2024-17323. Family Seating in Air Transportation

Subject	Proposal
Applicability	Would apply to U.S. and foreign air carriers that operate or market scheduled passenger flights to, within, or from the U.S. on at least one aircraft that has a designed capacity of 30 or more passenger seats.
Family Seating Requirement	Would require adjacent seats for a young child (age 13 and under) and an accompanying adult (age 14 and over) within the same class of service at no additional cost beyond the fare, with limited exceptions. This Part clarifies that family seating is a basic service, essential for the provision of adequate air transportation, that must be included in the advertised fare.
Exceptions to Family Seating Requirements	Would provide four exceptions to the family seating requirement when: (1) the young child is not traveling with an accompanying adult; (2) the booking party or accompanying adult declines to accept the adjacent seats or chooses to sit apart from the young child; (3) the number of young children traveling makes it impossible to provide adjacent seats due to the layout of the aircraft; or (4) the young child and/or accompanying adult do not comply with the carrier's check-in or boarding requirements.
	In situations where it is impossible to seat multiple young children adjacent to an accompanying adult, carriers must seat the young children across the aisle from, or directly in front of or directly behind the accompanying adult at no additional cost beyond the fare.
Available Family Seating at Booking	If adjacent seats are available at booking, would require a carrier that assigns seats in advance of the date of departure of a flight (Assigned Seating Carrier) to make every reasonable effort to provide adjacent seat assignments to a young child and accompanying adult at the time of booking, but no later than 48 hours after the tickets are purchased, for each flight segment, unless an exception applies.
No Available Family Seating at Booking—Options, Notification by Airline, and Decision by Passenger	If adjacent seats are not available at booking, an Assigned Seating Carrier must provide the booking party the choice between: (1) a full refund or, (2) the option to wait for family seating to become available for the booked flight closer to the scheduled departure.
	For flights purchased more than two weeks prior to departure, would require an Assigned Seating Carrier to contact the booking party within 48 hours after the ticket for air transportation has been purchased and provide the booking party a minimum of seven days to choose between: (1) a full refund or, (2) the option to wait for family seating to become available for the booked flight closer to the scheduled departure.
	Requires an Assigned Seating Carrier, for flights purchased less than two weeks prior to departure, to contact the booking party as soon as practical after the ticket for air transportation has been purchased and provide the booking party a reasonable amount of time to choose between: (1) a full refund or, (2) the option to wait for family seating to become available for the booked flight closer to the scheduled departure.
Waiting for Available Family Seating—Adjacent Seats Become Available	Would specify that when a booking party chooses to wait for available family seating, and adjacent seats become available before the first passenger boards the aircraft, an Assigned Seating Carrier must notify the booking party and assign the adjacent seats to a young child and accompanying adult as soon as the seats become available.
Waiting for Available Family Seating—Adjacent Seats Do Not Become Available	Would specify that when a passenger chooses to wait for available family seating, and adjacent seats do not become available before the first passenger boards the aircraft, an Assigned Seating Carrier must offer the booking party and/or the accompanying adult the choice between free rebooking on the next flight with available family seating at no additional cost or continuing travel in seats that are not adjacent.
Disclosure of Family Seating Policy	Would require carriers to clearly and conspicuously disclose their family seating policies on their public-facing online platforms and when a customer calls the carrier's reservation center to inquire about a fare or seating or to book a ticket that the carrier will allow a young child to be seated adjacent to an accompanying adult at no additional cost beyond the fare. The disclosure is also required to include any exceptions to the family seating requirement, including any carrier requirements for check-in and boarding that may impact the ability to secure adjacent seats.
Mitigating Passenger Harm—Options Available	Requires a carrier to mitigate passenger harm if the carrier fails to provide family seating as proposed by offering a choice between: (1) rebooking at no additional cost on the next flight with available family seating, (2) transporting the young child or young children and an accompanying adult on the flight without adjacent seats, or (3) a refund.
Mitigating Passenger Harm—Refund Calculation	States that the amount of refund that the booking party is entitled to receive would be the entire cost of the ticket if family seating as required by this rule is not provided on any segment of the outbound flight and the young child and passengers on that reservation decide not to travel to destination. States that the amount of refund in all other cases would be the cost of the unused portion of the ticket.
Mitigating Passenger Harm—Right of Passengers Stuck at Connecting Airport on Outbound Trip	Would specify that, if a carrier fails to provide family seating as specified in this rule and that failure results in the young child and accompanying adult being stuck at a connecting airport on the outbound trip and they choose to no longer travel, the carrier must provide return transportation to the origination airport at no cost.
Customer Service Plan	Would require that carriers update their Customer Service Plans to include a commitment to notify passengers that the carrier will provide adjacent seats to a young child and accompanying adult at no additional cost.
Civil Penalty	States that carriers that violate the family seating requirements would be subject to civil penalties. Specifies that if young children and an accompanying adult are not provided adjacent seats as required by the proposed rule and none of the exceptions apply, then a separate violation would occur for each child that is not seated next to an accompanying adult.
	Also, specifies that when a fee beyond the fare is imposed to secure family seating, a separate violation occurs for each fee imposed.
Removal of Passengers for Safety or Operational Reasons	Clarifies that this rule would not prohibit carriers from removing or reseating a young child and an accompanying adult, because of safety or operational reasons. Proposes that the selection of passengers for removal must be non-discriminatory.
Inclusion of Fees for Basic Services in Advertised Fare	Seeks comments on whether fees for other basic airline services should be required to be included in the advertised fare.

E. Summary of Regulatory Impact Analysis

Summary of Economic Impacts, Annual

[2022 Dollars, millions]

Benefits (+):		Benefits (+).
Reduced disutility to passengers from separation of families traveling by air	Unquantified
Costs (−):		Costs (−):
Implementation costs	$5-21	Implementation costs.
Net societal benefits (costs)	Not applicable	Net societal benefits (costs).
Transfers (0):		Transfers (0):
Increase in consumer surplus from elimination of seating fees for families (airlines to families)	$910	Increase in consumer surplus from elimination of seating fees for families (airlines to families).
Decrease in consumer surplus for solo air passengers (solo passengers to airlines)	$760
Decrease in consumer surplus for families who do not pay for seat reservations in the baseline (families to airlines)	$51	Decrease in consumer surplus for families who do not pay for seat reservations in the baseline (families to airlines).
Airline revenue loss (airlines to consumers)	$85	Airline revenue loss (airlines to consumers)
Benefits (+):		Benefits (+):
Reduced disutility to passengers from separation of families traveling by air	Unquantified	Reduced disutility to passengers from separation of families traveling by air.
Costs (−):		Costs (−):
Implementation costs	$5-21	Implementation costs.
Net societal benefits (costs)	Not applicable	Net societal benefits (costs).

