AIR TRAVEL

Kids on a plane! 5 fixes for unruly junior passengers

Kids on a plane.

No four words incite more acrimonious debate among air travelers. Not “your flight is delayed.” Not “here’s a new fee.” Not even “snakes on a plane.”

On one side, you have childless customers who just want a little civility while they’re locked inside a pressurized aluminum tube. And on the other, parents who believe airlines should accommodate anyone, anytime — particularly their beloved offspring.

Talk about oil and water. Or maybe, nitroglycerin.

Children and planes can be a combustible mix. Consider:

Ask your irritating child to smile
Two hours into her recent JetBlue flight from New York to Las Vegas, Marilyn Parver watched as a loud child that had been annoying other passengers nonstop since takeoff finally made one of them snap. She videotaped the ensuing fight, and oddly, was threatened with arrest after refusing to delete the footage.

Bloody Mary!
When Tamera Jo Freeman’s kids began to argue about a window shade on a Frontier Airlines flight and spilled a Bloody Mary into her lap, she spanked her offspring, which provoked a confrontation with a flight attendant. Freeman threw a can of tomato juice on the floor, and was arrested and convicted of a federal felony defined as an act of terrorism under the Patriot Act.

Bye bye, plane
Kate Penland’s toddler son wouldn’t stop repeating the words “bye, bye plane” as a Continental Express flight from Atlanta to Oklahoma City taxied down the runway. A flight attendant suggested that Penland administer baby Benadryl, a medication that’s often used to sedate overactive kids. When Penland refused, the flight turned around and both passengers were kicked off the plane.

Hey little girl, want some Xanax?
Who can forget the case of Daniel Reed Cunningham, the Northwest Airlines flight attendant charged with spiking a 19-month-old girl’s apple juice with Xanax, a prescription depressant?

Question is, what to do about the littlest air travelers?

A decade ago, the last time I wrote about this issue, my sympathies were with solo passengers who wanted to ban babies on board. But now I have three kids — ages 6, 4 and 2 —and I’m leaning to the parents’ side.

Kinda.

Here are five ways we might approach the kids-on-a-planes problem — and what you can do to become part of the solution:

1. Kids’-only sections
“I would gladly pay an extra $20 each way to avoid the noise and headaches,” says Randy Gillespie, a travel agent from Collingswood, N.J., adding that such an option should be built into the fare rather than offered an optional add-on. Kids’-only sections have been tried on an informal basis in the past, but never quite caught on. Families couldn’t be forced into one section of a plane any more than kids could be excluded from, say, first class. But you can still find your own “kid free” section on a plane. On domestic flights, children may not sit in exit rows, and they’re unlikely to make an appearance in business- and first-class sections, where seats are super-expensive.

2. Ban ’em
“I don’t know whether it would be practical to have child-free flights,” says Bill Armstrong, an information technology consultant from Calgary. “But certainly, I am on the list of people who would pay a little extra for that.” Armstrong recently endured a nine-hour flight with a child that “had developed a uniquely annoying scream” that didn’t stop and could be heard even while Armstrong wore headphones. But is getting rid of all children a viable solution? Probably not. That’s not to say crewmembers shouldn’t be more vigilant about looking for potentially disruptive kids during boarding and warning their parents that outbursts and other forms of unapproved behavior won’t be tolerated. If you suspect you’ll have a problem with an unruly child sitting next to you — and this is especially true if it’s your own child — then speak up before the cabin doors close. A crewmember might be able to move you to a different section. Or a different flight.

3. No, get rid of the adults!
In fairness, I can’t raise the issue of banning kids without handing the mic to angry parents who think annoying adults should be banned, too. So here it goes. “Are there really more disruptive kids on planes than obnoxious adults?” asks Hayley Schultz, who travels with her three kids, ages 5, 7, and 9, and notes that they sit in their seats, read books and watch TV without incident. Good point. If you want to see annoying adults, just take a red-eye flight from Las Vegas, where half the unlucky passengers are trying to drown their sorrows one mini-bottle of cheap whiskey at a time. Or board a wintertime flight from any New York airport to Palm Beach, Fla., a route known for its preponderance of irritating passengers. Schultz represented some of the more levelheaded comments I’ve received from parents who thought this whole debate shouldn’t be happening at all. Point taken — but not enough to end the discussion.

4. Encourage responsible parenting
Many in-flight altercations are a result of negligent parenting, to hear some passengers talk about it. Mauranna Sherman, an administrative assistant from Forest, Va., was recently kicked repeatedly by a five-year-old on a flight from Charlotte to Albany, N.Y. When she turned around, the boy’s mother just shrugged. “Mom had no bag of toys or books or techie stuff” to distract her son, she remembered. Airlines bear some responsibility in helping adults prepare for a flight with their offspring, and their Web sites could do a far better job of telling new parents what to expect on a flight. But ultimately, of course, it’s parents’ job to make sure they’ve packed enough food and entertainment for the flight. I’ve heard of childless passengers packing their own snacks, toys and games to deal with stressed-out kids they might encounter on a flight. That’s not a bad idea.

5. Pass new seatbelt laws
“I would like to see kids more secure during flight,” says Nancy Hatten, a flight attendant who lives in Farmington Minn. “Parents of children under two should be required to purchase a passenger seat for the child and then keep them buckled in a child car seat during flight.” That would require parents to buy a seat for their kids, which they currently don’t. But it would almost certainly make air travel safer and saner for everyone else. Toddlers strapped in a car seat usually come to terms with their circumstances quickly and know that a stroll down the aisle to visit the pilot is not possible. Airlines can make it easier for parents to buy an extra seat by offering a discount and providing parents with special seats or child-friendly seatbelts, the same way car rental companies do.

Even though I have three children, I still can’t quite bring myself to siding with many parents, who seem to feel as if their kids should be able to fly anywhere, anytime and behave in any way they want to. (They’re kids, after all!)

My offspring are capable of some of the most annoying behavior ever. After all, I’m their father. So when a flight attendant tells me my kids are out of line, I’m the first to agree. I wouldn’t dream of seating my children in business- or first class even if I could afford it. That’s a topic for another column, though.

But ban kids outright? I used to like the idea, at least in theory, but now see eye-to-eye with readers like Lisa Hirsch, a Los Angeles-based entertainment journalist.

“What are parents with small children supposed to do?” she asked me. “Never travel?”


33 comments

Wall Street Journal’s McCartney: Airlines have gotten “carried away” with fees

Scott McCartney writes The Wall Street Journal’s “Middle Seat” column and is the author of the new book “The Wall Street Journal Guide to Power Travel: How to Arrive with Your Dignity, Sanity, and Wallet Intact.” With the travel season about to take off, I asked him for his thoughts on flying in the summer of 2009.

mccartney

Q: What should air travelers expect this summer?

McCartney: I think this will actually be a very good summer to travel, if you can afford it. The recession has lowered ticket prices considerably, left hotel rooms far more available at lower prices and reduced congestion at airports and in the skies so flights are running more on time.

The dollar has rebounded some, and so it’s a good year to venture overseas. Crowds should be smaller and merchants should be more anxious for your business. We may well look back on this year and say there was a window of opportunity when the airline system and major tourist destinations didn’t bog down as much under the weight of summer crowds and travelers actually had the upper hand.

I’m taking my family to Europe — tickets were about half the price of what I probably would have paid last year. Hotel rooms seem to have good availability using points or reasonable rates in dollars. I just think that if you are able to do it financially, it’s a great time to go.

Q: I really like the subtitle to your book, “How to Arrive with Your Dignity, Sanity, and Wallet Intact.” What do you think is more important to travelers — dignity, sanity or intact wallet?

McCartney: Thanks. Full disclosure: It was my wife’s idea.

I think it depends on the traveler, but for most, the wallet is the bottom line. Travelers will endure a lot to save a few bucks — just look at the popularity of discount European airlines and the long bus rides, infrequent service, high fees, etc. that people put up with for a cheap fare. While indignities anger them and inane experiences do make them crazy, getting gouged is what really sends people over the edge with airlines.

