Thai Airways - Infant Fares!

[choppychugger]

Thai Air - expecting people to pay nearly 70% of an adult for an infant who doesn't have a luggage allowance, doesn't have a seat and doesn't have food provided is an insult of the highest order.

Infants/small children are often a bloody nuisance for other passengers and I have maintained for this many years of flying that babies should be charged more than the normal fare to dissuade people from bringing them.

I never understood the reasoning behind people thinking that young people should be free or discounted. You complain of having to pay 70 percent of the actual fare for adults. Is your kid not an actual human yet? You are getting a 30 percent discount [basically because you are not buying the seat, but the "ride,"] but you want to have your son/daughter go for free.

If your offspring is a person, he or she has to pay.

And thanks the gods that Thai Airways is finally making these toddlers' parents pay up for the inconvenience to other passengers.

Have to say that I tend to agree with this. Nothing worse than settling back with a Vodka & Tonic for someone elses offspring to start bawling.

If you can't control them - don't take them. Sadly, the former often seems to be the case whilst the latter isn't. On that basis, this might be a good incentive to start using TG again.

I previously offered my views on young children on aeroplanes in the family & children forum. I seem to recall that they weren't well received, so I expect the same here.

Fire away!

What a pair of muppets.

Let's say you have an 6 month old child that is teething - chances are there will be some crying on the flight. Also - the change in air pressure sets kids off too.

It can't be helped. This is not about control - you can't 'control' a child in this condition. You can just do your best to make them comfortable.

As for not travelling with them - sorry pal but I have just as much right to a holiday as anyone else and my offspring travel with me - usually without any hassle either.

Usually - most of the problems on the plane are from those who can't control their Vodka & Tonics

well said !!

[samran]

have been lucky enough to fly with our daughter in first and business a number of times. The look of horror on other passengers faces was one of those few moments in my life where the act of saying 'screw-em all' bought immense pleasure (esp given my daughter was/is a great flier and I was paying for it all....)

[lomatopo]

Back to the topic. Nope that's what I thought when she first told me the price and I asked her to check again. She then checked the price for a child with a seat and that was 39930baht.

So definately apple and apples being compared here.

Like I said, and you have just said, you got a quote for a Child with Seat (ages 2 - 11) rather than an Infant with Seat (under two years old). Just a communication issue I assume (always call back to get a different agent as the first one will likely just make the same mistake again, or use a travel agent). The "apples, oranges and mangoes" simile (as such) referred to your quotes from TG, SQ and EY; being different routings/city pairs and potentially different fare buckets and child/infant confusion means they really can't be compared.

Edited July 17, 2008 by lomatopo

[Naam]

You see ..even while you object, you still admit baby being a nuisance . Now knowing how sardine-packed planes are , every baby is whithin the annoying distance of a few dozen of passengers . Now don't you think there's at least a few of them already so overstressed by today's flying/tired & longing for peace.. so think again, how big of annoyance babies are !

If i had a choice, i'd prefer to fly next to a couple of cats or dogs instead(sure they'd make less noise).

Sorry i'm not anti-baby, but i fly a lot & remember more than once being disturbed by babies.. c'mon, if your kid don't enjoy flying please don't force 'em to !!

it's not the babies who are a nuisance but stupid parents who care a dàmn if their toddlers run up and down aisles all the way from cattle to business and first when most passengers are trying to sleep. that's something than can be prevented!

a crying baby is something natural which one has to accept even though it might be disturbing.

[asiaworld]

exactly, what i meant.. if babies could talk, they'd explain, that globetrotting is Not their favorite passtime. i flown as a kid, but my parents had enough brains to wait till i turn 3 or 4 y.o. to take me, & i actually enjoyed the experience .

& btw. to technocracy..i beleive YQs taxes+all the fuel etc.'s on TG asia to Lon. now are almost 20,000 baht !! That's what they'll charge the Frequent flyiers for so called "free ticket" . So if you want more honest fare structure Emirates is better bet (they still resent adding rediculous surcharges,but give you all inclusive fare)>>surprised Etihad turned out so cheap! (as theirs "taxes" come to almost 10,000 baht!)

