the first to whine about kids...

fussing because they don't have their family members sitting with them. Or parents disturbing them because mom and dad (or mom and mom, dad and dad) have to keep getting up and down to help each other care for the fussy kid.

I have zero sympathy for the irritated fellow passenger that was unwilling to trade seats with the kid's parent.


Also, a child seated separately from his/her parents is vulnerable to child molesters. A humane society recognizes the need to have children seated with their parents.

BTW, the seat the kid is occupying, costs the same as the seat of the grinch who resents the presence of children in their sacred space.

[iconoclastic cat]

40. You'd be surprised by the number of DUers who flat-out declare they hate kids.

It's a bit weird. Try posting a loaded question about being in favor of voluntary human extinction some time. You'll be shocked.

[Taverner]

47. That's why that, although we're right, we keep losing

The GOP is outbreeding us

[iconoclastic cat]

52. Really? And here I thought it was because the Dems cave on everything. nt

[Jed Dilligan]

133. Come on, for every two zombies in that brood

there will be at least one rebel.

Likewise, our kids sometimes turn into freepers to piss us off.

[Taverner]

138. Lol - true

[Bluebear]

70. Did you read ? "those who did not get A boarding passes will be able to board w/ the A group"

There is no way toddlers will ever be in group C.

[SayWhatYo]

92. I think it already does.

I recently traveled with my six year old newphew and we didn't get to pre-board(we were actually one of the last people on because I had to get him some dinner) I didn't really matter though, so long as we were able to sit next to each other. In our case we found two seats without an issue, but even if we didn't I would have only had to of asked if someone could move(most people aren't assholes)

[kath]

168. IIRC, the policy has been that pre-boarding was for families w/ kids 4 and under.

[Katherine Brengle]

12. This is stupid. The whole point of letting parent(s)+child(ren) board first is everyone's

convenience - getting squirmy kids settled and making sure they are seated right with their parents keeps shit from getting out of hand.

Southwest is becoming a really stupid company lately.

[goodgd_yall]

48. That's why I thought the policy was in place

Otherwise, if you are part of Group A,B, or C you get to stand in the aisle waiting for the parent get her children settled. I'd rather have them get settled in beforehand so I can get to my seat with as little standing and waiting in the plane's aisle as possible.

I bet the complainers were mostly business travelers because those are the customers the airlines most toady to.

[Katherine Brengle]

135. Indeed.

[northzax]

156. toady to?

you mean they make policies that help the customers who are both their most regular customers and those that pay the most? gee, what kind of business would try to accomodate their most loyal and lucrative customers?

in general, business travellers pay more per seat (since they don't care as much as someone paying for their own seat, and book later than casual fliers) and fly more often.

[burythehatchet]

123. of course that is correct. The complete and utter foolishness on this thread

is depressing.

I really don't even want to engage in this idiotic debate except to ask "did you hate kids when you were a kid? Do you still hate yourself? Have you sought counseling?"

[Katherine Brengle]

134. I understand that children are an inconvenience sometimes, but so are adults.

I don't understand the hate. I didn't particularly like children before I had one, nor do I now to be honest (other than mine), but I never felt the kind of animosity I see here all the time toward them.

[displacedtexan]

13. Good (and I'm not a biz traveler)

I always have an A ticket, and I have to wait for one baby and 8 accompanying adults
to "pre-board" (what an idiotic term). Then there's another child, traveling with
six adults.

Not only do these people grab the front seats and generally terrorize the disabled
passengers, they always seem to have "issues"... like "My bag doesn't fit under the
seat or in the overhead compartment" or "I need blankets and pillows for 6 people
before we take off."

I always head for the emergency exit row anyway. Now, maybe I'll try to sit up front.
I'd just like to board and leave the plane just once without having to deal with the issues people.

</rant>

[Dora]

53. Utterly implausible. I have NEVER seen the situation you describe.

We've been flying with our son for two years now, and I have never seen the situation you describe. I find your post hyperbolic and implausible, at best.

I cannot imagine any airline saying it's acceptable to seat one child with six guardians. And never, in any of my preboarding experiences, never have I seen any more than two parents allowed to board with their child or children.

[displacedtexan]

151. SW just recently changed its policy to 1 adult per child pre-boarding.

I fly SW once a month, usually from BWI to Love Field and back, but often
to Portland, Columbia, SC and other cities. Have for years. How about you?

[Dora]

154. We just flew SW in mid-August. We preboarded with two parents.

They may have different policies for different airports - perhaps depending on congestion.

We fly 3-5 times a year, on SW if we're going to AZ, and American if we're going to IA. We have found SW to be more family-friendly than American.

[SidDithers]

15. But children wearing mini-skirts will still not be allowed to fly...nt

Sid

[SoCalDem]

17. Why not just board by rows? and cluster the people with kids

in one section?

Seems like that would be a better solution, inconveniencing no one.

[iconoclastic cat]

18. Meh. Let SW find their niche. If they want to be adults-only, go for it.

Maybe they could screen pornos to speed up the migration.

All kidding aside, why is this a big deal? SW is a crappy airline, and you know that going into it.

[Bluebear]

93. Southwest is a fine, union-represented airline.

What, you didn't get an extra bag of peanuts once?

[arikara]

19. Personally, I would like to see them settled first

rather than making some harried mother come down the aisle with a clutch of whiney kids and trying to get them settled when there is no room left to do so. Those planes are uncomfortable enough without having to protect your head from toys and diaper bags.

