We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Time for adult only flights
Comments
-
Clearly families contribute more per booking than single people. That's just stating the bleedin' obvious. But the airlines are interested in filling planes and maximising revenue. A plane full of adults generates more revenue than a plane full of families with children, as many of the children will be using seats but paying a lower fare.
Things are changing. Some airlines are now experimenting with child free flights or child free areas.
Not everyone wants the same thing from an airline. Some people want the cheapest possible flight, and don't care about comfort. Some people will happily pay more. The airlines are slowly responding to this, for example more airlines are now introducing premium economy.
Going to disagree with some of your latest claptrap!
1 - our daughter's seat on a long haul flight this year cost a whole £50 less than ours. The total cost for 2 adults and 1 child was £2,000 after booking in the sale and cashing in some air miles. Hardly losing much revenue on a child seat cost then, are they?
2 - good job they're increasing the number of premium economy seats because they are already more than half full of families on the route we take! I've got shed loads of air miles so next time we fly we will be "turning left" too :T0 -
Just because you have chosen to be childless doesn't mean you should begrudge money given by the State to those with children - you received it as a child yourself. In later years you may well require State funded assistance to help you with personal care whilst those with children may look to their offspring for that support instead.
Having both lived and worked overseas myself, and knowing what it is like for friends and family living abroad also, I would rather the system we have (though far from perfect) than effectively being left to fend for ourselves.
The problem with funding people to have children is
(i) There are already too many people in this country
(ii) The benefits system is encouraging those who contribute the least to society to have large families
Because I have not had children, I have the resources to pay for my own care in old age. The idea that we need to encourage population growth to pay for the elderly is simply a pyramid scheme. It is unsustainable.0 -
The problem with funding people to have children is
(i) There are already too many people in this country
(ii) The benefits system is encouraging those who contribute the least to society to have large families
Because I have not had children, I have the resources to pay for my own care in old age. The idea that we need to encourage population growth to pay for the elderly is simply a pyramid scheme. It is unsustainable.
And many of us who have had children can also provide for ourselves in our dotage. Doubtlessly there will also be many childless people who will be reliant on the State.
So do you think having children should be means tested?
0 -
Going to disagree with some of your latest claptrap!
1 - our daughter's seat on a long haul flight this year cost a whole £50 less than ours. The total cost for 2 adults and 1 child was £2,000 after booking in the sale and cashing in some air miles. Hardly losing much revenue on a child seat cost then, are they?
2 - good job they're increasing the number of premium economy seats because they are already more than half full of families on the route we take! I've got shed loads of air miles so next time we fly we will be "turning left" too :T
Interesting that you say that you are going to disagree with my views, but then you proceed to prove me right!
1) On your recent journey, the airline took £2000 instead of £2050 for three people. An average loss of revenue of £8.33 per passenger. If the plane was full of families of that size, the airline lost £1690 on each one way flight, compared to a plane full of adults.
Now to someone who doesn't understand the airline business, £8.33 per passenger may not sound like much. However, BA's pre tax profit last year was £300m, and they carried around 38m passengers. So when they are only making a profit of £7.90 per passenger, the loss of revenue for carrying children instead of adults is considerable.
2) Re my comment about people being prepared to pay more for more comfort, you've indicated that you also plan to upgrade to premium economy.
QED0 -
Better ask your parents about the child benefit they received for you and pay it back then.
I've already stated that I don't know if my parents received anything akin to Child Benefit from the UK taxpayer in respect of having me, and that I am not responsible for the actions of my parents.
I would love to be able to ask them, but unfortunately they are both dead.0 -
Interesting that you say that you are going to disagree with my views, but then you proceed to prove me right!
1) On your recent journey, the airline took £2000 instead of £2050 for three people. An average loss of revenue of £8.33 per passenger. If the plane was full of families of that size, the airline lost £1690 on each one way flight, compared to a plane full of adults.
Now to someone who doesn't understand the airline business, £8.33 per passenger may not sound like much. However, BA's pre tax profit last year was £300m, and they carried around 38m passengers. So when they are only making a profit of £7.90 per passenger, the loss of revenue for carrying children instead of adults is considerable.
2) Re my comment about people being prepared to pay more for more comfort, you've indicated that you also plan to upgrade to premium economy.
QED
I don't need to waste my time getting a calculator out because the simple truth is that if airlines decided that carrying children was uneconomic they would charge the same whether you were 3 or 30.0 -
I don't need to waste my time getting a calculator out because the simple truth is that if airlines decided that carrying children was uneconomic they would charge the same whether you were 3 or 30.
Do you mean you don't wish to check the facts before putting forward a point of view?
Airline business models are changing all the time, and some airlines are now trialling child free flights and child free cabins. My theory, backed up by facts, is that airlines could increase profitability by offering passengers the choice to fly in a child free environment. Some airlines obviousl share this view, as they are profit driven. There is clearly a demand for this.
I am very happy for you to fly on planes that carry noisy and badly behaved children if you want to. I would prefer not to, and unfortunately even paying for a premium cabin is at present does not guarantee the peace and quiet that many passengers would prefer.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards