@ s/o flying: opinions on United's new policy

[crimsonandclover]

I just heard on the news that United has quietly done away with priority boarding for families with small children to "simplify the boarding process." Thoughts?

On the one hand, it's nice to be able to put all our crap for DD in the overhead compartments since we have been getting bulkhead seats where the bassinets are (and thus can't put things on the floor). On the other hand, boarding first means more time in the plane instead of letting her run around the airport before boarding. So right now I'm kind of ambivalent. I would imagine some people will be up in arms about it, though.

[americaninoz]

I'm not up in arms - but I do think that's kind of dumb
I like getting on first to get our bags all put away and have time to settle into our seat before everyone starts getting on & the aisles get crowded up
I think it'll just slow things down overall as parents are trying to get their kids into seats and bags overhead, etc etc

[frlcb]

We always board first if we can, but if we can't it doesn't really matter to us. Actually I think for some kids the less time spent on planes the better, so some parents choose to board last.

I don't, though, think it will simplify the boarding process

[clickerish]

It makes little sense to me, honestly. I have never minded waiting for children to board. Kids take a lot of work to settle. They also are not orderly--so having them go first seems rational.

[mouseinlux]

I'm not a fan of it because it means that poor DD will be sbjec to the people who don't watch out for others. I'd be conceded that she'd get hit by a pice of hand luggage!!

[elenetxu]

I bet they'll change back when people start complaining about the added time they'll have to be standing up waiting either in plane or in the halls waiting to get on the plane. Heck, I feel pressure to throw my stuff in my seat and get out of the way - and I take two seconds to do so. I imagine those who travel with kids have to take a little bit longer. I have nothing but respect for those of you who travel with kids, and I think you should get the extra time.

[travelingturtle]

I feel like everything the airlines do to simplify the process makes it take longer. I'm not sure how they define "simplify" sometimes. I prefer to be able to stow my baggage and boarding first lets me do that. When H and I are traveling together (which is what happens normally) one of us can board and get everything situated. The other can let W run around to burn off energy if we need. Typically, though, he likes airplanes.

My worry with this policy (if it goes to other airlines, I don't really fly UA), is that if I'm last to board, the stuff I need that doesn't fit under the seat won't fit in the overhead bins since so few people check luggage these days. Chances are what I'm carrying on is stuff that I need for the flight and not the destination. I'm sure that doesn't matter to anyone other than me though.

[wise_rita]

May 23, 2012 23:41:00 GMT -5 mouseinlux said:

I'd be conceded that she'd get hit by a pice of hand luggage!!

I dropped my backpack (only luggage with me, so not small) square on a kids head a few months ago. He was more stunned than anything, and I and his mother were talking to him so thankfully we avoided tears. Oops!

I read part of their explanation for doing this is because at popular tourist destinations (like Disney) 90% of the plane can have small children. I don't find that much of an excuse, really. So what if most of the plane gets on "first"?

I think this is clearly a case of saying F You to anybody who doesn't pay for early boarding. It's just another classic example of airlines nickel and diming their customers for every. single. thing.

[allibally]

[quote author=wiserita board=int thread=9067 post=132542 time=1337842340

I read part of their explanation for doing this is because at popular tourist destinations (like Disney) 90% of the plane can have small children. I don't find that much of an excuse, really. So what if most of the plane gets on "first"?
[/quote]

Then they should use discretion for those situations and say early boarding for 2-4 years and under.

I think it's a bad move. I rather have families seated first. I feel crowded enough with adults trying to board in Zone 3. It would be difficult as a passenger to be crushed in the aisles with small children who are easy to push and accidentally whack with bags.

[anna7602]

A lot of airlines don't allow priority boarding for families with children anymore. I'm actually really surprised whenever I find myself on a flight that calls out for me to board first with DD.

The only time I really care about priority boarding these days is on cheap airlines with no assigned seats. I need to make sure I can actually sit next to DD!

[travelingturtle]

I hate how they have random zones now, too. So, let's say there are two people in Zone A and they get to board first, but the first one actually on is seat 7A and the other person is seat 33B. So 33B is stuck behind 7A. Yeah, it's not really that long, but there must be a better way. When it comes to boarding procedures, I really don't think the planners actually fly.

And having had Orlando be my previous home airport, I would say that I never noticed a ridiculous number of kids on one flight other than with Virgin.

[pittpurple]

I think that's a terrible idea! I have no problems with people with children getting to board early and getting settled before the rest get on... and if this works out for me, I'm trying to picture how I'll manage when travelling on my own with 2 babies and whatever crazy amount of stuff that will require. Huh.

[frlcb]

May 24, 2012 1:56:26 GMT -5 allibally said:

[quote author=wiserita board=int thread=9067 post=132542 time=1337842340

I read part of their explanation for doing this is because at popular tourist destinations (like Disney) 90% of the plane can have small children. I don't find that much of an excuse, really. So what if most of the plane gets on "first"?

Then they should use discretion for those situations and say early boarding for 2-4 years and under.

I think it's a bad move. I rather have families seated first. I feel crowded enough with adults trying to board in Zone 3. It would be difficult as a passenger to be crushed in the aisles with small children who are easy to push and accidentally whack with bags.[/quote]

On Delta it is actually families traveling with kids under 2, so some airlines do limit it to younger kids.

[crimsonandclover]

May 24, 2012 0:57:31 GMT -5 travelingturtle said:

My worry with this policy (if it goes to other airlines, I don't really fly UA), is that if I'm last to board, the stuff I need that doesn't fit under the seat won't fit in the overhead bins since so few people check luggage these days. Chances are what I'm carrying on is stuff that I need for the flight and not the destination. I'm sure that doesn't matter to anyone other than me though.

