Thai Airways Doesn't Like Kids

[emsfeld]

No they don't.

You don't have kids do you!

No, I dont have kids. This is besides the point as I am not criticising anything. I just want to understand the airlines' logic for discounting tickets for kids in peak season - they would be able to sell the tickets at full, adults' fares anyway most of the time. My understanding is that tickets are discounted for children up to the age of 13 or so. I suppose half price of what an adult would pay. I understand that kids below the age of say 3 dont enjoy the same services as an adult and sit on their parents' laps most of the time, but kids older than that do as far as I can judge this from the outside.

Now enlighten me please - to what extent are the services rendered to a 10 year old inferior to those provided to a 40 year old? In other words, what justifies a discount when considering the effort spent by the crew to accommodate a child (of that age) versus an adult (apart from the alcoholic beverages maybe which certainly does not make up for the differences in fare)?

Edited January 23, 2010 by emsfeld

[SantiSuk]

Weight!

50kg of extra freight capacity should generate a few hundred dollars of revenue for the airline (they do carry freight, not just passengers and their luggage).

I'm not going to get into the charging passengers by the kilo for their own bodyweight argument (but you might want to since you are clearly an economic analyst )

Edited January 23, 2010 by SantiSuk

[emsfeld]

True, I havent thought about this one. This could come into play. I have no idea about the sensitivity of cost towards weight and extra load they could take on when transporting a child versus an adult. It may well make up for the dollars "lost" in fares.

[NearestTheTee]

Weight!

50kg of extra freight capacity should generate a few hundred dollars of revenue for the airline (they do carry freight, not just passengers and their luggage).

I'm not going to get into the charging passengers by the kilo for their own bodyweight argument (but you might want to since you are clearly an economic analyst )

Exactly! It's all about weight. Hence the need/reason for load and trim sheets

[PattayaParent]

No they don't.

You don't have kids do you!

No, I dont have kids. This is besides the point as I am not criticising anything. I just want to understand the airlines' logic for discounting tickets for kids in peak season - they would be able to sell the tickets at full, adults' fares anyway most of the time. My understanding is that tickets are discounted for children up to the age of 13 or so. I suppose half price of what an adult would pay. I understand that kids below the age of say 3 dont enjoy the same services as an adult and sit on their parents' laps most of the time, but kids older than that do as far as I can judge this from the outside.

Now enlighten me please - to what extent are the services rendered to a 10 year old inferior to those provided to a 40 year old? In other words, what justifies a discount when considering the effort spent by the crew to accommodate a child (of that age) versus an adult (apart from the alcoholic beverages maybe which certainly does not make up for the differences in fare)?

The point is that you've never travelled with a kid so you don't know the difference between the services.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3288260

[coolhandjoe]

We used to travel London - Bangkok a lot with our kids and generally the child fare was calculated as follows:

Infant: under 2 years of age = nominal fare. Used to be around GBP70 but infant had to go in bassinet or accompanying adults lap i.e. no allocated seat for infant.

Child: between age of 2 - 12 (upper limit on some airlines was 13 i think) = 2/3rds of the adult fare and allocated own seat.

anything above the upper age limit for child = full fare.

Don't know quite how much this has changed over recent years but thought it still applied to most non-budget airlines.

Can anyone clarify based on recent experiences of longhaul flights with kids?

We are age 38,31,12,5,4,1 years old at time of flight this year.

I'm prepared to pay up to £2,500 for all of us, but i'm getting quotes of between £3,600 -£7,000 and I've tried most airlines web sites.

These airlines penalize families, we will have to sit tight and see what happens.

Thai airways was the most expensive!!!More than BA.

[coolhandjoe]

No they don't.

You don't have kids do you!

No, I dont have kids. This is besides the point as I am not criticising anything. I just want to understand the airlines' logic for discounting tickets for kids in peak season - they would be able to sell the tickets at full, adults' fares anyway most of the time. My understanding is that tickets are discounted for children up to the age of 13 or so. I suppose half price of what an adult would pay. I understand that kids below the age of say 3 dont enjoy the same services as an adult and sit on their parents' laps most of the time, but kids older than that do as far as I can judge this from the outside.