The airport is nothing but hurry up and wait anyhow, why should anyone care who gets on or off the plane first.

[Submariner]

20. How about no children allowed on airplanes.......YAY

[iconoclastic cat]

25. I think that overtly kid-free/kid-friendly airlines would be a good idea.

There's obviously a market need for both.

[Buzz Clik]

28. Chucky Cheese Airlines?

[iconoclastic cat]

32. Sure. Or, more plausibly, Disney Airlines or Warner Airlines.

Captive audiences and all that. I don't really understand why it hasn't already happened.

[Zookeeper]

46. I suspect that the airlines would figure out a way to make us...

all pay more for the privilege.

[Chovexani]

I'd be all over a kid-free airline

Last time I flew, back in March, was on US Airways (my sister booked the flight so I didn't have a choice). Nonstop from BWI to Phoenix coming home from my aunt's funeral.

The brat sitting in front of me screamed from the safety instruction video until touchdown at Sky Harbor, no lie.

[PDenton]

21. LAME!

I fly southwest sometimes (I don't fly often). And I don't particularly like snotty, squirmy kids. But at least boarding them first gets them out of the way and makes boarding for everybody else easier. I have to imagine people who object to kids being boarded first, are not really thinking about what is in the best interests of everybody.

[TahitiNut]

22. Small children should be put in cargo with the other pets.

:evilgrin:

[T Wolf]

71. and sedated... If you have to sedate your pet, the same should apply to

human young.

That would make flights much more peaceful.

[TahitiNut]

77. Yup. Good airlines should provide good drugs.

For anyone.

[Generic Other]

109. spewed on my keyboard

you nut!!

[Mad_Dem_X]

119. Sounds good to me! n/t

[Parche]

23. Put The Children In The Cargo Section

:rofl: :rofl: :hi:

[KharmaTrain]

24. Next, Let's Let The Elderly Fend For Themselves As Well

As a frequent traveler, I have no problem letting families with kids board first. One reason is I used to travel with my little ones and the anxiety of the kids sitting in the terminal is bad enough...get them on the plane and seated makes my boarding a lot easier. I can and do wait for most people to board before I get on as it is a lot easier to get to my seat when more people are sitting than moving around and trying to find their places. It's called common courtesty...I know, something that most people have forgotten about these days.

So the professor can't wait an extra five minutes? Sheesh. I have a clue for him...the plane still will take off and land at the same time. Don't like the policy? Either fly another airline or walk.

[iconoclastic cat]

26. But if SW wants to be the child-free airline, let 'em. Let the lawsuits proceed, too. nt

[mvccd1000]

31. Lawsuits for what?

Is there a law somewhere that children should be allowed to board planes first?

SWA is a business, and I'm sure this was a business decision. If enough fliers disagree, the business will feel the pinch and they'll make another adjustment.

I actually don't care who I have to wait for; I'm 6'5", and I'm going to be uncomfortable no matter where I sit, and the plane isn't going to leave until we're all on, anyway.

(Plus, I'm used to the 14 hour flight from Dubai-JFK several times a year, so any short little hop Southwest makes isn't even going to last long enough to bother me.) :)

[iconoclastic cat]

34. I'm sure someone will find something to sue about. nt

[AngryAmish]

150. Southwest is a common carrier

THat means anyone who shows up with their fare has to be seated (unless dangerous or disruptive).

So banning children is illegal.

[KharmaTrain]

39. If That's How The Chose, So Be It

I've heard enough bad about Southwest over the years that I've never considered using them. From a PR and financial standpoint I can't see them going "child-free" as their big shtick is being a discount carrier, but if that's a policy they want to choose, so be it...and I don't see how a court could prevent it just like they can't enforce adult only resorts. It'd be a stupid business policy. Also, if I'm not mistaken, there are several small airlines that cater strictly to business flyers...charter lines and the like (a friend of mine used to work for one) that offer some attractive rates and some even accomodate smokers (for cross country flights). It's all marketplace. If the airline stipulates on the ticket or "contract" that it restricts children, then let the buyer beware.

[iconoclastic cat]

44. Exactly. Research any product/service for which you shell out hundreds of dollars.

There's really no excuse for being shocked by the behavior of a crappy airline.

[Beausoir]

29. Me first! ME first!

Just wait for the backlash when people realize that allowing parents to board first and strap their carseat into the seat actually speeds up the boarding process.

Stupid decision.

[TahitiNut]

80. Whatever happened to "first come, first served"??

Sounds good enough to me. :shrug:

[ProfessorGAC]

86. That's What SWA Does

Early arrivals get the lower numbers. Or did they stop doing that?
GAC

[TahitiNut]

90. They still do "A-B-C" boarding ... with exceptions.

Disabled people go ahead of the queue. So did "parents with small children."

As a tall fellow with sciatica, I was always offended that the kids were placed in bulkhead seats where the legroom was best and the seats behind the exit rows were where us taller folks got crammed.

When I traveled frequently (I mean frequently!), I'd arrive at the airport 2-3 hours in advance in order to get legroom ... usually an exit row or bulkhead row, on the aisle. When I'd be denied that accommodation, often due to "short people" who didn't require the space, or when the airlines screwed up the seat assignments, I'd stop flying that airline. United Airlines screwed up TWELVE TIMES IN A ROW ... and I boycotted them. FOREVER. I haven't flown on United for over 20 years, now, and I never will. Southwest is near the bottom of my 'acceptable' list due to a number of factors - "bum's rush seating" with children in the legroom seats is one factor and their non-participation in online reservations systems is another.