At least in the US, airlines are talking about charging for carry-ons, too, so that should reverse the carry-on trend again... Don't know if that's good news or not, though.

[GilliC]

May 24, 2012 10:34:13 GMT -5 crimsonandclover said:

At least in the US, airlines are talking about charging for carry-ons, too, so that should reverse the carry-on trend again... Don't know if that's good news or not, though.

Honestly, I think they should just reduce (and enforce) the weight limit like they do in Europe. Why do they charge you for a 50lb checked bag, but they let you carry a 40lb bag onto the plane?! No wonder boarding takes so long. If you had a lower weight limit, you'd naturally end up with smaller bags and more space, and it wouldn't take ages for people to lift their heavy luggage over their heads.

I have never understood the idea of "carrying" on a bag that you can barely even lift.

[travelingturtle]

I agree GilliC. It's ridiculous what some people carry on to the plane these days all to avoid paying $25. Or whatever checked bags are.

[Wanderista]

May 24, 2012 10:34:13 GMT -5 crimsonandclover said:

May 24, 2012 0:57:31 GMT -5 travelingturtle said:

My worry with this policy (if it goes to other airlines, I don't really fly UA), is that if I'm last to board, the stuff I need that doesn't fit under the seat won't fit in the overhead bins since so few people check luggage these days. Chances are what I'm carrying on is stuff that I need for the flight and not the destination. I'm sure that doesn't matter to anyone other than me though.

At least in the US, airlines are talking about charging for carry-ons, too, so that should reverse the carry-on trend again... Don't know if that's good news or not, though.

Wow, charging for carry-ons? Another reason that I don't really like flying domestically in the States except for when I need to. Also as someone who does not have kids, I think that doing away with priority boarding on "regular" airlines is not cool. I don't mind waiting for the elderly, disabled, and people with little kids to board. If anything, it gives me time to get my stuff together before the regular boarding. And yeah, it's bad enough to wait for people who are putting stuff into the overhead and being slow to move down the aisle. Putting a bunch of kids into the mix would not speed things up.

[frlcb]

I'm pretty sure it is just one airline, Spirit, that is charging for carry-ons and they have met huge resistance. I don't think it will be extended to the bigger US airlines.

[clickerish]

May 24, 2012 13:14:21 GMT -5 frlcb said:

I'm pretty sure it is just one airline, Spirit, that is charging for carry-ons and they have met huge resistance. I don't think it will be extended to the bigger US airlines.

Let me just say that Spirit is the most heinous airline ever. On my last trip, I calculated to see if it would work even though I fear their planes. Yes, you "save" money, but when you add in taxes and the fee to check a bag or carry one on, the only way you were saving anything was if you travelled dressed in four pair of clothes with a wallet in your pocket. Best part, you can carry it on, but you STILL don't get any more liquid space. We went with Southwest. Also a terrible idea. I am now completely committed to major airlines.

[aMrsin09]

May 24, 2012 10:58:27 GMT -5 GilliC said:

May 24, 2012 10:34:13 GMT -5 crimsonandclover said:

At least in the US, airlines are talking about charging for carry-ons, too, so that should reverse the carry-on trend again... Don't know if that's good news or not, though.

Honestly, I think they should just reduce (and enforce) the weight limit like they do in Europe. Why do they charge you for a 50lb checked bag, but they let you carry a 40lb bag onto the plane?! No wonder boarding takes so long. If you had a lower weight limit, you'd naturally end up with smaller bags and more space, and it wouldn't take ages for people to lift their heavy luggage over their heads.

I have never understood the idea of "carrying" on a bag that you can barely even lift.

I used to carry on my 50 lb bags not to save money, but because I needed my gear at the other end and I didn't trust the airlines to not lose it. If the airline lost it for even one day, my entire trips would have been worthless.

As for families boarding first, that never bothered me. What bothered me was that they didn't make them disembark last. If they had to board first to save time, then they should have to get off last to save the rest of us time.

Or to simplify that, disembarking should be in the reverse order that you boarded.

[travelingturtle]

I think a lot of people that do carry-on only are doing it for fear of losing their luggage since most people need whatever they've packed once they get to their destination anyway. But, as airplanes are built now, if everyone brought large carry-ons there wouldn't be enough space and both getting on and off the plane would take longer since people can barely lift their bags. I'd much rather them enforce carry-on sizes or charge for carry-on that doesn't fit under the seat.

I've never had any issue with disembarking since most of the people on the plane don't rush in front of the rows ahead of them. The few people each plane ride I take where someone really tries to rush to the front of the line, well, they must be in a bigger hurry than I am. I think when getting on the plane it needs to be efficient to keep to the schedule and there aren't as strict restriction on that when getting off.

[mouseinlux]

May 24, 2012 18:49:53 GMT -5 aMrsin09 said:

As for families boarding first, that never bothered me. What bothered me was that they didn't make them disembark last. If they had to board first to save time, then they should have to get off last to save the rest of us time.

Or to simplify that, disembarking should be in the reverse order that you boarded.

We do stay on 'till last because it means that we're not blocking the walkway for others and that DD can sleep a little longer (she's normally asleep when we land). Oh and it means that she doesn't get hit by others bags

[travelingturtle]

Yeah, mouse, I've noticed that families with small children tend to stay on too. I never paid attention until I had a kid and stayed on and saw the others that were staying on had small children. I think we once rushed off because our flight landed a bit late in Atlanta and we were worried about our connection. But, we had all of our stuff ready to go.