Benefits, which we did not quantify, are due to the reduction in disutility to passengers from separation of families traveling by air. Costs are the upfront costs that carriers will incur to adjust their ticketing systems to allow them to distinguish passengers traveling as a family from other passengers. Aside from these implementation costs, the other quantified effects of the proposed rule are transfers. Families who currently pay for seat assignments will experience an increase in consumer surplus when their seating fees are eliminated. The elimination of seating fees encourages families to increase air travel, which puts upward pressure on airfares. Passengers that do not travel as a family and families who do not currently purchase seat reservations experience a loss in consumer surplus due to an airfare increase. Airlines initially will incur a loss in revenue primarily from the loss in seating fee revenue from families, as well as a smaller amount from the reduced travel on the part of solo passengers and families who do not pay seating fees in the baselines.

II. Discussion of Proposals

A. Overview of Proposal

In this rulemaking, the Department proposes to require U.S. and foreign air carriers to ensure that young children aged 13 and under are seated adjacent to at least one accompanying adult aged 14 or over at no additional cost, subject to limited exceptions.^[44] Under this rulemaking, the specific requirements that U.S. and foreign air carriers would be required to follow to ensure a young child is seated adjacent to an accompanying adult at no additional cost differ depending on the carrier's seating method. There are different requirements for an open seating carrier and an assigned seating carrier. However, in both cases, carriers would be prohibited from imposing additional charges for adjacent family seating. Further, under this proposed rule, carriers would be required to take certain steps to mitigate passenger harm if they fail to provide family seating as required by the proposed rule. Additionally, the Department would consider it a violation each time a young child is not provided the opportunity to secure a seat adjacent to an accompanying adult as required by the proposed rule, including each time an additional charge is incurred to secure an adjacent seat. Each violation could subject an airline to civil penalties. The Department believes that the proposed requirements along with the proposed exceptions will ensure that carriers have policies that enable young children to sit adjacent to an accompanying adult to the maximum extent practicable and at no additional cost.

The Department seeks comment on its proposal to require carriers to provide family seating at no additional cost beyond the fare, and whether its proposal protects families adequately. Should families traveling with young children continue to be forced to purchase adjacent seating in order to ensure that they will sit together, or should carriers provide this service to passengers traveling with young children at no additional cost beyond the fare, as is being proposed? Additionally, the Department seeks comment on whether its family seating requirements provide needed protections for children on aircraft. The Department is also examining whether fees for other basic airline services such as booking a ticket should be required to be included in the advertised fare and solicits comment in this area, as described in Section K.

A. Applicability

In this NPRM, the Department proposes to adopt family seating requirements in 14 CFR part 261 that would apply to U.S. and foreign air carriers that operate and market scheduled passenger flights to, from, or within the U.S. using at least one aircraft that has a designed capacity of 30 or more passenger seats. The Department is of the view that the rulemaking should apply to both marketing and operating carriers because they both interact with consumers regarding seating, including families traveling with young children. Marketing carriers interact with consumers in advance of travel since they typically hold out services to the public, ticket passengers, offer reservation services, and assign seats. Operating carriers interact with consumers on the date of the travel by assisting families who are not seated adjacent to their young children. The Department seeks comment on its decision to apply this rulemaking to both marketing and operating carriers.

As proposed, this rulemaking would apply to carriers that operate aircraft with a designed seating capacity of 30 or more seats. This is consistent with the Department's past practice, as many of the Department's consumer protection requirements do not apply to small U.S. carriers that operate passenger service exclusively with aircraft that have fewer than 30 seats.^[45] Very few passengers travel on aircraft with fewer than 30 seats.^[46] Although aircraft designed to have a maximum passenger capacity of 60 seats or fewer are considered small aircraft,^[47] DOT has not proposed to exclude them because a substantial number of passengers are transported on flights operated by aircraft with between 30 and 60 seats. According to data from the Department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), a total of 760,159,634 domestic passengers were transported in 2022, 734,090,772 (or 96.6%) of which were on flights using aircraft of more than 60 seats, 23,717,481 (or 3.1%) of which were on flights using aircraft with 30 through 60 seats, and 2,351,381 (or 0.3%) were on flights using aircraft with fewer than 30 seats.^[48] We solicit comment on whether the Department should cover carriers as proposed or limit or expand the carriers covered by this rulemaking. We ask proponents and opponents of any alternative to provide arguments and evidence in support of their positions.

B. Family Seating Requirements (Definitions)

The Department proposes to require carriers to ensure adjacent seating for a young child and an accompanying adult within the same class of service at no additional cost with limited exceptions when there is available family seating. The Department proposes definitions for each key term.

1. Adjacent Seating

In this NPRM, the Department proposes to define “adjacent seating” as two or more seats positioned next to each other in the same row of the aircraft and not separated by an aisle. The Department's family seating dashboard published on its aviation consumer protection website identifies those carriers that guarantee adjacent seats for a child 13 or under and an accompanying adult at no additional cost for all fare types, subject to limited conditions. However, the Department does not define adjacent seating on the Dashboard, and some carriers have interpreted adjacent seating to include a seat across the aisle from another seat. By proposing a definition of adjacent seats, the Department is ensuring that there is consistency in the service that families with young children receive across airlines. Further, the Department believes that its proposed definition of adjacent seats is necessary to ensure that an accompanying adult is seated close enough to care adequately for a young child and to ease anxiety about the seat that a child may be assigned on the aircraft. The Department seeks comment on its proposed definition of adjacent. Specifically, should adjacent be defined as two seats next to each other in the same row and not separated by an aisle as proposed? Or, conversely, should airlines be permitted to seat a child across the aisle from or near an accompanying adult, and if the latter, what should “near” mean?

