Child Tickets 12yo and Under Effective 3/24/14

[Green Maned Lion]

Non drivers ID cards are discriminatory. They mark a person out as being a non-driver and thus a second class citizen.

 

[Eric S]

Non drivers ID cards are discriminatory. They mark a person out as being a non-driver and thus a second class citizen.

I tend to agree with you, at least in terms of how some people perceive non-drivers. What do you suggest, though, as a way around that - require something like a state ID card for everybody, in addition to a drivers license for drivers; or work to eliminate requirements for IDs in various situations? I'm honestly curious how this will work out going forward, as I do tend to think that the drop-off in drivers and driving among younger people is not simply a short-term blip.

 

[Ryan]

Raising fares for kids and taking flowers off tables will ensure service continues? WOW!

I said nothing about the flowers.

Charging adult fares for teenagers will increase revenue, yes. More revenue = more money for operating costs = service continues.

The airlines have been doing this for years, as I mentioned twice already, and they are not suffering one bit. Amtrak is still generous in that they consider someone a child until they are 13. The airlines kick you into the "adult" category as soon as you turn 3.

2. And if it's a lap infant, they'll require some sort of proof of age. Southwest requires check-in at the airport to get a "boarding document" and they will ask to see proof of age right there. Most bring a photocopy of a birth certificate, but a non-driver license state ID issued by a DMV or a passport will work.

That's not universal, it depends on the airline. We've never needed proof of age for the baby on United, Hawaiian, or AirTran.

 

[MattW]

The increase in fares for teenagers is less of an issue than the insane unaccompanied minor rules.

Now, it makes sense for minors to get fake IDs in order to travel on Amtrak. Fake IDs: not just for alcohol any more!

The more ludicrously overprotective the rules for teenagers get, the more it gets to the point where their parents have an incentive to get them fake IDs, and Amtrak's gone well beyond that point.

Nobody in power is thinking about this unintended consequence.

It's worth noting that Amtrak's unaccompanied minor policy is, in a certain sense, unenforceable. What are they gonna do with a minor who has managed to get an adult ticket and gets caught? Throw them off the train early? Defeats the purpose of the policy, doesn't it?

Amtrak's ID policy only requires IDs for anyone over 18, which is still pretty stupid. So by their own policy, they can't do anything.

I was once getting on the Downeaster in Exeter and there were two teenagers trying to get on. The Downeaster only opens one door and passengers use a bridgeplate to board from the mini-high platform. As the rest of us board the conductor asks them how old they are. They both respond "16" He then asks them if they have ID to prove it (Amtrak and the Airlines only require ID from passengers 18 or older) and they both say "No!" He responds "I can't let you on the train then, you need ID if your traveling alone." After we've boarded I overhear him explaining to the other conductor that you have to profile the passengers and ask for ID.

Then I hope the conductor at least got re-trained and preferably fired. If someone is in complete compliance with Amtrak's policies then they absolutely SHOULD NOT be denied travel.

Non drivers ID cards are discriminatory. They mark a person out as being a non-driver and thus a second class citizen.

IDs of any kind are discriminatory. They mark a person out as being someone who doesn't care about identity theft. This unhealthy obsession with a photo ID containing loads of personal information in this country must stop!

 

[andersone]

my ex wife never got a drivers license - should that have been a clue?

 

[neroden]

IDs of any kind are discriminatory. They mark a person out as being someone who doesn't care about identity theft. This unhealthy obsession with a photo ID containing loads of personal information in this country must stop!

Indeed. And an "ID card" doesn't usually prove a damn thing, either. It doesn't actually answer any questions that we *care* about for the most part. There is no reason to "check IDs" on any form of public transportation. Ever. It doesn't prevent disruptive or dangerous passengers from getting on, and it doesn't guarantee that your records of who are on board are accurate (they won't be).
There is a bizarre fetish with ID-based "security", which is no security at all. If the IDs are looked at regularly, they're ignored even *more*. A CIA employee (IIRC) had his dog's photo put on his government ID, and it was not noticed by the security guards for years.

 

[neroden]

For the 4th quarter of 2013, Delta Air Lines had a record quarterly profit.

This was not just a record quarterly profit for Delta, but more profit than any airline has ever made in any one quarter.

Enron reported record quarterly profits quite frequently before declaring bankruptcy. I'd look deeper before I'd take a corporate announcement of profit seriously.

 

[EB_OBS]

Amtrak's ID policy only requires IDs for anyone over 18, which is still pretty stupid. So by their own policy, they can't do anything.

Actually, you are incorrect.

