Survey results on Family-only Sections on planes

[jmbklj]

According to a recent survey by a travel website, skyscanner.com, more than half of the respondents would favor a families-only section on planes. Remember the crying rooms in movie theaters? Do they still have those?

I've often thought a general area for families might be good but of course the airlines need to sell as many seats as possible, regardless of the number of children flying on a specific flight. While the airlines might not be able to have a distinct families-only section, one area area could be generally used, like the back, by the bathrooms. While the number of families could vary drastically from flight to flight, one would then know upfront that generally the families would be at the back of the plane, and possibly avoid that area. It couldn't be a hard & fast rule, but a general area of the plane.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...htm?csp=Travel

http://travelingmom.com/blogs/2219-s...-sections.html

[bonniejoy03]

I would go with an "annoying person" section. Those people would be the ones who are coughing and sneezing, eating food with very annoying sounds, VERY LOUD TALKERS that need to scream to their friends across the aisles. That to me, would be the best way to section the plane.

[[email protected]]

It would be hard to section off planes and if you are sitting in the front of coach you still need to go to the back to use the bathrooms. I hate the folks that sit in back of you and continually kick or push the back of your seat and the folks in front of you who have their seat so far back that it pushes your knees up into your chest!

[thepiranha]

I think a family section is a great idea. Instead of being bored on long plane rides, the kids could converse or play board games or video games with each other. That would make everybody on the flight happier . . . kids, parents, and other passengers.

[kyshel]

I doubt seriously if ANY airline would go to the expense of refitting AC to accommodate that configuration. The name of the game is profits and parents are NOT going to pay extra. Airlines/pax already have a "vehicle" for those who can typically avoid cherubs--it's called FIRST or BIZ class. Sure it's not avail on all AC, but this won't be either. Airlines won't refit RJ's for that and even if they wanted to be route-specific, like ATL/MCO or LGA/MCO for Disney, what about mechanical or weather cancels? No plane w/kids sectio...What about, when there are not enough seats for ALL the kids on FLT A or B? They'll have to mix with the other adults!! Horrors and lawsuits and rights are violated...whiners galore: "I paid extra for that seat w/kid [or no kids]"....ad infinitum. If it did happen on a very limited basis, I guess it would be as sustainable as PetAirlines. Dream on!

[jmbklj]

I doubt seriously if ANY airline would go to the expense of refitting AC to accommodate that configuration. The name of the game is profits and parents are NOT going to pay extra. Airlines/pax already have a "vehicle" for those who can typically avoid cherubs--it's called FIRST or BIZ class. Sure it's not avail on all AC, but this won't be either. Airlines won't refit RJ's for that and even if they wanted to be route-specific, like ATL/MCO or LGA/MCO for Disney, what about mechanical or weather cancels? No plane w/kids sectio...What about, when there are not enough seats for ALL the kids on FLT A or B? They'll have to mix with the other adults!! Horrors and lawsuits and rights are violated...whiners galore: "I paid extra for that seat w/kid [or no kids]"....ad infinitum. If it did happen on a very limited basis, I guess it would be as sustainable as PetAirlines. Dream on!

In the several articles I read about this survey, I didn't see any mention of airlines going to the expense of refitting planes with a new seat configuration. In fact it might be best to not have a specific size cabin for families since the number of families per flight would vary.

Usually first class does not have children although I've been on flights in first class with children there too.

I also did not see any mention in the articles of charging extra in fees, even though that practice seems to be more common. I would pay extra to be in the 1st one third of seats on a long flight if I knew that families would be in the back third of the plane. An extra $10 or $25 to be sure I don't have a screaming or kicking kid by me = priceless!

[kyshel]

Is anyone old enough to remember smoking sections? They were nothing but one row of smokers, one row of no-smokers abutting each other. What's the difference if you put kids in one area? Who decides the placements? Johnny's Mom wont sit in the back, Susie's dad says the back area of the galley is safest...yadda yadda yadda--what's the point of a section when it's just a kiddie camp right behind the row of adults? WHo's going to pay for that when it offers no buffer w/out refit? A curtain? who gets stuck behind it when there are 10 kids in it and who gets the entire row behimd them kicking them and squealing?
There are less than 5% children under 12 yrs old in business/first class (industry-wide). Oh, sure would be great to put all the cherubs in one section so their little voices and multiply exponentially like a playground!
I'm just explaining that's its HIGHLY unlikely to happen. This idea has reared it's ugly for decades--nothing new and it hasn't happened yet.

[jsattapr2]

According to a recent survey by a travel website, skyscanner.com, more than half of the respondents would favor a families-only section on planes. Remember the crying rooms in movie theaters? Do they still have those?

I've often thought a general area for families might be good but of course the airlines need to sell as many seats as possible, regardless of the number of children flying on a specific flight. While the airlines might not be able to have a distinct families-only section, one area area could be generally used, like the back, by the bathrooms. While the number of families could vary drastically from flight to flight, one would then know upfront that generally the families would be at the back of the plane, and possibly avoid that area. It couldn't be a hard & fast rule, but a general area of the plane.

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/fligh...htm?csp=Travel

http://travelingmom.com/blogs/2219-s...-sections.html

jmbklj, never going to happen!

[jmbklj]

Another similar article on this topic....

Should airlines create separate sections for kids, larger fliers?

Across the skies, there's a growing debate over whether airlines should do more to segregate the seating of passengers — with designated areas for kids, for example. At a time when increasingly crowded jets have helped to make flying less pleasant for many passengers and social media allow them to instantly tweet their frustrations to the world, a comfortable perch on the plane — and some tranquility around it — has become ever more precious.

Should airlines create separate sections for kids, larger fliers? - USATODAY.com

[kyshel]

seriously--it will NOT happen. Pax will NOT pay enough extra to make it practical for airlines to separate the little creatures from other adults. People may SAY they'll pay but it is already an option--business or first class--those who can't afford it, won't pay more.
If it could have been done in the great airline heydays, it would have happened then...