2. Young Child or Young Children

The Department is proposing to define “young child or young children” in this NPRM to mean an individual(s) age 13 or under on the date of scheduled departure of the purchased flight. This definition is consistent with section 516 of the 2024 FAA Reauthorization which defines “young child” to mean “an individual who has not attained 14 years of age.”

The Department considered modeling its definition of young child after language in FAA Advisory Circular 120-27F ^[49] addressing air carrier weight and balance control programs, which defines a child to be less than 13 years of age. The Department chose “13 or under”, as prescribed in the Act, instead of the “under 13” age designation, as prescribed in FAA Advisory Circular 120-27F, because the definition in the FAA Advisory Circular was singularly focused on the weight and balance safety aspects of the aircraft and did not consider the mental fitness of a child and whether a child is old enough to be safely seated alone. The Department also considered the age that airlines permit children to travel unaccompanied as standard passengers. Many U.S. airlines do not accept children traveling alone as standard passengers unless they are 15 or older, although some U.S. airlines do allow children 12 or older to travel alone.^[50]

The Department believes that children should not be separated from their families on a flight because, if they are separated, they are not supervised or monitored by their families or by airline staff. In this NPRM, the Department proposes to apply family seating policies to children aged 13 or under. We solicit comment on whether 13 or under is the appropriate definition for a young child. We encourage commenters to provide data or other evidence as support for why a particular age group is appropriate.

The Department also recognizes that there may be situations where there are multiple young children traveling on the same reservation record as an accompanying adult. This rule seeks to ensure, to the extent feasible given the layout of an aircraft, that young children are seated adjacent to an accompanying adult. We request comment on whether the Department should specify that airlines must seat the children across the aisle from, or directly in front of or directly behind the accompanying adult, when multiple young children are traveling with an accompanying adult.

3. Accompanying Adult and Booking Party

The Department is proposing to define “accompanying adult” as an individual age 14 or over on the date of the scheduled departure who is traveling with a young child or young children on the same reservation record. The Department uses “individual,” rather than family member, when defining an accompanying adult because the adult may not be related to the young child. For example, the accompanying adult may be a family friend or caretaker.

When considering the appropriate age to use in the definition of an accompanying adult, the Department took into account airline policies on the minimum age for children to travel unaccompanied as young adults. A review of the policies of the 10 largest U.S. airlines revealed that airlines' policies vary and that there is no universally agreed upon age when a child is considered a young adult. Airlines use 12, 13, 14, and 15 as the cutoff for children to travel alone as young adults.^[51] The Department also considered the cognitive ability of children and the ages that children are given greater responsibility. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) allows individuals who are 15 years of age or older to be seated in an exit seat. This means that the FAA has determined that a 15-year-old has the capacity to understand and follow the crew's instruction and perform safety functions without the assistance of an adult companion or parent. The Department also considered the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which sets 14 years old as the minimum age of employment. A 14-year-old is deemed to have the capacity to take on certain paid responsibilities outside of the home.^[52]

In evaluating whether to propose an accompanying adult to be a 14- or 15-year-old, the Department factored in the benefit of avoiding an age gap between the age of a young child and accompanying adult. Avoiding such a gap would ensure that the family seating protections would also apply to a young child traveling with an older teenager, like a sibling. For these reasons, the Department is proposing to define an accompanying adult to be an individual age 14 or over on the scheduled departure date.

The Department requests comment on its definition of an accompanying adult. Specifically, is a 14-year-old too young to act as an accompanying adult to a young child? And if so, what should be the appropriate minimum age of an accompanying adult? Comments that are most useful provide information regarding the reasons why a particular age is appropriate. We also seek comment on the proposed use of the term “accompanying adult.”

The Department is proposing to define the term “booking party” as the person who booked the reservation for air travel. Since the booking party may or may not be an accompanying adult, we believe that it is important to define “booking party” to draw a distinction between the roles, rights, and responsibilities of the booking party versus the accompanying adult. For example, a parent may book tickets for her two children aged 11 and 16 without the intent for the parent to travel. The Department seeks comment on its definition of booking party and defining the booking party separate from an accompanying adult.

4. No Additional Cost

The Department is proposing to define “no additional cost” to mean no added charge beyond the fare. Additionally, the Department is proposing to define “fare”, a term used in the Department's definition of no additional cost, to mean the price paid for air transportation, including all basic services and all mandatory government taxes and carrier-imposed fees. The proposed definition of “fare” does not include ancillary service fees for optional services that have been determined by the Department not to be basic services. Furthermore, the Department is proposing to define the term “ancillary service fee” as a fee charged for any optional service that a carrier provides beyond passenger air transportation. Such fees may include, but are not limited to, charges for checked or carry-on baggage, canceling or changing a reservation, advance seat selection, in-flight beverages, snacks and meals, lounge access, bedding or other amenities, or seat upgrades so long as the fees are not for basic services.

The Department's proposed definition of “no additional cost” is consistent with the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act, which “prohibits an air carrier from charging a fee, or imposing an additional cost beyond the ticket price of the additional seat, to seat each young child adjacent to an accompanying adult within the same class of service.” Under this proposal, airlines would be prohibited from charging parents traveling with young children any additional fees to sit with their children beyond what they would pay for the tickets. While this proposed rule would require airlines to provide adjacent seats for a young child and an accompanying adult at no additional cost beyond the fare, airlines would have the flexibility to select which adjacent seats to provide. To the extent that a family with a young child wanted specific seats or wanted to be seated in a specific area of the aircraft, nothing in the proposal would prohibit an airline from charging for those seats.

The Department's proposed definition of “fare” in this rulemaking is consistent with the meaning of that term in other aviation consumer protection regulations.^[53] This definition does not consider ancillary service fees for optional services paid by passengers, such as baggage fees, to be part of the fare. However, this definition clarifies that the term fare includes all basic services. “Basic service” is a defined term under this proposal and is discussed below. In addition, the proposed definition of “ancillary service fee” is consistent with the Department's existing definition of “optional services” in 14 CFR 399.85(d),^[54] although the proposed definition of ancillary service fee clarifies that the term does not include fees for basic services.

The Department seeks comment on its proposed definitions of “no additional cost”, “fare”, and “ancillary service fee.” The Department also requests comment on continuing to permit airlines to charge fees to families who wish to secure specific seats. Comments that are most helpful will provide information and explain why a particular definition or action is best.