Amtrak policy requires that 16 & 17 yr olds have ID if they are traveling unaccomanied. http://www.amtrak.com/passenger-identification

 

[BCL]

Raising fares for kids and taking flowers off tables will ensure service continues? WOW!

I said nothing about the flowers.

Charging adult fares for teenagers will increase revenue, yes. More revenue = more money for operating costs = service continues.

The airlines have been doing this for years, as I mentioned twice already, and they are not suffering one bit. Amtrak is still generous in that they consider someone a child until they are 13. The airlines kick you into the "adult" category as soon as you turn 3.

2. And if it's a lap infant, they'll require some sort of proof of age. Southwest requires check-in at the airport to get a "boarding document" and they will ask to see proof of age right there. Most bring a photocopy of a birth certificate, but a non-driver license state ID issued by a DMV or a passport will work.

That's not universal, it depends on the airline. We've never needed proof of age for the baby on United, Hawaiian, or AirTran.

The age is a requirement of the FAA. Even if there's no specific requirement, many airlines state that they could ask to see proof of age. Here's Jet Blue's language:

http://help.jetblue.com/SRVS/CGI-BIN/webisapi.dll?New,Kb=askBlue,case=obj(1939)

Customers traveling with a lap child could be asked for proof of age, such as a passport, birth certificate (copies are acceptable for domestic travel) or an immunization record when the infant's age is questionable. Infants between three and 14 days old must also have, in the form of a letter, their doctor's approval to travel.

Infants must be traveling with an adult customer at least 14 years or older, and the infant must sit on the adult's lap during takeoff and landing.

Southwest has always been the most specific. However, I have personally called and asked if a passport or passport card would be acceptable, and it worked when my kid flew with my wife. I wouldn't be surprised if they have an official operations manual that states what documents are allowed.

https://www.southwest.com/html/customer-service/family/baby-on-board-pol.html

A birth certificate is required to validate the age of all infants under age two.

A medical release for travel is required for any infant under 14 days old.

Hawaiian's official policy is that proof of age is required. I fully understand that employees might make exceptions or maybe ignore their official policy.

General Information

Hawaiian Airlines reserves the right to request proof of age for infants traveling as a lap child & for international travel (eg. birth certificate copy). If unable to provide proof, applicable fare will be charged. For infants departing under 2 years of age and returning as a 2 year old, the applicable adult fare will be charged for the return flight.

AirTran has a similar official policy (similar to Southwest that owns AirTran):

http://www.airtran.com/policies/checkin_information.aspx

Children and Infants

AirTran Airways will not provide transportation services to any infant 14 days of age or younger, unless a written statement is provided by an attending physician approving such infant for air travel. Infants under the age of two years must be accompanied by a passenger 12 years old or older and have a birth certificate for age verification purposes.

I've heard some airlines require that a lap infant be declared before arriving at the airport. One I saw even had a specific phone number to call.

And just for good measure - Alaska Airlines:

http://www.alaskaair.com/content/travel-info/policies/children-infants-and-children.aspx

Age Restrictions

There is no minimum age for infants traveling on Alaska Airlines. However, we recommend checking with your child's doctor if you are unsure your infant should be traveling via plane.

Children are no longer considered infants on the day of their 2nd birthday. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires all children who have reached their 2nd birthday to occupy their own seat on an aircraft. Accordingly, children of ages 2 or older will not be allowed to travel unless they hold a valid ticket.

Alaska Airlines reserves the right to require proof of age for any child traveler before permitting travel. Please be prepared to provide documentation (birth certificate, passport, etc.) upon request.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Non drivers ID cards are discriminatory. They mark a person out as being a non-driver and thus a second class citizen.

I tend to agree with you, at least in terms of how some people perceive non-drivers. What do you suggest, though, as a way around that - require something like a state ID card for everybody, in addition to a drivers license for drivers; or work to eliminate requirements for IDs in various situations? I'm honestly curious how this will work out going forward, as I do tend to think that the drop-off in drivers and driving among younger people is not simply a short-term blip.

Yes. A drivers license should not be the defacto id.

 

[IC-Cond]

I think people might be reading too much in to this. I see IDs from all sorts of states and don't even really pay attention to what form it is (private vehicle license, CDL, state ID), all I look for is that it's valid, it looks like them, and if there's question as to whether they're a minor traveling alone the date of birth. It doesn't matter whether the person drives or not, it matters that they've got something acceptable so I can get my train over the road.

 

[BCL]

So, those without divers licenses can (and should) have an ID. I know that, in California, a lot of employers require at least a State ID, if not a full license, in order to be hired.