Now enlighten me please - to what extent are the services rendered to a 10 year old inferior to those provided to a 40 year old? In other words, what justifies a discount when considering the effort spent by the crew to accommodate a child (of that age) versus an adult (apart from the alcoholic beverages maybe which certainly does not make up for the differences in fare)?

The point is that you've never travelled with a kid so you don't know the difference between the services.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3288260

The point is that you've never travelled with a kid so you don't know the difference between the services.

[SantiSuk]

Come on Daddys - let's stop ganging up on him!

[Boo]

Never ever fly Thai except when it is the only domestic option (BKK to KK etc) & never internationally. They are not good & are rude to Thai passengers. Flew EVA with my son when he was 3 months & again at 10 months & couldn't fault it. He had bassinet both times & staff bent over backwards to make us comfortable. We even flew premium economy the first timeo & it was worth every penny as the first time flying after he was born. Now he is older we have gone back to our preferred of Emirates as they fly in/out of Gatwick & I like the 3 hrs stop over so that we can all stretch our legs & tire out our now toddler boy.

[NearestTheTee]

We are age 38,31,12,5,4,1 years old at time of flight this year.

I'm prepared to pay up to £2,500 for all of us, but i'm getting quotes of between £3,600 -£7,000 and I've tried most airlines web sites.

These airlines penalize families, we will have to sit tight and see what happens.

Thai airways was the most expensive!!!More than BA.

Coolhand, I'm not sure what dates you are looking at but i just went to the Opodo web site and entered 01 May - 15 May 2010 BKK-LHR return for 3 adults, 2 kids and 1 infant. Cheapest fare is with Jet Airways at a cost of GBP2996.70. Hope this helps. Let us know how you get on.

[SantiSuk]

Never ever fly Thai except when it is the only domestic option (BKK to KK etc) & never internationally. They are not good & are rude to Thai passengers. Flew EVA with my son when he was 3 months & again at 10 months & couldn't fault it. He had bassinet both times & staff bent over backwards to make us comfortable. We even flew premium economy the first timeo & it was worth every penny as the first time flying after he was born. Now he is older we have gone back to our preferred of Emirates as they fly in/out of Gatwick & I like the 3 hrs stop over so that we can all stretch our legs & tire out our now toddler boy.

Thanks - useful Boo.

I also think Emirates is the best UK to BKK option in normal circumstances (as does another parent who PM'd me along the same lines as you). Fans of Thai Airways need to try it to discover what it means to fly in a state-of-the-art plane.

I last flew EVA 3 years ago and the seats were shockingly tiny (Chines bums), but I've heard good things about them on TV since, so they must have upgraded the interiors or fleet.

Emirates' prices were notably higher than the other good Middle East operators pre-Xmas, but they seem to have come back into the mainstream again now.

[StatlerandWaldorf]

Thai Airways don't like passengers! We are quite clearly an inconvenience to the cabin crew and quite often they make the fact all too obvious.

[starkey_rich]

I wish there was an airline that prohibited children.They would get my business even if I had to pay more.

[PattayaParent]

No they don't.

You don't have kids do you!

No, I dont have kids. This is besides the point as I am not criticising anything. I just want to understand the airlines' logic for discounting tickets for kids in peak season - they would be able to sell the tickets at full, adults' fares anyway most of the time. My understanding is that tickets are discounted for children up to the age of 13 or so. I suppose half price of what an adult would pay. I understand that kids below the age of say 3 dont enjoy the same services as an adult and sit on their parents' laps most of the time, but kids older than that do as far as I can judge this from the outside.

Now enlighten me please - to what extent are the services rendered to a 10 year old inferior to those provided to a 40 year old? In other words, what justifies a discount when considering the effort spent by the crew to accommodate a child (of that age) versus an adult (apart from the alcoholic beverages maybe which certainly does not make up for the differences in fare)?

The point is that you've never travelled with a kid so you don't know the difference between the services.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?s=...t&p=3288260

The point is that you've never travelled with a kid so you don't know the difference between the services.