[lomatopo]

FWIW like crude, fuel surcharges (termed "YQ") are always priced in USD.

For BKK-LHR-BKK (i.e. round trip) total YQ fuel surcharges are:

Qatar: $180

Egypt Air: $180

Gulf Air: $180

Etihad: $220

BA: $426 (direct, non-stop flight)

Qantas: $426 (direct, non-stop flight)

Thai: $470 (direct, non-stop flight)

(of course there is no collusion between BA and QF on shared routes, wink-wink)

as of today.

Emirates does not currently appear to have YQ fuel surcharges but perhaps they've just chosen to increase their fares?

Edited July 17, 2008 by lomatopo

[technocracy]

Back to the topic. Nope that's what I thought when she first told me the price and I asked her to check again. She then checked the price for a child with a seat and that was 39930baht.

So definately apple and apples being compared here.

Like I said, and you have just said, you got a quote for a Child with Seat (ages 2 - 11) rather than an Infant with Seat (under two years old). Just a communication issue I assume (always call back to get a different agent as the first one will likely just make the same mistake again, or use a travel agent). The "apples, oranges and mangoes" simile (as such) referred to your quotes from TG, SQ and EY; being different routings/city pairs and potentially different fare buckets and child/infant confusion means they really can't be compared.

Plain English:

First I ask for a price for an infant without seat - she said 36960baht

I said 'How much?!!?' can you double check that - she then said 29733baht

I replied again 'How much?!?! are you sure that isn't for a child with a seat - she then checked and said no that would be 39930baht.

Clear? I do fully realise the difference between an infant and child fare!

[lomatopo]

Back to the topic. Nope that's what I thought when she first told me the price and I asked her to check again. She then checked the price for a child with a seat and that was 39930baht.

So definately apple and apples being compared here.

Like I said, and you have just said, you got a quote for a Child with Seat (ages 2 - 11) rather than an Infant with Seat (under two years old). Just a communication issue I assume (always call back to get a different agent as the first one will likely just make the same mistake again, or use a travel agent). The "apples, oranges and mangoes" simile (as such) referred to your quotes from TG, SQ and EY; being different routings/city pairs and potentially different fare buckets and child/infant confusion means they really can't be compared.

Plain English:

First I ask for a price for an infant without seat - she said 36960baht

I said 'How much?!!?' can you double check that - she then said 29733baht

I replied again 'How much?!?! are you sure that isn't for a child with a seat - she then checked and said no that would be 39930baht.

Clear? I do fully realise the difference between an infant and child fare!

As evidenced from the tone of your posts, obstinate and obdurate somehow leap to mind. Clearly you had a mis-communication issue with a single agent which set you off. Obviously there is no reasoning with you on this topic. Enjoy SQ and have a safe, comfortable and enjoyable journey.

Edited July 17, 2008 by lomatopo

[ClaytonSeymour]

Thai Air - expecting people to pay nearly 70% of an adult for an infant who doesn't have a luggage allowance, doesn't have a seat and doesn't have food provided is an insult of the highest order.

Infants/small children are often a bloody nuisance for other passengers and I have maintained for this many years of flying that babies should be charged more than the normal fare to dissuade people from bringing them.

I never understood the reasoning behind people thinking that young people should be free or discounted. You complain of having to pay 70 percent of the actual fare for adults. Is your kid not an actual human yet? You are getting a 30 percent discount [basically because you are not buying the seat, but the "ride,"] but you want to have your son/daughter go for free.

If your offspring is a person, he or she has to pay.

And thanks the gods that Thai Airways is finally making these toddlers' parents pay up for the inconvenience to other passengers.

Have to say that I tend to agree with this. Nothing worse than settling back with a Vodka & Tonic for someone elses offspring to start bawling.