5. Class of Service

The Department is proposing to define class of service as seating in the same cabin class such as First, Business, Premium Economy, or Economy class, based on seat location in the aircraft and seat characteristics such as pitch size, features, or amount of legroom. Under this proposal, Premium Economy would be considered a different class of service from standard Economy, while Basic Economy would not. Consumers who purchase Premium Economy seats are often physically separated from other seats by a partition or bulkhead, they are provided seats with extra legroom than standard Economy, and their seats are often wider and recline further than standard Economy seats. They may also receive perks like free checked bags, special meals, or priority boarding. However, Basic Economy seats do not differ in pitch size or legroom from standard Economy. Typically, consumers who purchase a Basic Economy ticket face restrictions that those who purchase standard Economy do not, such as not being allowed to change or cancel tickets, select seats, or check-in bags. The Department seeks comment on whether Premium Economy or Basic Economy should be considered as a separate class of service from standard Economy under the proposed rule. The 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act prohibits fees “to seat each young child adjacent to an accompanying adult within the same class of service” but does not define class of service. Under this proposal, carriers would be obligated to provide family seating within the same class of service, at no additional cost. Carriers would not be required to upgrade the family to a higher class of service, like First, Business, or Premium Economy, to ensure family seating.

Furthermore, the Department is proposing a requirement that family seating must be provided in every class of service. This would mean that carriers cannot define classes of service in a way that would limit the availability of family seating, such as by defining a class of service as consisting of only middle seats, only aisle seats, or only window seats. The Department wants to ensure that carriers do not intentionally limit the ability for passengers to achieve family seating in all classes of service. At the same time, the Department is concerned that a proposal that adjacent seats be available in all classes of service may not always be feasible. For example, a carrier's first-class cabin may consist of single seats that are separated by an aisle, which would make providing adjacent seats as defined in this rulemaking impossible. For this reason, the Department has included as an exception for circumstances when an aircraft seating configuration would make it impossible to provide adjacent seating to a young child and an accompanying adult. The Department solicits comment on whether there are instances when family seating may not be physically possible in all classes of service and what remedial efforts could be made to address these constraints.

6. Available Family Seating

The Department is proposing to define “available family seating” as two or more adjacent seats located in the purchased class of service that have not been assigned to other passengers, and to which a young child or children and an accompanying adult may be assigned. Under this definition, an airline would not be required to seat a young child with both child's parents to accomplish the family seating requirements in the proposed rule. So long as the airline seats the young child with at least one accompanying adult, the airline would fulfill its responsibility to provide family seating. The Department seeks comment on its decision to define family seating as seating each child with one accompanying passenger, which may result in a child sitting with only one parent, as opposed to the entire party.

Also, the Department is proposing to define available family seating, rather than just using the term “available”, to create a distinction between seats that are available for families (capable of assignment to a young child and an accompanying adult) and seats that are vacant but may not be available for seating a young child. For example, young children are not permitted to sit in certain seats on an aircraft. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations on exit row seating prohibit a carrier from seating children under the age of 15 in an exit row because they are unable to perform certain duties that a passenger seated in an exit row may be called upon to perform in an emergency.^[55] Thus, although these seats may be vacant and capable of assignment when a passenger makes a reservation for air transportation, a carrier would not be able to assign a young child to a seat in the exit row of an aircraft given the age requirements to sit in these seats. We note that, if exit row seats are the only vacant adjacent seats in the purchased class of service, we would consider family seating to be unavailable for purposes of this proposed rule.

The proposed definition of “available family seating” would also not include seats that are in a different class of service or have already been assigned to other passengers. Specifying that the seat must be in the same class of service is consistent with the 2024 FAA Reauthorization Act prohibits fees “to seat each young child adjacent to an accompanying adult within the same class of service.” The Department also does not require carriers to move other passengers who have been assigned seats, some of whom have paid for the seats, as those passengers are entitled to the seats assigned to them. The Department seeks comment on the definition of available family seating as seats that are in the same class of service, are capable of assignment to a young child, and have not already been assigned to other passengers.

C. Assigned Seating Carriers

Under this rulemaking, the specific requirements that U.S. and foreign air carriers would be required to follow to ensure a young child is seated adjacent to an accompanying adult differ depending on the carrier's seating method. There are different requirements for an open seating carrier and an assigned seating carrier. The Department is proposing that the following requirements apply to assigned seating carriers, which are carriers that assign seats or allow individuals to select seats on a flight, in advance of the date of departure of a flight.

1. Available Family Seating at Time of Booking

When there is available family seating at the time of booking, assigned seating carriers would be required to make every reasonable effort to assign adjacent seats to a young child and accompanying adult at the time of booking the reservation, but no later than 48 hours after the tickets are purchased, at no additional cost, unless an exception applies. The proposed rule provides carriers up to 48 hours to assign family seating if the carrier is unable to assign the seats during the booking process ( e.g., the carrier does not have an automated reservation system to assign seats, ticket was purchased through a ticket agent). The Department seeks comment on its proposal to require airlines to make every reasonable effort to assign adjacent seating assignments at the time of booking, and, if the airline is unable to assign the seats at the time of booking, to allow airlines up to 48 hours after a ticket has been issued to assign adjacent family seating. Specifically, is 48 hours too long for families to wait to receive an assigned seat if the carrier is unable to assign the seats during the booking process? Alternatively, should carriers be given more time to provide advance family seating assignments if the carrier is unable to assign the seats during the booking process? If so, how long, and based on what rationale? Should families be allowed to select their seats at no additional charge during the booking process? The Department also seeks comment on whether passengers would be able to determine that there is available family seating at booking by looking at a carrier's seat map or if carriers would block certain seats, including those a carrier may put aside for families with young children, as unavailable on its seat map.