It's good to hear that they don't let the "parents with small children" jump the queue ahead of even the 'A' boarding passes. IMHO, these people abused the privilege far too often. It's that abuse of the privilege that so often went hand-in-hand with ill-behaved kids. It became clear that the lack of consideration for other people was clearly part and parcel of the reason the kids were also ill-behaved. The acorns don't fall far from the trees.

[ProfessorGAC]

94. I Travel A Lot Less Now

Used to do 10 to 15 trips per year, at least a third overseas. Not so much now.

Weird. I like the two you hate! I like SWA because it seems like they were always on time out of Midway. And, United accomodates my MS by always assuring an aisle seat.

Apparently, there's no real policy. If you run into people who want to help, you get helped. If not, SOL.

Go figure.
GAC

[nini]

30. How many people here are aware SW doesn't have assigned seats

It's a free for all when the boarding comes. I'm sure that's why people complained since those groups were given an advantage over others who may have arrived at the airport very early to get a pass to board first.

Seems fair to me.

I don't fly SW because of the no assigned seat thing. The cattle call and resulting rushing makes me crazy.

[SidDithers]

42. Isn't that even more reason to board familes first?...

I wouldn't want to be sitting with some unattended 4 year-old for any length of time.

Sid

[nini]

50. I wouldn't either

But I will refrain from starting a child behavior/ parent discipline issue over this :evilgrin:


I believe younger kids and families should be able to go first for that reason. HOWEVER, a line has to be drawn somewhere as to age etc. but I won't even attempt to make that call.

Their no-seating policy has got them between a rock and a hard place here and I can see the points being made on both sides.

[Bluebear]

91. That can't happen, per the quoted article

'Children under 5, and those traveling with them, won't be stripped entirely of privilege. If they and their entourage don't get boarding passes in time to be part of group A, they'll be allowed to board right after that group, before B and C. This is to ensure that passengers with small children will find seats together.'

[SidDithers]

141. Alright...make the hypothetical child 6 then...

I know how fidgety my 7 year old is. Hell, sometimes I don't like sitting beside my own kid. I surely wouldn't want to sit next to someone else's if their parent(s) are sitting 5 rows further up the aisle.

Sid

[northzax]

157. then they can check in earlier

if they think it's a problem. you can check in online 24 hours in advance to get an A pass, and if you are in the A or B line, you are basically guaranteed to get two seats together.

[Zookeeper]

43. I wasn't aware of that. I don't think I'd fly an airline without...

assigned seats.

Thanks for posting that information!

[nini]

55. It annoys the heck out of me

That's why you will see long lines at the SW counter an hour or two before boarding that wrap around the airport. I'm not going to arrive 3 hours early to stand in line for that long to save $15 only to not know if I'll get to sit with my party. My time and frustration is worth more than that.

[dansolo]

136. That is the real reason - business travelers want to sit in front

Airlines will always defer to the business traveler. I suspect that some business travelers complained because by preboarding families with small children ahead of all other passengers, the prime seats (in front) are taken before they can board.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

35. I see a lot of chaos in future boardings on Southwest.

I see people getting up and down as those with children have to move past them with their safety seats.
I see people becoming agitated at how long it takes to strap in that safety seat.
I see people getting hit in the head by those same pesky safety seats.
I see people bitching just as much if not more on future Southwest flights.

I guess Southwest decided teach a lesson on being careful what one wishes for.

I would rather they board first so I don't have to deal with any of that mess.

[Bluebear]

73. Well they will all be in group A, just not "preboarded"

'Children under 5, and those traveling with them, won't be stripped entirely of privilege. If they and their entourage don't get boarding passes in time to be part of group A, they'll be allowed to board right after that group, before B and C.'

[Cleita]

36. I thought the purpose of boarding children first with their families

was to make it easier for the rest of the passengers to board afterwards. Oh well, I suppose they will find out soon enough why the practice came into place to begin with mothers trying to settle in children at the same time others are trying to board and crawl around them. It's bad enough with the adults trying to put their luggage in the racks while you are trying to board.

[Katherine Brengle]

People are stupid.

Seriously. They don't get it. It's not a "special privilege" - it's a way of keeping things organized that has the best chance of making *everyone* on the flight happier and more comfortable.

[nini]

62. though in this case SW doesn't have assigned seats

so others are obviously feeling they don't have a fair shot at decent seats.

[Cleita]

65. Then a better rule would be to have assigned seats on all flights, IMHO.

Therefore if you choose your seat when you buy your ticket, it shouldn't be a problem. Last flight I took with assigned seats, weren't written in stone anyway as the flight attendants changed some people around because of the emergency exits and the children especially were moved out of the way of the emergency exits.

[nini]

89. I agree but I guess they save money by not having to support the seat assignments

I don't fly with them for that reason.

[Gormy Cuss]

69. I'm almost sad that I don't fly on Southwest.

This latest social experiment should be mighty interesting, like watching a train wreck.

I'm waiting for an airlines to crack down on the bin stuffers -- those people with the maximum amount of carryon and a disdain for using the space under the seat in front of them, or the frequent flyers with seats in the back of the plane who use forward bins for stowing just because they can.