There seems to be an echo in here?

[emsfeld]

The point is that you've never travelled with a kid so you don't know the difference between the services.

Yes, but you nicely described what the differences are in the linked post and they simply dont justify a reduction in fare by 20% FOR A CHILD OLDER THAN 4 years. The airlines' cost for serving a kids' meal vs adults' is probably about the same anyway. Most adults drink say 2 beers on average on a flight. Come on, those two beers cost the airline only a fraction of what the discount for a child is. Please, let's not go there.

I also dont understand why my question seems to be pissing you off. I have nothing against kids travelling as long as they leave me my peace (or against any other passenger for that matter). My question was a genuine one in that I didnt take the weight into account and the "potential" revenues the airlines could make elsewhere. This is the only plausible reason I have read so far that justifies the dual pricing from an ECONOMIC point of view - which was my question all along.

Edited January 24, 2010 by emsfeld

[david_dyer]

This is one of the reasons that I only fly thai, syd - BKK - suratthani and I have found the cabin crew to be very good. I do see that they avoid the winging traveler, but i would do the same. No kids and even less babies mean a more comfortable flight.

[MAJIC]

Isn't it like this on all the airlines since 2006?

my thai wife and I live in sydney ,We have talked about this a few times ,that Thai air is to expensive and none of the thai people here ever fly with them .

we went to Bkk from Sydney return on emarites last year and each fare was at least $250 cheaper for adults and it was 90 bucks for the baby ,under 2 years old .

this year we are going over on jetstar in march and the kid pays $30 one way. On Thai air the price for kids is very high even without a seat .

Thai air will go broke if they dont change some of there policys .like I said no Thai people,that we know here ever use em.

So yer I would say Thai air dont like kids.and with more players coming into the market ,tiger ,jetstar,virgin,air asia, they better pull there finger out real fast or its Ta Ta Thai air .

Since when have Thai Air ever done travellers any favours,remember the time when Thai air charged my companion

and I full fares for standby flights on two seperate journeys.which means they got paid for 8 seats.

Welcome to Thai Air.

[MAJIC]

Isn't it like this on all the airlines since 2006?

my thai wife and I live in sydney ,We have talked about this a few times ,that Thai air is to expensive and none of the thai people here ever fly with them .

we went to Bkk from Sydney return on emarites last year and each fare was at least $250 cheaper for adults and it was 90 bucks for the baby ,under 2 years old .

this year we are going over on jetstar in march and the kid pays $30 one way. On Thai air the price for kids is very high even without a seat .

Thai air will go broke if they dont change some of there policys .like I said no Thai people,that we know here ever use em.

So yer I would say Thai air dont like kids.and with more players coming into the market ,tiger ,jetstar,virgin,air asia, they better pull there finger out real fast or its Ta Ta Thai air .

Since when have Thai Air ever done travellers any favours,remember the time when Thai air charged my companion

and I full fares for standby flights on two seperate journeys.which means they got paid for 8 seats.

Welcome to Thai Air.

[calibanjr.]

The point is that you've never travelled with a kid so you don't know the difference between the services.

Yes, but you nicely described what the differences are in the linked post and they simply dont justify a reduction in fare by 20% FOR A CHILD OLDER THAN 4 years. The airlines' cost for serving a kids' meal vs adults' is probably about the same anyway. Most adults drink say 2 beers on average on a flight. Come on, those two beers cost the airline only a fraction of what the discount for a child is. Please, let's not go there.

I also dont understand why my question seems to be pissing you off. I have nothing against kids travelling as long as they leave me my peace (or against any other passenger for that matter). My question was a genuine one in that I didnt take the weight into account and the "potential" revenues the airlines could make elsewhere. This is the only plausible reason I have read so far that justifies the dual pricing from an ECONOMIC point of view - which was my question all along.

Emsfeld,

I found your question about services eminently reasonable and I was wondering the same thing, trying to figure out the economics of the pricing. I feel the same as you, perhaps the weight difference is worth considering (which I find dubious), but if someone is making an argument that a kids meal and free alcoholic drinks (if those are the only differences) iare anything more than a nominal difference, they are either mathematically inept or overly defensive (my bet).