2. No Available Family Seating at Booking

a. Options Provided by Carrier

When there is no available family seating at the time of booking/when the passenger purchases the reservation, the proposed rule would require assigned seating carriers to offer passengers the option to either: (1) obtain a refund, or (2) wait for adjacent seating to become available. The Department is proposing different time periods for assigned seating carriers to notify passengers of these options and for passengers to notify the carriers of their choice based on when the tickets were purchased. For tickets purchased two or more weeks prior to departure, the Department is proposing that assigned seating carriers contact the booking party within 48 hours after the tickets were purchased to offer passengers a choice between a full refund and waiting for available family seating on that flight. The booking party would then have a minimum of seven days to choose between the options. For tickets purchased less than two weeks prior to departure, the Department is proposing that carriers contact the booking party as soon as practical after the tickets have been purchased and provide the booking party a reasonable amount of time to choose between receiving a full refund or waiting for available family seating on that flight. If the booking party fails to make a choice within the specified period, carriers would be able to proceed with the reservation as though the passenger chose to wait for available family seating on that flight.

The Department seeks comment on whether providing passengers the choice between a refund or waiting for available family seating on that flight are sufficient options for carriers to provide to families if there is no available family seating at the time of booking. For example, should carriers be required to reserve a seating option that places the young child as close as possible to an accompanying adult, while a family waits for available family seating? If so, what should constitute “as close as possible”? Must the carrier seat the young children and accompanying adult across the aisle from each other, or seat the young children directly in front of or directly behind the accompanying adult, or some other option?

Under the proposal, if the family chooses to wait for adjacent seats to become available before the first passenger boards the aircraft, the carrier would not be required to offer the family an additional opportunity to receive a refund if adjacent seats do not become available later. Should carriers be obligated to disclose, before the passenger makes the choice between a refund and waiting for available family seating, that they may not have another opportunity to receive a refund? Further, should airlines be required to inform passengers about the probability of their obtaining available family seating before boarding based on historical data about previous similar flights? If so, what process, if any, should carriers be required to follow to make this disclosure?

The Department also seeks comment on its proposal to give passengers a minimum of seven days to choose which option to accept for tickets purchased more than two weeks prior to departure as well as its proposal for airlines to determine what a reasonable time is for passengers to choose their preferred option when tickets are purchased less than two weeks prior to departure. Finally, in those situations where the booking party fails to decide whether to receive a refund or wait for available family seating within the specified timeframe, the Department seeks comment on whether the default option should be that the reservation stays in place and the carrier would proceed as though the booking party chose to wait for available family seating on that flight.

b. Choosing a Refund

If there is no available family seating at the time of booking and the booking party chooses to receive a full refund for their reservation under the proposed rule, a carrier would be required to refund any ancillary service fees paid under that reservation, in addition to the fare. Furthermore, the proposed rule also specifies that each individual in the booking party has the option to receive a refund, or to travel on the reservation, regardless of whether the accompanying adult and young child choose to receive a refund. The Department seeks comment on its proposal to allow the entire booking party to receive a refund if there is no available family seating at booking. The Department also requests comment on its proposal to allow passengers to recoup the entire cost of the reservation, including any ancillary service fees that the passenger paid.

c. Choosing To Wait for Available Family Seating

If the booking party chooses to wait for available family seating in lieu of a refund and adjacent seats become available before the first passenger boards the aircraft, the carrier would be required to notify the booking party and assign the adjacent seats to the young child and accompanying adult as soon as the seats become available. Conversely, if adjacent seating does not become available before the first passenger boards the aircraft, the proposed rule would require carriers to provide passengers the option to rebook seats on the next flight with available family seating at no additional cost, or to travel on their originally scheduled flight in non-adjacent seats. Under this proposal, passengers would not have the option to receive a refund at this point. The Department is of the tentative view that passengers chose to wait for available family seating in lieu of receiving a refund and carriers should not be required to provide a refund at this late date because they would not have sufficient time to sell the seats to other passengers.

The Department seeks comment on its proposal not to require airlines to provide refunds to passengers who initially refused a refund and, instead, opted to wait for available family seating when there was no available family seating at booking. The Department also seeks comment on its proposal to require air carriers to offer passengers waiting for available family seating the option to either rebook on the next available flight with adjacent seats, or travel on their originally scheduled flight without adjacent seats.

In addition, this proposed rulemaking is intended to avoid, as much as possible, last-minute scrambles for seats at the gate or carriers having to ask other passengers to give up their seat to allow a parent and child to sit together. The Department is of the tentative view that the proposed requirements would make it unnecessary for carriers to ask passengers in the cabin to shift seats to allow the child and accompanying adult to sit together or be in seats located as close together as possible. Nevertheless, should there be a requirement for carriers to make best efforts to seat families traveling with young children together even after passengers are on the aircraft? Why or why not?

In the event that there is no available family seating by the time the first passenger boards the aircraft and the family chooses to continue travel in seats that are not adjacent, should carriers be required to provide a seating option that places the young child as close as possible to an accompanying adult? If so, what should constitute “as close as possible”? Must the carrier seat the young children and accompanying adult across the aisle from each other, or seat the young children directly in front of or directly behind the accompanying adult, or some other option?

The Department also recognizes that allowing passengers to wait for available family seating until the first passenger boards the aircraft may further complicate the boarding process on the day of travel for families and airlines. Airline gate agents may work various gates as needed and have many responsibilities including checking boarding passes, helping passengers onto the flight, accommodating late passengers and may not have sufficient time to adequately assist families at the gate before a flight. Allowing passengers to wait for available family seating until the first passenger boards the aircraft may also be problematic for passengers since passengers would be required to show up at the airport and wait for available family seating, which they may or not receive. As such, the Department seeks comment on whether it should require airlines to provide passengers with the option to wait for available family seating until 24 hours before the flight, as opposed to allowing passengers to wait until the first passenger boards the aircraft. DOT seeks comment on whether the Department should alternatively require airlines to provide passengers with a refund or the option to travel on the flight in seats that are not adjacent when family seating is not available, instead of giving passengers the option to wait for available family seating for any duration.

d. Disclosure of Family Seating Policies for Assigned Seating Carriers

The Department is proposing to require assigned seating carriers to disclose to consumers that the carriers will provide available family seating at no additional cost. This disclosure would be required to be displayed clearly and conspicuously on carriers' online platforms and the carrier must notify customers of these disclosures when the customers call the carrier's reservation center to inquire about a fare or seating or to book a ticket. Under this proposal, carriers would be required to ask customers if they are traveling with young children, and would only be required to provide family seating information to those customers who indicate they are or might be. The airline would also be required to disclose any exceptions to the airline's family seating policy permitted under the rule, including carrier requirements for check-in or boarding. The Department seeks comment on its proposal to require airlines to disclose their family seating policy on their online platform and on the telephone and whether there are additional ways for assigned seating carriers to provide information to passengers about their family seating policy.