[DS1]

37. fuck that

the problem with southwest doing this before was that it guaranteed that noisy ass shitkids were evenly disbursed throughout the plane because nobody sits next to other people if given the chance to spread out. this made it a 100% chance that you were seated somewhere near a screaming kid.

bring back the preboarding, but make all the little fuckers sit in the front.

[neverforget]

82. never mind

[Fresh_Start]

41. Small children have to be seated next to a parent

for the good of the child as well as for the good of the entire cabin.

So if you don't load small children and parents first, don't complain if you have to move your seat at the last minute to the seat next to the toilet.

[Bluebear]

72. Then this part of the article is for you :)

Children under 5, and those traveling with them, won't be stripped entirely of privilege. If they and their entourage don't get boarding passes in time to be part of group A, they'll be allowed to board right after that group, before B and C.

[mondo joe]

45. Seems like a dumb change to me. I'd rather have people who are going to need

moer time - like those with little kids - to get on first. I don't see any advantage to standing in the plane waiting longer to get to my seat.

[DURHAM D]

49. I was recently on a Northwest flight

and a young couple traveling with a baby (in a car seat thingie) kept insisting that the baby was "owed" a seat even though they didn't pay for one. They were really aggressive and made statements that indicated they truly thought they were in a special class for having reproduced.
They blamed the airline for not telling them that they needed to purchase a ticket in order to be guaranteed a seat. The airplane was full up. The father started asking for someone to deplane and give up their flight/seat. They kept arguing and finally were taken to the front of the aircraft to speak to the Captain.

The flight was delayed as they removed the entire family from the plane. After it was over everyone applauded.

[Dora]

56. They were ignorant and self-centered travelers.

Those parents should have done their research. No airline gives seats to infants for free. Children under the age of 2 are often allowed to fly for free, but these are considered "lap" children. IOW, if the plane is full, the kid is held on a parent's lap.

Fortunately, ignorance and self-centeredness are equal opportunity personality flaws.

[iconoclastic cat]

58. Having a kid on your lap in a plane is dangerous and should not be done. nt

[Dora]

59. Yes. But many parents choose to take that risk.

We did. Why? Because we could not afford a third ticket for our infant son.

We were not uninformed.

[iconoclastic cat]

66. Sure, I understand.

If there's no other option, then what are you going to do, I guess.

[Clark2008]

124. Oh geez... like a car seat makes a big difference when you're

ejected at 30,000 feet.

:eyes:

Yes - I understand turbulence. The seat belt fits over both parent and child in most cases.

[Pithlet]

175. Having your baby belted to your lap by one strap for hours is a bit much, don't you think?

Besides, I'm not sure how safe that is. If the force ejects you out of your seat, it's going to crush you against the baby. Most adults weigh more than a car seat. I can't imagine the single belt suddenly cutting across both parent and child can be that safe, and a car seat has a five point system rather than the single belt. Edited to add that the couple being discussed in this sub thread should have bought another seat if they were going to use the carseat.

[DURHAM D]

60. The flight attendants and other passengers kept suggesting

they remove the baby from the car seat and hold her in their lap. The parents refused - they said it was not safe.

[Dora]

64. They should never have been allowed to board.

The airline was in error for allowing them to get as far as they did.

The prevailing wisdom is that it's ALWAYS BEST to have your infant in an approved seat when flying.

However, airlines do allow children under two to fly for free - if they are held in a parents lap for the entire flight. Many airlines will allow this lap child to occupy a seat if nobody is sitting in it. We were never so lucky.

Those parents were right about the safety of the car seat, but wrong in their expectations. The airline was correct in asking them to leave the flight.

[DURHAM D]

68. I am not sure how the family ...

I am not sure how they got clear to the back of the plane with the baby still in the infant seat and only two tickets but it might have been because of flight delays from bad weather (rain and tornadoes) that was causing a lot of confusion.

[gollygee]

107. Then they should have bought a seat

I have no time for self-centered assholes like that.

If you didn't buy a seat, keep the baby on your lap or get the hell off the plane.

[Ilsa]

78. Some people are just stupid. It is so easy to ask the

ticket agent or gate staff what the rules are regarding babies and seats.

[DURHAM D]

99. I honestly don't think they were as stupid as they were self-righteous. n/t

[Ilsa]

144. Some new parents go through a "I'm the only one who has

ever had a baby, and a brilliant and beautiful one at that." The self-righteouness usually ends when their kid gets shown up by someone else's kid, but I bet these people got a big dose of reality when they got off the plane.

[AndyA]

51. Let's see...which is best...a plane full of screaming children, or a plane full

of business travelers?

I'll take business, thank you.

By and large, parents today do a lousy job of controlling their children in public. They are allowed to scream, run loose, knock into people, and that's all perfectly fine.

In my day, if I'd done any of those things, I would have been yanked outside and been told in no uncertain terms that my behavior was not acceptable. But not today. And we wonder why things seem so bad these days. :shrug:

Fewer children on Southwest flights makes that airline more attractive to others, IMO. That is, of course, hoping that people with kids will use other airlines due to their loss of preferential treatment.

[Clark2008]

125. Obviously you don't know too many business travelers.

Talk about SPOILED ROTTEN SCREAMING children. I'd prefer my children's company over most of THOSE snots anyday.