If you can't control them - don't take them. Sadly, the former often seems to be the case whilst the latter isn't. On that basis, this might be a good incentive to start using TG again.

I previously offered my views on young children on aeroplanes in the family & children forum. I seem to recall that they weren't well received, so I expect the same here.

Fire away!

What a pair of muppets.

Let's say you have an 6 month old child that is teething - chances are there will be some crying on the flight. Also - the change in air pressure sets kids off too. Exactly, two very good reasons why they don't belong there.

It can't be helped. This is not about control - you can't 'control' a child in this condition. You can just do your best to make them comfortable. Often 'your' best wont be enough - that's why they shouldn't be there in the first place.

As for not travelling with them - sorry pal but I have just as much right to a holiday as anyone else and my offspring travel with me - usually without any hassle either. That's your opinion; the airline also has a right to charge you more money & given the current economic climate, charging significantly higher fares for youngsters is likely to become more and more widespread. As for a right to holiday - you chose to breed so, accept the responsibilites that come with it. I commend Mr Toad for his comments that he wont be taking his young daughter back to the UK for a while - that's a responsible attitude towards parenthood. What's hassle to others will be an every day event to you.

Usually - most of the problems on the plane are from those who can't control their Vodka & Tonics Well I don't fall in that category.

Your comments, more specifically admittance, that young children can't be controlled only serves to strengthen the argument that they don't belong on long haul & arguably, medium haul passenger flights.

The necessity to undertake holidays & family visits simply don't wash with me - if/when we decide to make the 'sacrifice', I've already made it clear to the Wife that Granny & Gramps can forget about seeing their grandchildren for at least 4 years.

Edited July 17, 2008 by ClaytonSeymour

[ClaytonSeymour]

You see ..even while you object, you still admit baby being a nuisance . Now knowing how sardine-packed planes are , every baby is whithin the annoying distance of a few dozen of passengers . Now don't you think there's at least a few of them already so overstressed by today's flying/tired & longing for peace.. so think again, how big of annoyance babies are !

If i had a choice, i'd prefer to fly next to a couple of cats or dogs instead(sure they'd make less noise).

Sorry i'm not anti-baby, but i fly a lot & remember more than once being disturbed by babies.. c'mon, if your kid don't enjoy flying please don't force 'em to !!

it's not the babies who are a nuisance but stupid parents who care a dàmn if their toddlers run up and down aisles all the way from cattle to business and first when most passengers are trying to sleep. that's something than can be prevented!

a crying baby is something natural which one has to accept even though it might be disturbing.

Yes it is natural & that's why the responsible choice is to refrain from flying with them until this stage of life elapses. The next stage of life is where control comes in & sadly, society in general reflects a growing lack of it amongst parents - I predict even more disturbed sleep for you.

I agree that we have to accept it, but we most certainly don't have to like it & refrain from voicing our dissatisfaction.

[technocracy]

As evidenced from the tone of your posts, obstinate and obdurate somehow leap to mind. Clearly you had a mis-communication issue with a single agent which set you off. Obviously there is no reasoning with you on this topic. Enjoy SQ and have a safe, comfortable and enjoyable journey.

How is explaining the facts being obstinate or obdurate? If any word should be used to describe my posts it should exasperated.

Just so you know after I had spoke with the agent - since I could not believe that the prices were that high I drove directly to the Thai Airways office here in Vientiane and asked them to check the pricing - the confirmed exactly what the agent said.

$1120 ~ 36960baht flexi infant 0-2 years

$901 ~ 29733baht non flexi infant 0-2 years

$1210 ~ 39930baht flexi child 2-11 yeats

Those are the facts and regardless of how you want me to present them, I did not have a mis-communication with anyone.

[samran]

lets stop with the attacks please. The OP has outlined what happened. TIT - we get some wierd things told to us here sometimes.