E. Open Seating Carriers

1. General Requirement for Open Seating Carriers

The Department's proposed family seating rule also proposes requirements for open seating carriers, or carriers that do not assign or allow individuals to select seats on a flight in advance of the day of departure. For open seating carriers, the Department proposes to require that passengers be boarded in a manner that allows passengers to secure family seating at no additional cost, subject to specified exceptions. While open seating carriers do not charge fees for advance seat assignments or fees to book seats in a higher class of service to ensure family seating, families traveling on open seating carriers may be advised to pay a fee to board the aircraft early to ensure family seating.

The Department understands that there is concern that any potential family seating requirements imposed on open seating carriers would impact the boarding and open seating models that have been employed by these carriers for several years. The Department has also been made aware of concerns that a regulatory proposal that would require open seating carriers to preboard families or provide early boarding to families for free may have a disproportionately negative impact on open seating carriers in comparison to assigned seating carriers because assigned seating carriers would have no obligation to seat families together if there is no available family seating at the time of booking, but an open seating carrier would still have an obligation to provide family seating on a full flight. There also appears to be concern that a family seating requirement could diminish the incentive for non-families to travel on open seating carriers since they would be forced to board the aircraft after families and the available seating options for individuals traveling without young children would be limited.

To address the concerns expressed about the potential negative impacts of a family seating regulation on open seating carriers, the Department proposes a generalized requirement that open seating carriers board passengers in a manner that allows passengers to secure family seating at no additional cost. This broad requirement is designed to provide open seating carriers with the flexibility to determine a way for families to be seated together without impacting the long-standing open seating model. An airline may consider adopting various options that would fulfill this proposed requirement. For instance, carriers could section off a block of seats in a specific section of the aircraft that would be dedicated to passengers traveling with families because the carrier would already be aware of how many families with young children would be traveling on the flight. The carriers could also require that families be present at the gate at a certain time in advance of boarding and board them first. The Department notes that the proposed rule includes as an exception to the proposed family seating requirement for the failure by passengers to comply with carriers' check-in and boarding policies, provided that those polices do not create unreasonably burdensome processes for individuals traveling with young children. The Department seeks comment on whether the proposed requirement for open seating carriers to board families in a manner that allows passengers to secure adjacent family seating at no additional cost is flexible enough to allow open seating carriers to fulfill the requirements while preserving traditional open seating models.

2. Disclosure of Family Seating Policies for Open Seating Carriers

The Department proposes to require open seating carriers to disclose to consumers that they will board passengers in a manner that will allow a young child and an accompanying adult to secure adjacent seats at no additional cost. All other aspects of the disclosure would mirror the disclosure that assigned seating carriers would be required to provide to consumers. The Department seeks comment on the disclosure proposal and whether there are additional ways for open seating carriers to provide information to passengers about their family seating policies.

F. Exceptions to the Family Seating Requirements

In this NPRM, the Department proposes four exceptions to the proposed family seating requirements that apply to both assigned seating carriers and open seating carriers. These exceptions define how carriers can provide family seating, as proposed, to the maximum extent practicable.

The first exception would apply when a young child is not traveling with an accompanying adult. If a young child is traveling alone, the young child would be traveling as an unaccompanied minor, and the family seating provisions in this proposed rule would not apply.

The second exception would apply when a booking party declines to accept the family seating provided by the carrier or selects a seat for the young child that is not adjacent to an accompanying adult traveling on the flight reservation or the aircraft. If the family intentionally chooses seats on the aircraft that are not adjacent, the airline would not be responsible for providing family seating. The Department solicits comment on whether a young child should ever be seated separately from an accompanying adult even if a family does not wish to sit in the adjacent seats assigned by the airline.

The third exception would apply when the number of young children traveling under a reservation or the seating configuration makes it impossible for the carrier to provide family seating based on the seat layout of the aircraft. For example, if one accompanying adult is traveling with three young children, it may not be possible for the carrier to provide seats adjacent to one another with no aisle separating the seats. Further, the family's chosen cabin class may not contain two adjacent seats that are not separated by an aisle. In these situations, the carrier should provide adjacent seating for the maximum possible number of children and seat the accompanying adult and any other young children on the reservation across the aisle from, or directly in front of or directly behind the accompanying adult. The Department requests comment on whether it should impose such an additional requirement. Also, are there any other seating arrangements that the Department should consider when adjacent seating is impossible?

The fourth exception would apply if the young child and accompanying adult do not comply with the carrier's applicable check-in or boarding process requirements. Carriers require passengers to check in at a certain time before the scheduled departure time of the flight. Additionally, carriers require passengers to be at the gate and ready to board at a specified time. These airline requirements apply to all passengers, including families traveling with young children. Passengers who fail to meet the minimum check-in time or boarding requirements, including families traveling with young children, may have their seats reassigned or may not be able to fly. However, carriers would not be permitted to create specific check-in or boarding process requirements that are unreasonably burdensome for families. This rulemaking would not impact airlines' ability to set their own check-in and boarding process requirement for all passengers, including for families with young children.

The Department seeks comments on the proposed four exceptions to its family seating requirements. The Department also seeks comment on whether there should be any other exceptions. For example, the Department is of the tentative view that carriers should still be obligated to provide adjacent family seating, as proposed, when a larger aircraft is substituted for a smaller aircraft. The Department's Family Seating Dashboard, however, allows carriers to condition their family seating guarantee on a larger aircraft not being substituted for a smaller aircraft. The Department seeks comment on whether it should include substitution of a larger aircraft for a smaller aircraft as an exception in this rulemaking. Regardless of whether aircraft substitution is included as an exception to the family seating requirements, what procedures, if any, should carriers follow to ensure that young children are seated adjacent to an accompanying adult or as close as possible to an accompanying adult?

G. Mitigating Passenger Harm

Under this proposed rule, carriers would be required to take certain steps to mitigate passenger harm if they fail to provide family seating at no additional cost as required by the proposed rule. Specifically, carriers would be obligated to offer the booking party and/or the accompanying adult(s) a choice between free rebooking on the next available flight with adjacent seats, continuing travel without adjacent seats, or receiving a refund.