:P

[bighart]

54. most of the posts to this thread are a great big

affirmation of one of the things that suck about our culture anymore, the "what about meeee???" attitude. I am someone who travels frequently for business and I have no problem with parents with small children being boarded first. I would rather sit in the waiting area as long as I can than board a plane first and sit in the cramped space with everyone jostling around me, bumping into me, stepping on me etc. What is the big deal with allowing others, be they handicapped, people with small children or those with the airlines "priority club" membership to get on the damn plane before you do? What ever happened to be courteous to others? Stop whining and be an adult who thinks about the needs of others rather than your own wants!!!!

[iconoclastic cat]

57. Welcome to the Roman Empire. Enjoy the coming collapse. nt

[bighart]

63. I do believe you are spot on with that.

[iconoclastic cat]

67. The parallels are so obvious, the comparison is almost a cliche. nt

[Kolesar]

79. I like to scratch my butt really well then get on the airplane last, too...eom

[mitchtv]

103. that is fine on airlines that assign seats

too many "pre boarders" on steerage runs like SWA could get opressive, especially if you want to sit near someone or the aisle/ window etc. SWA is more like a bus ride, and it is annoying to get to your seat, and not have a bin, or have to sit in the middle seats when you left home 4 hrs ago, and have been waiting for hours. there is merit to both sides. I prefer an assigned seat, then I don't care when I get on.

[bighart]

104. i certainly understand your point and

you have the option to vote that way, assigned seats, by whom you choose to fly with. I personally avoid Southwest when ever possible for that very reason. It is not always possible, but I will pay a little extra out of pocket if I have to and the cost is not unreasonable to use another carrier.

[high density]

61. I only fly on airlines that assign seats

The cattle call idea of flying is not something I want to be a part of. I'd say it's time for the groups with small children to arrive early or fly a different airline.

[Ilsa]

74. Oh Goody! My eight year old loves to play musical chairs,

and that's what people will be doing so they don't have to tend to the six year old sitting next to them because his mommy or daddy is three rows away. How much you want to bet this causes flight delays?

[Mountainman]

75. Really dumb, the plane can't leave until everyone is on board. You still have to wait

if you get on board first or last. It is just a matter of where you wait. In the terminal or on the plane.


Usually there are seat assignments anyway. It isn't first come first served. I don't mind if parents get to have their things and kids seated without all the people bumping and shuffling around trying to get their extra large bag in the carry on luggage bin.

[Dora]

83. Southwest doesn't have seat assignments.

Their seating policy actually IS first-come, first-seated, and they board in groups - A, B, and C.

[high density]

84. The fact is that Southwest DOES NOT have seat assignments

That is why people are having an issue with this change. I can understand how both sides feel, but it seems best to keep the families together IMO.

[Mountainman]

87. I didn't know that. I don't have a problem with someone getting on first.

Life is too short to get my panties in a wad about it. When ever I have flown I have had to wait, to get a ticket, to get on board, to get seated, to get off. I expect to have to wait if I fly. I don't think flying is an enjoyable thing.

[xilet]

81. Through this thread

Through this thread I have seen a number of topics brought up and very little discussion just mostly venting.

You have the anti-child crowd who used it as a chance to talk about how poorly behaved many children in public area.
You have the folks who just don't like SW air anyway.
You have the crowd that thinks that pre-boarding the children is the only way to get them settled in time.
And you have the folks that would like to see them not do anything special for children.

Do I have the majority of the opinions together here?

I would like to point out, hopefully without a knee-jerk reaction that SW seems to have tried to find compromise here.

They do not have assigned seating, if it is good or bad they are doing something different. They had a number of complaints from flyers that felt that pre-boarding families were getting the pick of the best seats and extra attention as them when they paid the same amount. Regardless of your opinon of selfishness vs people giving children more leeway that is I am sure what SW encountered.

They tried to find a good middle ground, they let the folks that got there early and wanted to get in the plane first (A group) that ability, but that is only 25% of the capacity (at least I am assuming here) then they boarded families. That way it tried to address the needs of the business class while still giving families plenty of time to get settled in, and still with large parts of the plane un-occupied so there should be room for them to find space to sit together.

Honestly in my opinion, short of setting up assigned seating, this seems like a really good compromise to make everyone happy.

[Zenlitened]

105. What're you, one o' them people who READS a news article before commenting on it???

Just kidding! Welcome to DU! :hi:

I think you summed it up pretty accurately: this was about compromise. And, FWIW, I think they came up with a pretty decent solution, too.

[northzax]

161. you forgot one opinion

which is the parents threatening bad behaviour from their children if they don't get to board first.

[Withywindle]

95. Ugh, I don't like this.

I didn't mind waiting at all, because when it was my turn to board, it made it as easy as it could be to make sure I seated myself as far away from small children as possible, because they were already in place.

[Bluebear]

96. They will all be boarded before the B group, so you have time to change seats

:toast:

[cboy4]

97. Good, I no longer have to borrow my neighbor's kid for

trips, just so I can get on the plane first.

[SayWhatYo]

98. hehe good one.

[Bluebear]

100. What about the children!?!?!

:hi:

[Mad_Dem_X]

120. Hee hee! n/t

[drbtg1]

106. How do you get into the "A" group?

Never took SW before.

[Bluebear]

108. Be amongst the first 45 to check in, either on line or at the airport

[Arugula Latte]

114. In my experience, you have to get your boarding pass online (usually the night before)

in order to get an A pass on Southwest. I finally realized that after repeatedly getting to the airport early only to be handed a B or C pass.

[kath]

170. You're right - if you don't get your boarding pass online, there's no way you're going to be in the

A group.

[Toots]

111. What a very small complaint, Everyone leaves at exactly the same time when the plane takes off.

Why should it make one whit of difference if you are sitting in the terminal or sitting on the plane five more minutes? This is a ridiculous complaint. It takes a very small minded person to complain about children boarding first, IMO.

[Mad_Dem_X]

115. Yay!

I for one am sick and tired of policies such as this. Just because you have kids doesn't mean you should get special boarding privileges (unless it's a hancicapped child, of course).

[Clark2008]

117. That's stupid.

Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.

Either that - or they prefer lawsuits when small children get trampeled by some of the people commenting on this board and in that article.

[Jed Dilligan]

118. As a person almost seven feet tall

I would welcome a crack at one of those primo seats up front, which are almost always taken by people with young kids. Not having a kid, I'm not sure if there's something helpful about being in the front of the plane. The kids sure don't need the legroom, and I sure do.

[Mad_Dem_X]

122. Well, you're just being selfish!

Quit being so self-centered! Don't you know that kids' needs are always more inportant than yours? Jeez...:sarcasm:

[SteelPenguin]

126. I'll tell you why they need to preboard, and how to solve the whole problem

Let me tell you, flying with children can be a right royal pain, and this decision by Southwest will make me find other carriers. We've flown primarily Southwest the past couple of years to visit family and it's been really convenient and we've been happy with them, but this won't do.

People think that the preboarders want the 'good' seats. This simply isn't true for the most part. People with kids for instance can't sit in the exit rows at all. There is something to be said for having the first row bulkhead seats, because it's so much easier to get the kids in and out of their carseats with that extra space, but there's no tray tables for dvd players or coloring books, either so they're sort of a draw.

The problem with this decision is making the people with kids part of the 'cattle call' that is southwest boarding. We have remarkably good children (almost three and almost one respectively) but a toddler is a toddler. Our oldest doesn't cry or whine, and is generally very sweet, but waiting in one spot in aline to get another seat will quickly lose her interest. Even if we manage that then we have to struggle in line with people ahead of us, and people behind us giving us attitude (it happens frequently) as we struggle to give our tickets and get down the jetway with two kids, a diaper bag, two other bags with stuff to keep the kids occupied and food drinks medicine, etc, plus two car seats and probably a stroller as well to be gate checked.

If we preboard we get to gather our stuff, and go right onto the plane, and have a few minutes to get everything in order. If we're line we might ahve to wait on the jetway with all that and the kids squirming and being impatient, then once we'r eon the plane with people behind us waiting impatiently as we get our bags above and below, and the seats installed, etc, after brushing by all the people who JUST HAD to get in first.

Not being allowed to preboard with two kids pre age 4 or 5 is just absolutely insane and amkes life very difficult for us. It also makes life more difficult for the people around us.

So here's the solution. People with kids can still preboard first. They just have to sit at the back of the plane.

Heck, we can't get off the plane till everyone else has anyway because we have so much crap it takes too long to get out, we just wait otherwise we hold up everyone on the plane when we're at the front. So instead people with kids can preboard, and go straight to the back of the plane. That way the 'GOTTA BE FIRST' business passengers (and your seven feet tall legs - wouldn't recommend the bulkhead though because you'll have less leg room. go for the emergency exit row which wouldnt' be taken by kids anway) are furthest away from the screaming kids. The peopel with kids get to board first. The poeple with kids don't block the people who are in a hurry to make connections.

Everyone is happy. There. Solved.

[Jed Dilligan]

128. Sounds good to me

I remember when I was a kid flying with my folks (older than your kids, obviously). My parents' rule was that we stayed in our seats on landing until everyone else had deplaned. It not only avoided many potential problems but was a good lesson in patience and self-discipline. Your suggestion would produce the same result.

[Kelly Rupert]

127. self-delete.

my opinion is worthless because I did not finish reading the article. I retreat in shame.

[MurrayDelph]

131. I used to fly 20+ roundtrips a year

The first trip I took with SouthWest was enough to convince me that I didn't want to fly with them ever again. Despite the fact that I had arrived early-enough to get a "low number," they were behind schedule, so the guy at the gate was ignoring the guy with the mike, and letting everyone in. By the time I had boarded, all of the overhead space was taken, and I was standing in the aisle, trying to get my bag under the seat, when I was told that I had to sit down, as the plane was moving. Keep in mind, this was not a case of me having gotten back up; I had never sat down. The pilot could have lost his license for that. At that time, my view was: if they were so lax about safety procedures that they would close the doors and pull away while a 200+ lb passenger was still standing, what other safety checks were the ignoring to get back on schedule?

Unfortunately, I did have to fly them a few more times. On one situation, I had driven to Las Vegas with friends, and was flying back to Burbank after my business were over. While waiting for them to open the gates, many of us were elbowed by a jerk forcing his way up the line with the call of "Low number; coming through!" At that point, I decided that if the only way to get from Burbank to somewhere else was by flying SouthWest, I would rent a car and drive both ways; it was almost as fast, and a lot more pleasant.