[asiaworld]

Samran TIT may be out of place here >since OP is writing from Lao ! Btw. from my experience,i wouln't be surprised TG would ask for more if he were to fly from Thailand! On the other hand completely agree with Clayton Seymour's last posts. Don't do it unless absolutely nesessary (if not for others) for your own baby's sake !

[samran]

Samran TIT may be out of place here >since OP is writing from Lao ! Btw. from my experience,i wouln't be surprised TG would ask for more if he were to fly from Thailand! On the other hand completely agree with Clayton Seymour's last posts. Don't do it unless absolutely nesessary (if not for others) for your own baby's sake !

TIL???

Anyway, just asked my wife what she though of all this. We looked the taxes we paid for our daugther to sit on our laps in business class last December - worked out to 16000-odd baht for BKK-AKL-BKK. This was up from 9K baht in economy.

Although I don't doubt what has happened to the OP and what he has been told or seen, I suspect someone at Thai airways, or their computer system, is on drugs.

[asiaworld]

Ah the good old days (btw. "taxes" are same in business & economy on 95% of routes>ban few like London & Beyrut). i think they've managed to rase their "taxes"(which they actually pocket themselves) twice since . Your figure is right thou.. add London's inhumane airport tax+ raises = over 20,000 baht

[Mossfinn]

have been lucky enough to fly with our daughter in first and business a number of times. The look of horror on other passengers faces was one of those few moments in my life where the act of saying 'screw-em all' bought immense pleasure (esp given my daughter was/is a great flier and I was paying for it all....)

Moss

[Tawai]

a crying baby is something natural which one has to accept even though it might be disturbing.

very well said - as usually your comments are

[dougieboy]

strange. Each time we've flown, the infant under 2 has flown free, except of course for the tax, which to Australia/NZ is in the vicintiy of 7000 baht. Not sticking up for Thai in any way of course, as it isn't the best airline about. Even though I'm a gold member I'm thinking of SQ next time we go back to OZ...

Disgusting treatment

[TheDon]

I hate little babies on flight, all they do is cry and cry.

They should have there own section on the back of the plane sealed off and be called parent class seats or something. Makes sense to me

[geriatrickid]

The safest place for a child during turbulence or an emergency is in an approved child restraint system (CRS), not on someone's lap

- US Federal Aviation Administration position statement

Preventable injuries and deaths have occurred in children younger than 2 years who were unrestrained in aircraft during survivable crashes and conditions of turbulence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11694707?dopt=Abstract

Flying with an infant on the lap is a dangerous concept. There is no way the parent can hold onto that child without seriously injuring the child or losing a grip. If passengers are not allowed to hold small bags in their laps during takeoff and landing, why is it assumed that a 10kg child will be safer? Some airlines provide seatbelt extenders, but these loop belts which strap the child to the parents lap have been shown to rupture or otherwise damage the child's intestines, even with just the pressure from take-off. In the event that the guardian moves forward, for example on a hard landing or sudden tarmac braking, the child can get squashed resulting in broken bones or compression injuries.

If one wouldn't consider driving a motor vehicle without a proper child seat, then why not on an airplane that will be going at far greater speed and is likely to experience turbulence?

A key reason airlines don't make infant seats compulsory is for business reasons.

Even regulators in the USA and EU have stated that there should be a requirement and that the only reason it hasn't been done so far is because of the outcry that would ensue. However, the real reason why it is not a rule in the EU and North America is summed up best by this FAA position

The FAA states that they do not want to turn people away from flying and toward driving, due to the increased cost of purchasing a ticket for their child. Because of a higher rate of automobile accidents, that child would be at a higher risk on more dangerous highways and in fact be in more danger than on a plane

Simply put, the likelihood of death or injury is less on a plane than in a car. So something that gets people away from cars is better. However, the fact is that flying with a lap passenger is dangerous. If a child is truly precious, it deserves its own spot complete with a safety seat.

I post this not to wag a finger or condemn. Rather, it is because the airline industry doesn't inform passengers for fear of losing the revenue and people should at least be allowed informed consent.