Edited January 24, 2010 by calibanjr.

[emsfeld]

The point is that you've never travelled with a kid so you don't know the difference between the services.

Yes, but you nicely described what the differences are in the linked post and they simply dont justify a reduction in fare by 20% FOR A CHILD OLDER THAN 4 years. The airlines' cost for serving a kids' meal vs adults' is probably about the same anyway. Most adults drink say 2 beers on average on a flight. Come on, those two beers cost the airline only a fraction of what the discount for a child is. Please, let's not go there.

I also dont understand why my question seems to be pissing you off. I have nothing against kids travelling as long as they leave me my peace (or against any other passenger for that matter). My question was a genuine one in that I didnt take the weight into account and the "potential" revenues the airlines could make elsewhere. This is the only plausible reason I have read so far that justifies the dual pricing from an ECONOMIC point of view - which was my question all along.

Emsfeld,

I found your question about services eminently reasonable and I was wondering the same thing, trying to figure out the economics of the pricing. I feel the same as you, perhaps the weight difference is worth considering (which I find dubious), but if someone is making an argument that a kids meal and free alcoholic drinks (if those are the only differences) iare anything more than a nominal difference, they are either mathematically inept or overly defensive (my bet).

I think Santisuk does have a point though. It's not so much the reduced weight that leads to lower cost. Just say instead of 10 adults, you have 10 kids on a flight reducing total passenger load, by, say, 600kg. The 600 kg can be utilised by putting more stuff (eg cargo) into the luggage areas of the plane (not only passengers' luggage). The revenues the airlines generate from transporting extra cargo might very well make up for the earnings lost on adult fares.

In terms of services and efforts spent by the crew, we are on the same page. I do not believe that there is any gain at all from the airlines' point of view. The cost of a kid's versus an adult's meal doesn't make any difference. Neither do alcoholic beverages and if at all then only so marginally that they do not carry any weight. Plus, in regards to meals, you can certainly request an adult's meal for your child also, so this argument simply doesnt cut it. Airlines stock more meals than there are passengers anyway (at least the ones I have flown with - yes, even Thai Air).

[MJo]

Guys, just think about it. What is the % of passengers having kids in average flight ? I bet it is quite high if you count those passengers in that have kids but are traveling without them. Maybe you can find some numbers from the net of what % of population has kids...

Now tell me which company's management in airline or any other business providing services to the masses can go and publicly announce "no kids we get better money by serving single, teetotal, under 150cm tall monks" and get a way with it and see their business growing. I mean does it make sense to you? Economically ?

[emsfeld]

Guys, just think about it. What is the % of passengers having kids in average flight ? I bet it is quite high if you count those passengers in that have kids but are traveling without them. Maybe you can find some numbers from the net of what % of population has kids...

Now tell me which company's management in airline or any other business providing services to the masses can go and publicly announce "no kids we get better money by serving single, teetotal, under 150cm tall monks" and get a way with it and see their business growing. I mean does it make sense to you? Economically ?

Yes it does. Because they wouldnt announce it publicly, but simply state that the plane is "full". Very easy thing to do technologically when you book online for instances. Just like there is a very good chance that the person next to you paid considerably more or less for the same flight and services than you, even though he/ she booked the flight within the same week as you booked. Personally, I do not believe in "morally-correct" conduct by businesses, particularly when it comes to large ones. What counts under the bottom line is money. So there must be a reason for their pricing economics.

Edited January 24, 2010 by emsfeld

[PattayaParent]

I also dont understand why my question seems to be pissing you off.

Not pissing me off at all.

It just amuses me how people without kids are experts on what it's like to travel with kids.

[thornybird]

Actually, contrary to your thread title, it seems that Thai Airways LOVES kids! Same price, 1/5 of the weight of an adult (so less fuel). They'd probably be thrilled to have a plane full of 2 year olds!

Hope this doesn't include the pilot!