About seven years ago, my new wife and I flew to Seattle, and she insisted on using the cheapest option: SouthWest. We both walks with canes, and The Flash could not have boarded in the time between when they announced medical pre-boarding and general boarding. That one experience was enough to convince her.

[Johonny]

137. I know

when I was looking for a Job a few years ago one of the deciding factors was who was what airline they flew me on. Southwest cheapskates did not impress me.

[lse7581011]

139. I'm Still Waiting

for the child free airline!

[pink-o]

140. Wow...first USAir denies the disabled guy...now this from WN!

...As I commented in the USAir thread, I work as ground crew for a major airline in San Francisco (neither Southwest nor USAir). We have assigned seats and we board physically challenged passengers first, then families with young children. If the flight is not full, we find an extra seat in the row for a lap infant. And without exception, those parents are grateful and wholly appreciative.

As for the kids themselves, they're KIDS ferchrissakes!! They're excited and exuberant and also easily distracted and bored. How repressed are these old farts who get annoyed at kid behaviour, who have no understanding of what it's like for young people to sit still for 3 to 5 hours? Weren't you young once? I'm probably older than all of you uptight, close-sphinctered types (I'm almost 53) and believe me: in my business most of the kids are better behaved than the kvetching old whiners who didn't get the seats they wanted. So sad too bad: there are children in this world and we will be interacting with them. Most of them don't know better but try to be good and listen to us. Adults, who should know better, act like assholes a large percentage of the time.

[Bluebear]

142. The children will not be sitting alone, read the article.

What is "this" from WN that you are so exercised about?

[pink-o]

145. Yes, I understand the kids won't be separated from their parents

...I work for the airlines, remember? And I happen to like WN they're really good to employees of other airlines. I was commenting about not letting children board first with their families. It takes a long time to get kids out of the strollers, into the seats, and if there's a carseat in the mix, even longer to strap it safely in the window seat.

But I was mostly commenting on the vitriol against exuberant children I'm reading in this thread. Look, if you're a liberal, that probably means you were once like these kids: curious, excited, wanting to understand the world around you and asking annoying questions to add to your knowledge. From what I infer, too many people here want kids to behave by adult standards, to shut up and quit being so energetic. My point was Sorry if it's inconvenient to deal with children, but they're in the world, in our space and we can't avoid them. The last thing we want to do is repress them, make them obey without question and end up voting Republican for the rest of their lives!

[Pithlet]

158. The sitting alone thing isn't the only issue.

When I flew when the kids were car seat age, getting down the isle and to my seat lugging the car seat and kids in tow would have been much worse if some other passengers were already in their seats or standing in the isle putting their luggage in the overhead bin. Maneuvering that thing while watching for heads and waiting for people to get in their seats would have been just awful and would have taken forever.

[BlooInBloo]

153. So?

[Pithlet]

155. How stupid and shortsighted. Preboarding isn't a reward for having kids.

There are actual, practical reasons for the preboarding. I can see removing the restrictions for children over a certain age. But, to eliminate this for babies and toddlers is ridiculous. I think the whiners who called the waahhmbulance because they didn't get the seat they wanted will change their tune when they start missing their connecting flight because of all the delays this will cause. I'm willing to bet this won't last.

[Scout]

162. if they want to board earlier, then GET THERE earlier .... print your boarding pass

from home and be one of those in the A group that gets to board first.

If you can't get into the A group, you still get to board before the B and C groups.

Talk about whiners calling the waaaahmbulance :eyes:

[Pithlet]

164. And you will be boarding with the car seat while other people are boarding

That's the whole point. It slows everything up. It's laborious enough when you're doing it during pre-boarding. If you're thrown into the mix with everyone else, it will muck everything up. I think nixing a policy that makes boarding easier for everyone just so you can get the seat you want is classic waaahmbulance behavior. I think Southwest Airlines giving in to their demands is incredibly stupid and shortsighted, and I wouldn't be surprised if they end it. There's a reason every single airline does it this way, and it isn't because they're rewarding parents. It benefits everyone. And now everyone on Southwest Airlines will have to contend with parents wrestling with kids and carseats. The previous policy had nothing to do with entitlement.

[flvegan]

159. To HELL with the whole bloody thing!!

Just give everybody a boarding pass, no seat assignment, no boarding rules/times. When the crew is on, just ring a friggin' bell and let everyone, in a huge, crushing wave of flesh, bones and luggage, force their way down the tunnel and onto the plane. The biggest, fastest and strongest (and those with the ability to wield a stroller like a katana) will get on the plane and get the choice seats first. Smart parents will simply teach their young-uns to crowd-surf well and can then save seats next to them.

The airlines are violating my rights to a window seat in an emergency aisle (the row with more legroom). Where's the outrage?

Every boarding will be like a reenactment of the Battle of Thermopylae.

This is SPARTA!!

[LisaM]

166. You know what? Sometimes I get tired of deferring to kids all the time

I was with my sister-in-law and her two unruly children at a Bar Mitzvah a few months ago, and she muttered that they should let kids go FIRST. I really didn't agree. If you let kids go first at food events, they grab all the desserts and the best food (I worked at volunteer dinner once where parents literally let their kids take all the cake before some of the adults could get to it).

It's the same at work. Those with kids leave early, take days off, etc., etc., while those of us who, for whatever reason and it's not always by choice, don't have kids.


Then you get to the airport, and have to wait till all the kids board! I generally have understanding for them, but once in a while, it's refreshing not to have to wait for them. Plus, some of these parents have so much gear for their kids it's unbelievable.