I think to some extent it’s a reflection of the animosity travelers have toward airlines. Airlines do bad things to people, and people remember. Goodwill and warm consumer feelings get ruined when a bag is lost, a flight is canceled, a traveler is bumped, a crew times out leaving a planeload stranded. What’s more, airlines make the money part of the experience so difficult — changing prices, limited availability, etc, etc. You go to a car dealer to buy a car thinking that salesman is out to take as much advantage of you as possible, and you know you likely won’t get as good a deal as the guy next to you. You just assume that. And I think it’s much the same with airlines. Airlines battle their customers over money — not a good position to be in.

Q: I noticed that almost the entire book is dedicated to air travel. There’s a brief chapter on hotels and cruises. Why did you decide to emphasize air travel?

McCartney: You’re right — 29 pages on hotels and cruises in a 300-page book, so about 90 percent on airlines. There’s also stuff early on picking the right vacation and some general travel experience stuff.

The reason is that I believe the air part of any trip has the greatest potential for disruption. Vacations get ruined by the flight there or the flight home. Business travelers rarely lose contracts or have their lives turned upside down by hotels. Yet airlines dictate much of how they get their job done. The penalty for airline problems is severe for travelers. The airline ticket is a far more complicated transaction than renting a car or a hotel room. And airline-related issues stretch far: frequent flier programs, first-class upgrades, baggage service and fees, security and airport hassles–you name it.

I also believe that the airplane trip holds the greatest fascination for people. Soaring into the sky and traveling at 500 miles per hour still amazes us, and the operation of airlines today is enormously complex. I wanted to explain to people how it works — from how airlines price tickets to how the FAA operates the air-traffic control system. By understanding how things work, travelers are better prepared.

Bottom line: Flying is where people need the most help. The goal of the book is to help people improve their travels, and 90 percent of that does come on the airline side.

Q: How often do you fly, and if you don’t mind me asking, which loyalty programs do you participate in?

McCartney: I fly a couple of times each month. Not every week, but a mixture of long trips where I’m working on multiple stories and quick out-and-back trips to see a particular airline or report a particular angle.

I try to spread my flying out so I get to compare different airlines first-hand and try different hotels. I’ll take a trip just to try out a new airline and look for interesting innovations. I’m a member of the loyalty program at Delta, American, United, Continental, Northwest, US Airways, Southwest, jetBlue, AirTran, Starwood, Marriott and Hilton.

Q: When it comes to air travel, where do travelers lack understanding of the industry, generally speaking? Why do you think they don’t get it?

McCartney: Let me take the second first: They don’t get it because airlines do a poor job of explaining their business. I really believe there’s a major communications gap.

And I think it starts internally: Often airline managers don’t explain policies, decisions and practices well to their own employees. And that leads to lousy service. But it amazes me that there are business travelers riding the same airline every week who themselves run very complex businesses and they don’t understand a lot about why airlines do the things they do.

I think the lack of understanding comes on two fronts: the financial and the operational. Travelers often think airlines are jacking up fares and fees and somehow taking advantage of them when the airline is losing money on the ticket. It’s not like these companies are wildly profitable. But it goes back to the disparity that travelers face: sometimes a ticket costs $200; sometimes it costs $1,200 for much the same trip.

The penalties airlines impose seem irrational to consumers: $150 to change a ticket with a few keystrokes, plus the higher fare? Inconsistency leads to misunderstanding.

On the operational side, it’s also poor communication. The classic example: weather delays. Clear skies in New York, and the flight to Florida is delayed due to weather. You call your wife in Florida and she says it’s sunny and warm. Those lying airlines! The bad weather may be in North Carolina and that’s disrupted traffic up and down the East Coast, but airlines don’t take the time to explain.

Same with canceling flights — they’re just canceling because of light bookings! Most likely there is more to it than that, but the airline doesn’t explain. Same with lost baggage: No bag, where is it? The airline can’t tell you! That just increases anxiety. When will it get to me? The airline can’t say. How frustrating for the traveler!

Q: How are the airlines like the funeral home industry?

McCartney: There’s a good joke in here somewhere!

For many years one of my standard questions for airline executives has been, Is there any other industry that makes it so difficult to use its product? It’s fun to see them ponder that, and I really believe it’s an issue that is fundamental to the problems of the airline industry.

The many rules, complexities, penalties and difficulties of buying tickets and traveling by airline can discourage people from traveling. If your customers dread it, it’s not good for business.