In the event that a passenger elects to continue travel on the flight without available family seating, the Department seeks comment on whether airlines should be required to provide a seating option that places a young child as close as possible to an accompanying adult. If so, what should constitute “as close as possible”? Must the carrier seat the young children and accompanying adult across the aisle from each other, seat the young children directly in front of or directly behind the accompanying adult, or some other option?

Under this proposal, the choice to rebook at no additional cost would be available to every individual on the reservation with the young child if the young child and accompanying adult decide to rebook. This way, a family that wishes to travel together would be able to do so. At the same time, if a young child and an accompanying adult choose to be rebooked, but the other passengers on the reservation choose to remain on the flight, the carrier would be required to accommodate this choice. The Department believes that it is important for the individuals on the reservation to have the freedom to decide whether to travel on their original scheduled flight without adjacent seats or rebook on the next available flight with available family seating when the child and accompanying adult chose to be rebooked. The Department seeks comment on allowing every individual on the reservation to make this choice.

A carrier that fails to comply with the proposed family seating requirements must also offer the young child and an accompanying adult the option to travel on their original flight in seats that are not adjacent. Although this option may not be preferred, the Department is of the tentative view that families should be able to decide the choice that best meets their needs even if that choice is to continue on a flight without adjacent seats. For example, a parent traveling with a 12-year-old child may decide the best option is to continue on the flight even though adjacent seats are not available because the child is seated near the parent and the reason for travel is time sensitive such as a wedding or funeral. However, if this option is chosen, all passengers on the reservation would remain on their originally ticketed flight segment. The Department seeks comment on whether carriers should be encouraged or required to make best efforts to seat families with young children together even after boarding by asking other passengers to switch seats. Although the Department intends for this rulemaking to prevent last-minute scrambles for seats at the gate or carriers having to ask other passengers to give up their seat to allow a parent and child to sit together, are there times when it is beneficial to do so?

Additionally, if the carrier fails to follow the family requirements as proposed, the carrier would also be required to offer every individual on the reservation the option to receive a refund of the airline ticket and any unused ancillary service fees, e.g., baggage fees, lounge access. Furthermore, if a young child and an accompanying adult choose to receive a refund, but the other passengers on the reservation choose to remain on the flight, the carrier would be required to accommodate this choice.

The refund requirement would apply to the entire cost of the reservation if a family is unable to receive family seating on any outbound leg of a trip or a family is informed about the unavailability of family seating before the start of travel. For example, if a mother books a roundtrip flight from Richmond, Virginia to Los Angeles, California with a connection in Chicago, Illinois for her and her young child and the mother is informed that family seating is available from Richmond to Chicago but not from Chicago to California, then the mother would be entitled to a refund for the entire reservation if she decides not to travel with her child. Similarly, if prior to beginning travel, the mother is informed that family seating is available on the outbound but not inbound flights, the mother would be entitled to a refund for the entire reservation if she decides not to travel with her child. However, on a direct return flight, or a return flight with a connection, the carrier would only be required to refund the cost of the unused portion of the return trip; the carrier would not need to refund the outbound portion of the ticket if the family already traveled on this portion of the reservation. For instance, if the mother and her young child traveled to Los Angeles but adjacent seating was not available on their return, then the mother would be entitled to a refund for the return trip and not the entire reservation. If a carrier fails to comply with the family seating requirements as proposed, and a family is impacted at a connecting airport while on the outbound portion of their trip, and the family chooses to no longer travel, the carrier would also be required to provide return transportation to the family's origination airport, in addition to providing the refund.

The Department seeks comment on its proposal that carriers provide a full refund of the cost of the reservation to passengers who choose this option if family seating is not available on any portion of the outbound trip, and a refund for the cost of the unused portion of the return flight if family seating is not provided on any leg of the return reservation. The Department also seeks comment on its proposal to require carriers to provide return transportation to the family's origination airport if family seating is not provided on the outbound trip at a connecting airport.

H. Removal or Reseating of Passengers for Safety or Operational Reasons

Under this proposed rule, carriers would not be prohibited from removing passengers from the aircraft or reseating passengers, including a young child and an accompanying adult, for safety reasons or if failing to do so would be in violation of operational requirements. The proposal seeks to specify that removal in such cases must be non-discriminatory. For example, the airline would select the last passenger to check in for the flight to be removed from the aircraft.

The Department seeks comment on its proposal to allow airlines to remove or reseat a young child and their accompanying adult for aircraft safety or operational issues. The Department also seeks comments on whether, and if so, what remedies for, or mitigations of harms to, impacted passengers should be required in the event that airlines remove or reseat a young child and their accompanying adult for aircraft safety or operational issues.

I. Customer Service Plans

This NPRM also proposes to amend 14 CFR 259.5 to require carriers to address family seating in their customer service plans. Specifically, the rule would require carriers to update their customer service plans to include a commitment to notify passengers that the carrier will provide adjacent seats to a young child and an accompanying adult at no additional cost. The Department believes young children being able to sit adjacent to an accompanying adult is a basic service that all carriers should provide at no additional cost beyond the fare. Carriers notifying passengers that family seating is provided at no additional cost in their customer service plans would reduce the chance of customer confusion and better ensure that parents traveling with young children are able to sit together at no additional cost. We seek comment on the proposed requirement that carriers must include a family seating provision in their customer service plans.

J. Civil Penalties

In this NPRM, the Department proposes to include a provision notifying airlines that violations of the Department's family-seating requirements subject an airline to civil penalties. The Department proposes that a carrier's failure to provide family seating as required by the proposal would subject it to civil penalties on a per passenger (child) basis. Further, if the carrier imposes fees for family seating, the carrier would be subject it to civil penalties for each fee imposed.

The Department's Office of Aviation Consumer Protection (OACP), a unit within the Office of the General Counsel, has the authority to assess civil penalties against airlines and travel agents up to $40,272 per violation pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 46301 and 14 CFR 383.2. Further, the statute provides that “a separate violation occurs under this subsection for each day the violation . . . continues or, if applicable, for each flight involving the violation. . . .” When OACP has evidence of systemic violations, or a single or a few egregious violations, it will take enforcement action.