[roamer]

Quite happy to fly on any airline that offers to sit a couple of kids next to me , can only be a 100% improvement on some of the adults that have occupied those places, a few of whom I suspect are posting above, we all know the type, they bore you to death so much you yearn for an earspliting infant to start up.

Wake up, you buy a seat on an aircraft the same as you buy a seat on a bus and you don't get to choose your fellow passengers.

[cclub75]

Thai is killing their business with these huge fuel surcharges rather than just increasing the ticket prices. The fuel surcharges have a huge negative impact on frequent flyers wanting to get award tickets, people traveling with infants, etc.

You're talking about a psychological effect ? Price of ticket 500 USD and fuel surcharge 1000 USD for instance ?

Eventually, what is important is the total cost... I'm not sure people compare fuel surcharges with ticket price.

They have an absolute idiot managment team that doesn't know the first thing about running an airline. SQ's fuel surcharges are certainly high but at least not as ridiculously high as Thai's. I doubt the high fuel surcharges will last very long though because once everyone walks away from Thai after seeing there ridiculous fuel surcharges their passenger numbers will tank and their losses will soar. The result will hopefully be sacking their entire upper management and replacing it with people who can at least think logically.

Well it started already. ;-)

Thai Airways : biggest quaterly losses in 10 years and plan to reduce workforce

The point is : Thai Airways has no cushion... High oil price impact them with full force (other airlines can rely on more modern fuel efficient fleet, and/or jet fuel hedges etc.)

Bad management, politically motivated, and a reservoir to give jobs and privileges to military people...

The milk cow is naked now.

Let's see if they are going to reduce fuel surcharges, after the recent drop of oil prices.

[middlesexMDS]

I'm pretty takenaback by this thread. Attitudes are so polar on children. I can kind of see both points, as I have a 3 yr old and have taken her twice - once at 10 months and again at 2 yrs. Prior to having a baby with flew several times and my wife in particular found children annoying.

People without children simply don't understand the concept of dealing with child behaviour for prolonged period of times, as my wife's attitude changed once we had children because of the effort and cost involved in flying with children.

Its too easy for people to suggest not taking flights until a children are of a more controllable or well behaved age, surely most of us in Thai/western marriages therefore have family in the UK/west and Thailand therefore although its a holiday in one sense it also about seeing family again. Imagine how stupid it would sound to tell your grand in Thailand (or UK) that she not going to see the new additon to the family for 10-15 years because your worried they may annoy total strangers on a flight for 12hrs or so.

Children generally behave well and I have encountered far more problems with 'adults' and alcohol, a child being loud for 10-15 mins compared to a drunk starting on the cabin crew or trying to open the door? I knew which I would prefer.

I know... why not ban children, alcohol, people for eat to loud or too much, limit the number of times you can go to the toilet, ban people from touching any seat around them and remove all individual spotlights!!

[middlesexMDS]

Sorry about grammer and/or spelling...busy flicking between screen at work! trying not to be noticed

Edited August 19, 2008 by middlesexMDS

[Carib]

Quite happy to fly on any airline that offers to sit a couple of kids next to me , can only be a 100% improvement on some of the adults that have occupied those places, a few of whom I suspect are posting above, we all know the type, they bore you to death so much you yearn for an earspliting infant to start up.

Wake up, you buy a seat on an aircraft the same as you buy a seat on a bus and you don't get to choose your fellow passengers.

Agree, better than having to share the seat you rented with what is dangling over to your side from a rather rounded person, to describe it in a nice way.

Or having a drinking "adult" next to you, now that is really nice.

Long flights can be boring for kids, monotonous sounds from engines get to be a headache, pressure is different, dry air, no space to move and it is not like home.

Parents can struggle with this sometimes and even get frustrated or and angry themselves. Well it is all part of human life and we will just have to deal with each other. Even with the so called "grown up` ones, who just should know better than to post about having kids removed from flights or whatever other drivel I read.

And no, I don't have kids myself and never will, so I am not even used to them.