Only one airline executive has given me an answer: Mike Gunn, the former marketing chief at American, once suggested health care was more complex and frustrating. He had a point. Perhaps that’s not the company that any industry wants to keep, right?

When I posed the rhetorical question in the first draft of the manuscript, my editor at Harper, Ben Loehnen, had an answer of his own: funeral homes. He did it for a chuckle, and I liked the comparison. On one level, funeral homes have opaque and confusing pricing, a reputation for gouging people who need services at the last minute and plenty of complexity and different service levels. On another level, you have to die to actually become a customer. So looking at it that way, it’s clearly more difficult.

Q: Is there a right way and a wrong way for an airline to charge a la carte fees? Can you give me and example of an airline that does fees right?

McCartney: I think value for the fee charged is the key, plus full disclosure of what the fees are and what you get. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to charge extra for United’s Economy Plus seating, for example. You get extra legroom, and for some people, having that option is terrific.

On the other hand, I think it’s ridiculous for US Airways and Northwest to be trying to charge for choice seats — aisle or window seats at the front of the airplane. Worse, it’s outrageous for Spirit to be charging fees for routine services that add no value – a fee to buy a ticket online instead of at an airport, for example, or even a fee to reserve a seat.

I also think airlines needs to look closely at how high they’ve raised some fees. As I mentioned, $150 to change a domestic ticket when you also charge any fare difference seems extreme. Is it fair to charge $100 to redeem a free ticket when you have marketed and enticed your customers into believing they can redeem miles for free travel? If I carry a pet into a cabin myself I’m charged $150 on Delta. If your luggage weighs 60 pounds, it’ll cost you $250 round-trip on United but only $100 on American and Continental.

Airlines have gotten carried away with some fees, I believe, because customers have begrudgingly accepted them and paid them. But in the long run there is a cost to those companies. If consumers don’t believe the price was fair, they may go elsewhere next time.

Q: Are airlines regulated enough? Where would you like to see the tighter regulation? And where do we need the government to take a more “hands-off” approach?

McCartney: I don’t think government should try to regulate customer service beyond the traditional regulatory role in any business: discrimination, accessibility, anti-trust, etc. Let the marketplace take care of companies with poor service. But I do believe government has a role in regulating safety, and the FAA often isn’t doing enough.

The Colgan/Continental commuter crash hearings at NTSB this week are a sickening reminder. Today, for example, an FAA safety inspector testified he knew of systematic safety violations. But did he do anything? Apparently not. It appears as though that captain should have never been in that seat flying that plane. That’s a major regulatory failure, and obviously a company failure, that killed 50 people.

Q: You seem to strongly endorse participating in an airline’s frequent flier program. Is there anyone who would not be well-served by collecting frequent flier miles?

McCartney: If infrequent travelers can supplement a mileage account with a credit card and other purchases, then it’s probably worthwhile. But if you really don’t fly enough or buy enough, or prefer to take credit-card rewards in some other form like cash or points rather than miles, then the frequent flier program can work against you.

Loyalty is the question. The risk is you’ll be trying to build miles and purchase a higher-priced ticket or opt for an inconvenient itinerary just to stick with a preferred airline. If you don’t travel regularly, you’ll pay more than if you weren’t a member of a program, and so that free ticket you hope to someday score, and may never get because of capacity restrictions, may cost you quite a bit of money. For many people, mileage-based credit cards may not be the best choice as well.

Q: If you could change one thing about the airlines, what would it be? And if you could change one thing about airline passengers, what
would it be?

McCartney: Allow me to offer two for each.

On airlines, I’d simplify the business everywhere I could. A contract of carriage at many airlines is longer than an IRS Form 1040.

Secondly, I’d get airline CEOs and their boards to recognize that it’s not their financial prowess or legal intuition that matters, it’s their leadership ability. Airline CEOs are football coaches — though most don’t recognize that or aren’t comfortable with that). The successful ones are able to rally the troops and excite the customers.

Throughout my tenure covering airlines, the one constant has been that when the CEO loses labor, it’s over. The job will end. The CEOs who can effectively communicate plans, motivate the troops and get employees working together have run good airlines. The ones who lose trust, don’t inspire, can’t articulate clear goals and try to run the business as though it was a bank or telephone company always fail. It’s a different kind of business, and I think it requires different skills than just being strategically smart in the boardroom.

On passengers, I’d love to see less brow-beating by road warriors. Many of use have the mentality that the airline can do something better for me if I make a big-enough stink or yell at the airline employee until I win. And too often, it works!

It’s the obnoxious traveler who holds up the line for the rest of us, or insists on claiming that one last seat when there’s some poor kid with no status trying to get Home. Travel is tough, and travelers could do more to take care of each other.

To that end, my second simple change: Every passenger would ask first before reclining a seat back into someone’s lap. Space is tight, and too often a reclined seat makes life far worse for the passenger behind you. A reclined seat means they probably can’t open a laptop screen, for example. I think people should turn around and say something – “I’d like to recline my seat, just wanted to warn you…”

Maybe a compromise can be reached so there is still room for the laptop? Maybe the courtesy will prevent the passenger behind from kicking and kneeing the seat. Or my personal favorite, opening a newspaper so it brushes the head of the recliner.


6 comments

Downgraded without a refund

Question: I’m having a problem with an involuntary downgrade. I bought a ticket on Virgin Atlantic Airways last March to fly from New York to London in premium economy class. When I arrived at the airport, Virgin canceled my flight but rebooked me on the next flight out on British Airways.

When I was issued my new ticket, it was in economy class. I tried to explain I should’ve been booked in the same class — in this case, World Traveller Plus — but British Airways wanted to charge me extra for it.

I’ve complained to Virgin that I should’ve at least been issued a partial refund, but haven’t heard anything. Any insight you have would be greatly appreciated. — James Simon, New York

Answer: Virgin should have either put you in the British Airways equivalent of premium economy class or refunded the price difference between the tickets.

But that’s easier said than done. Even though Virgin’s premium economy and British Airways’ World Traveller are essentially the same products — they have roughly the same amenities and services, including in-flight entertainment, meals and seats with about the same amount of space — the airlines treat the products differently in their reservations system.

It turns out you were holding a discounted ticket for Virgin Atlantic’s premium cabin. When the time came to transfer your ticket to British Airways, the airline bought you a seat in the equivalent class for that fare — which was economy class.

That’s understandable from an airline’s perspective, but I think someone should have taken the time to explain why you were being downgraded. Virgin Atlantic could have also found a way of making this up to you, either by crediting miles to your frequent flier account or by offering you a flight voucher.

Instead, you were unceremoniously sent to the back of the plane. And when you asked for compensation, you were ignored.

How could you have prevented this? I think the ideal time to resolve a problem like this is at the ticket counter, not after you land. When you saw the involuntary downgrade, you should have protested the seat reassignment politely, but firmly. As far as I can tell, Virgin’s customer contract doesn’t specifically address a downgrade such as the one you encountered. However, the fine print seems to suggest that you should be sitting in the class of service for which you paid.

I contacted Virgin on your behalf, and a representative promised to offer you $250 in ticket vouchers or 25,000 miles. It also assured me your frequent flier account would be credited with the miles, as if you had flown on Virgin instead of British Airways.

Too bad the story doesn’t end there. A month later, you had received nothing. I contacted Virgin again. It didn’t respond. So you threatened to take the company to small claims court.

Finally, the airline sent you a belated apology, depositing the promised 25,000 miles into your account and crediting you with the miles for the flights. Better late than never.


5 comments

EU commissioner: We have all been “misled” by airlines

The European Union’s new regulation on airline ticket transparency, which requires airlines to quote a fare including all taxes, fees and surcharges, went into effect Nov. 1. How will the new rules affect air travelers here and in Europe? I asked Meglena Kuneva, the EU commissioner for consumer affairs.

Q: First of all, congratulations on passing and implementing this important law for consumers. Can you tell me how the price transparency rule works?

Kuneva: These rules will ensure transparency of information for consumers so that they may confidently compare airline offers and make informed choices when purchasing airline tickets. European consumers will be better informed of the final price to be paid when purchasing an air service that departs from an EU airport.

Q: Why was this rule necessary?