The Department seeks comment in its proposal to include a provision in the regulation that notifies airlines that they are subject to civil penalties for violating any requirement in the family seating rule. The Department also seeks comment on its proposal that a violation exists each time a young child and accompanying adult do not have the opportunity to secure adjacent seats. For example, if two parents are traveling with three young children and only one parent is provided the opportunity to be seated adjacent to one of the young children, but a parent is not provided the opportunity to be seated adjacent to either of the other two children, should there be two violations? The Department also seeks comments on whether the accompanying adult suffers a separate violation when denied the opportunity to sit adjacent to a young child. As noted above, accompanying adults may suffer significant stress and anxiety when they are not seated adjacent to a young child.

K. Inclusion of Fees for Basic Services in Advertised Fare

The Department is examining whether fees for basic airline services such as booking a ticket ^[56] should be required to be included in the advertised fare. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA), which preempted State regulation of airlines, removed Federal authority to set airline fares and fees and ended most regulation of airline rates, routes, and services. Under the ADA, DOT must consider as being in the public interest, among other things, having an air transportation system that relies on competition to determine the price of air transportation services. The ADA maintained the Department's statutory authority to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices. DOT continues to regulate and enforce consumer protections for airline passengers under its authority to prohibit unfair and deceptive practices. DOT also has the authority to ensure U.S. carriers provide safe and adequate interstate air transportation. The Department is relying on these and other authorities in issuing this rulemaking proposing to require U.S. and foreign air carriers to seat young children adjacent to at least one accompanying adult at no additional cost beyond the fare subject to limited exceptions. The Department is also considering whether, like family seating, it would be an unfair and deceptive practice to charge fees beyond the fare for other basic airline services.

Over the years, airlines have developed a variety of ways to charge passengers fees for air transportation-related services that were once included in the ticket price. The airline industry has unbundled services that traditionally came with a ticket, such as checked bags and seat reservations. The Department has noticed that the unbundling of service has continued to expand, with some airlines now charging for carry-on bags, printing boarding passes ^[57] at the airport, receiving a paper ticket or a receipt, using a credit card to make a ticket purchase,^[58] or redeeming, transferring, or redepositing rewards earned by the customer. Additionally, while most airlines still provide complimentary water along with other non-alcoholic drinks and snacks to passengers, some airlines today charge passengers to receive water ^[59] on the aircraft. The Department has also noticed that carriers are adding charges like a “carrier interface charge,” “passenger interface charge,” “electronic carrier usage charge,” “ticketing fee,” or a “technology development charge,” for booking online or over the phone, and the fees are avoidable only if customers purchase the ticket in person. Other airlines charge a ticketing fee for purchasing the ticket at the airport. The Department is concerned that this unbundling of services will continue to the detriment of consumers and seeks comment on this issue.

The Department proposes to define “basic service” as a service that is essential for a carrier to provide adequate air transportation to a passenger as determined by the Department after notice and comment. The Department is of the tentative view that seating a young child adjacent to an accompanying adult is a basic service.

This NPRM is seeking comment on fees charged by airlines for basic services that used to be included in the ticket price, as well as prospective fees that airlines may charge passengers that the airlines currently include in the ticket price. For instance, carriers currently do not charge passengers for the use of lavatories onboard the aircraft, nor do they charge passengers to carry a small purse or laptop onto the aircraft, but the Department or the public cannot be assured that carriers would not do so in the future. Carriers also do not generally charge for customer service assistance should there be a flight disruption, though at least one airline charges passengers if they choose to receive assistance from airport agents when checking in. Neither the Department nor the public can be assured that airlines would not charge for all types of customer service assistance in the future.

The Department seeks comment on its proposed definition of basic service, and whether seating a young child adjacent to an accompanying adult is a basic service. What, if any, other services beyond adjacent family seating should be considered a basic service? Should services related to the consumers' physical well-being such as access to the lavatory and the availability of drinking water upon request be considered basic services? Should services necessary for air transportation such as booking or paying for a ticket, checking in online, printing a boarding pass for those unable to do so themselves, or receiving customer service be considered basic services? Are there other types or categories of services that should be considered basic beyond those mentioned? The Department is considering prohibiting carriers from unbundling and charging passengers separately for basic services. The information provided by stakeholders—airlines, ticket agents, consumers, and other affected parties—will assist the Department in determining what, if any, additional services should be considered basic services that carriers and ticket agents must include as part of the fare to avoid engaging in an unfair or deceptive practice and to ensure safe and adequate service is being provided.

B. Regulatory Analysis and Notices

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

Executive Orders 12866 (“Regulatory Planning and Review”) and 13563 (“Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review”) require agencies to regulate in the “most cost-effective manner,” to make a “reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs,” and to develop regulations that “impose the least burden on society.” The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rulemaking is a significant regulatory action as defined in section (3)(f)(1) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, as amended by E. O. 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review.” Accordingly, the Department has prepared an RIA for the proposed rule, summarized in this section and available in the docket. Table 1 below provides a summary of the costs and benefits of this proposed rulemaking.

Table 1—Summary of Economic Impacts, First Year

[2022 Dollars, millions]

Benefits (+):		Benefits (+).
Reduced disutility to passengers from separation of families traveling by air	Unquantified
Costs (−):		Costs (−):
Implementation costs	$5-21	Implementation costs.
Net societal benefits (costs):	Not applicable	Net societal benefits (costs).
Transfers (0):		Transfers (0):
Increase in consumer surplus from elimination of seating fees for families (airlines to families)	$910	Increase in consumer surplus from elimination of seating fees for families (airlines to families).
Decrease in consumer surplus for solo air passengers (solo passengers to airlines)	$760
Decrease in consumer surplus for families who do not pay for seat reservations in the baseline (families to airlines)	$51	Decrease in consumer surplus for families who do not pay for seat reservations in the baseline (families to airlines).
Airline revenue loss (airlines to consumers)	$85	Airline revenue loss (airlines to consumers).
Benefits (+):		Benefits (+):
Reduced disutility to passengers from separation of families traveling by air	Unquantified	Reduced disutility to passengers from separation of families traveling by air.
Costs (−):		Costs (−):
Implementation costs	$5-21	Implementation costs.
Net societal benefits (costs)	Not applicable	Net societal benefits (costs).