[Pithlet]

169. The fact is it takes longer to board a plane with small kids.

Significantly longer now that most fly with car seats instead of putting them on their laps. This policy was never about deferring to kids. Any group of people who have additional needs when boarding were considered. So, now everyone flying Southwest Airlines will have to contend with people wrestling with their kids and carseats now, but at least people with kids know where they stand? I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. It isn't about not getting a piece of cake. It's about missing a connecting flight. As far as the rest of your rant, yeah yeah, we parents are selfish, blah blah blah. It's so tough to share the world with us, we get it already. But, preboarding policies are an actual, logistical need that benefited everyone. Getting rid of that was just plain stupid, and I'm not guessing too many other airlines will follow suit.

[LisaM]

172. I'm not anti-kid. I worked at a daycare for a long time

and I have six nieces and nephews that I spend as much time as I can with. But 1) kids travel with way too much stuff; and 2) it's not so much the airline thing (yes, I can see putting the car seats in first), it's EVERYWHERE. Geeze, my one sister-in-law and I drove down to Pittsburgh for two days, a five hour drive, and she took enough gear for a circus (two-thirds of which she didn't need). She has a one-year old and a three-year old. At our grocery store, for no good reason, they have these enormously huge shopping carts with big plastic cars attached that take up the room of three carts so the kids can sit in huge plastic cars instead of walking. In fact, I've concluded that kids are losing the ability to walk; I see them riding everywhere, even when they're five or six.

[Pithlet]

173. You may not be anti-kid

But your rant sounded exactly like the ones posted by the anti-kid crowd. I'll concede you're not anti-kid, but I still think you're a little misinformed. I hardly think kids are losing the ability to walk. Grocery carts have been around forever. Some are shaped like a car now, but they basically function the same way. I just hate them because they're so damned hard to push. But my parents put me in the grocery cart all the time, and I walked right on schedule. So did both of my kids. You have to use a grocery cart anyway, and it's hard to push the cart, do your shopping, and hold on to your kids hand. Plop them in the cart and problem solved. I don't think the half hour or so is detrimental to any physical development or a sign of a drastic parenting style evolution. Strollers aren't a new invention, either. Little legs get tired much faster. It's a fact, and it was the drive behind the inventions of strollers, prams and carriers. Parents have been carting around their kids in various forms since the wheel was invented, and probably even before that. A lot of them have different bells and whistles but their function and use are largely the same.

Getting back to the OP, since people who fly are often going on some sort of vacation, a lot of walking is likely in store, so it isn't unreasonable to expect them to bring that stuff, even if they aren't the kind of parents who rely on them much from day to day. And, then there is the carseat thing. Most people who haven't lugged one around probably don't realize how heavy and unwieldy they are. Letting parents get all that out of the way before everyone else boards makes the most sense, and I don't understand why anyone had a problem with that enough to raise a stink and get the policy changed.

[LisaM]

177. I don't have a problem with putting carseats in first

But you must admit that almost everyone brings too much crap on a plane. I check everything possible and go on with just my tote bag with my books and magazines in it. Then when the plane lands I stand and wait while everyone unloads everything but the kitchen sink from the overhead bins.

My SIL brought a sleeping bag, an air mattress, was going to bring a crib even though the hotel had one, a present for her child to open once an hour (so she had about 25 presents), stuff for Easter baskets Sunday morning, sippy cups, and on and on! The three-year-old ended up sleeping in bed with her and we didn't use half the stuff. We took a van and it was packed to the GILLS for a two-day trip and almost none of it was mine.

I once sat next to a woman travelling alone with a child and she had a huge oversized stroller for the kid, and the kid had a doll and a stroller too! By the time she deplaned, she was overwhelmed with stuff. The child didn't want to walk or ride in the stroller (she'd been asleep). So the mom is pushing the stroller, and carrying the kid, and the doll, and the other stroller that the kid wouldn't let go of. The hullaballoo was terrific. No one helped her but me (I called a cart to take her to her next gate and helped her carry all her stuff), but there was just too much stuff. I did NOT have that much baggage when I was a kid. And yes, we had strollers, of course, but I know that we walked a lot more. I've actually seen kids fighting to get out of strollers so they CAN walk, but parents too impatient to slow down and walk at a child's pace.

Hey, I know! Why not let the kids, parents, and all their crap on first, put them in the window and middle seats, and let those of us with no overhead luggage sit on the aisles and get off the plane FIRST! Now that I would support.

[hiphopnation]

176. me too

and i've got two of 'em. i love 'em to pieces, but children are coddled way too much in this country imho
let 'em grow up with a sense of reality!

The thing that impresses me most about Americans is the way parents obey their children.
Edward, Duke of Windsor

[Horse with no Name]

171. This is BS

But, people who fly with children should just fly another airline.
Hit them in the pocketbook.
I personally would rather someone be seated with their children...because I don't want to end up taking care of someone else's child because their parent is seated somewhere else nor would I want anyone taking care of mine.

[Bluebear]

178. it's not BS

'Children under 5, and those traveling with them, won't be stripped entirely of privilege. If they and their entourage don't get boarding passes in time to be part of group A, they'll be allowed to board right after that group, before B and C. This is to ensure that passengers with small children will find seats together.'

[hiphopnation]

174. so?

i have two kids and fly frequently