Kuneva: We have all seen and been misled by some airlines advertisement campaigns offering a one way ticket for 1 Euro, only to find that the offer is limited and that additional charges significantly increase the cost of the airline ticket.

Q: Does the law apply to online and offline purchase?

Kuneva: Regardless of how a consumer purchases an airline ticket, be it online or via a travel agency, these new European rules will today oblige air carriers to publish the total air fare which is to include a breakdown of all applicable taxes, fees, charges and surcharges foreseen at the time of publication of the price.

Q: Who is enforcing the rule?

Kuneva: It is the task of the member states to ensure that these new rules are complied with. The member states are also responsible for determining effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions.

That being said, in order to ensure better coordination and effective cooperation between the competent national authorities, the European Commission convenes meetings with all the national authorities responsible for the application and enforcement of air transport and consumer protection law.

Q: So how would that work?

Kuneva: In the field of consumer protection, there’s a network of national enforcement authorities. In September 2007, they carried out a common action referred to as an airline sweep. Here, airline and travel agency Web sites who sell airline tickets online were checked to see whether they comply with EU consumer protection legislation.

The findings showed that half of the Web sites were found to have irregularities that required closer scrutiny, and, where appropriate, follow-up action was taken by the enforcement authorities to ensure that the sites were rectified by May 2008.

Q: Many airlines are relying on what are called ancillary revenues to make profits. How do you define an “all-inclusive” fare, and what room, if any, is left to generate ancillary revenues from things like seat assignments, luggage and in-flight meals?

Kuneva: The new regulation does not prohibit ancillary revenues such as those for luggage and in-flight meals. The purpose of the regulation is to guarantee transparency so that the fare charged from getting from Country A to Country B is inclusive of all additional taxes, fees, charges and surcharges foreseen at the time of publication of the price.

Q: What about disclosure of these other surcharges?

Kuneva: For consumers, the aim [of the regulation] is to ensure that they are fully informed of the final price to be paid for the airline ticket so as to avoid any unnecessary surprises when they reach the end of the booking process.

Ancillary revenues, as I said, are not prohibited by the regulation. However, the regulation does provide that any such optional price supplements must be communicated to the consumer in a clear, transparent and unambiguous way at the start of the booking process.

Moreover, these supplements will need to be accepted on an opt-in basis by the consumer.

Q: Why is this price transparency so important? Can’t customers figure out the final price for themselves?

Kuneva: Providing an all-inclusive end price in advertisement campaigns and during the booking process is a very important element since it allows the consumer to confidently compare prices between airlines.

Once the booking is completed, the provision of the price breakdown becomes more important as it may be useful for the passenger in case of claims – for example, reimbursement of charges or taxes when the journey is canceled.

Q: How will the EU rule apply to fares quoted in other countries – for example, in the United States?

Kuneva: The rules apply to all price indications, from both air carriers and travel agents, with regard to air services departing from an EU airport. It does not matter whether the air carrier is an EU carrier or whether it is a third country air carrier.

The important point is that if the flight departs from an EU airport, it will be subject to the new rules. In addition, European carriers are also encouraged to apply the same rules to prices of air services departing from a third country to an EU destination.

Q: Do you believe an all-inclusive pricing rule would make sense in the States?

Kuneva: On a general note, I strongly believe that we should be proud of the level of safeguards that our EU consumer protection laws provide. Only very recently, we held a conference on the “Future Challenges for EU Health and Consumer Policies” in Brussels and I can assure you that I was struck by the resounding calls for the European Commission to export our consumer laws abroad.

This is certainly something that could be considered for the future. However, my immediate priority is to ensure the highest level of consumer protection to all EU citizens is guaranteed.

Q: Are there other industries, such as cruises, which also rely on ancillary revenues to make a lot of their money, where price transparency rules might make sense? If so, are you considering expanding the current rule?

Kuneva: The new arrangements reflect the liberalized functioning of air transport in Europe and aim at creating uniform rules for transparency and competition for all.

Fair competition is good both for consumers and businesses. I have a strong belief that consumers have the right to be informed and an all-inclusive pricing does not mean the consumer is not provided with detailed information before the trip is booked and paid for.

If evidence shows that there are misleading practices applied in other industries, member states will need to examine these practices on a case by case basis in the light of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.


0 comments