Again - the requirements for ID are set on the I-9 by the federal government. This is from the I-9 application:

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-9.pdf

Anti-Discrimination Notice. It is illegal to discriminate against any work-authorized individual in hiring, discharge, recruitment or referral for a fee, or in the employment eligibility verification (Form I-9 and E-Verify) process based on that individual's citizenship status, immigration status or national origin. Employers CANNOT specify which document(s) they will accept from an employee. The refusal to hire an individual because the documentation presented has a future expiration date may also constitute illegal discrimination. For more information, call the Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices (OSC) at 1-800-255-7688 (employees), 1-800-255-8155 (employers), or 1-800-237-2515 (TDD), or visit www.justice.gov/crt/about/osc.

 

[Blackwolf]

You don't need a drivers license in order to have ID. In California, for example, one can obtain a CA ID card (non-license) from the moment someone is born. It costs $27, simply requires a form to be filled out, proof of birth date and name (birth cert. or passport will suffice), a thumb print and a picture to be taken.

So, those without divers licenses can (and should) have an ID. I know that, in California, a lot of employers require at least a State ID, if not a full license, in order to be hired.

An employer isn't allowed to require a specific form of ID in the US. They are required to have an employee fill out an I-9 and check their credentials to establish identify and proof of eligibility to work in the US. A driver license plus SSN card would satisfy the requirement. A passport alone alone also meets the requirements.

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-9.pdf

I got a passport and passport card for our kid at age one. I never flew with our kid as a lap infant, but my wife did. We had no problems using the passport card, even if Southwest's information says to bring along a birth certificate to show proof of age. In many ways I like the passport card because it doesn't contain an address. When you flash a driver license, someone sees the address and may realize that you're on vacation.

True, specifically listing a particular form of ID might be illegal... But when they say that you "must have either a California ID and/or Driver License" as part of the employment process, you better believe they will round-file any applicant who does not follow the guidelines of the employment flyer.

This goes double-true for Government jobs. I know. I've been intimately involved with the hiring process for the largest professional fire department in the United States, and one of the conditions of hire is a "valid California Driver License." And its a provision that has withstood even the most hardened of legal attacks.

And my wife was just hired at local garden supply center here in the Sacramento region two months back. One of their provisions of hire? "Valid California ID card and/or Driver License."

 

[BCL]

You don't need a drivers license in order to have ID. In California, for example, one can obtain a CA ID card (non-license) from the moment someone is born. It costs $27, simply requires a form to be filled out, proof of birth date and name (birth cert. or passport will suffice), a thumb print and a picture to be taken.

So, those without divers licenses can (and should) have an ID. I know that, in California, a lot of employers require at least a State ID, if not a full license, in order to be hired.

An employer isn't allowed to require a specific form of ID in the US. They are required to have an employee fill out an I-9 and check their credentials to establish identify and proof of eligibility to work in the US. A driver license plus SSN card would satisfy the requirement. A passport alone alone also meets the requirements.

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/form/i-9.pdf

I got a passport and passport card for our kid at age one. I never flew with our kid as a lap infant, but my wife did. We had no problems using the passport card, even if Southwest's information says to bring along a birth certificate to show proof of age. In many ways I like the passport card because it doesn't contain an address. When you flash a driver license, someone sees the address and may realize that you're on vacation.

True, specifically listing a particular form of ID might be illegal... But when they say that you "must have either a California ID and/or Driver License" as part of the employment process, you better believe they will round-file any applicant who does not follow the guidelines of the employment flyer.

This goes double-true for Government jobs. I know. I've been intimately involved with the hiring process for the largest professional fire department in the United States, and one of the conditions of hire is a "valid California Driver License." And its a provision that has withstood even the most hardened of legal attacks.

And my wife was just hired at local garden supply center here in the Sacramento region two months back. One of their provisions of hire? "Valid California ID card and/or Driver License."

It would have to be related to the job - i.e. reliable transportation. There are a lot of jobs where the ability to operate a vehicle is part of the job description. And in the case of the I-9 verification, the employer can't refuse a US passport for that purpose. I'm not thinking that the requirement for a "California ID" is terribly legal.

A former coworker of mine had a home on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe and commuted to the Bay Area about every other week. He stayed in a small apartment while he was working. His car had Nevada plates and I'm pretty sure he had a Nevada license.

I now work in Silicon Valley. One coworker doesn't drive at all. It's a little bit unusual in a place almost completely spread out and designed for cars, but she makes do. And our employer didn't insist that she had to have some form of state ID.

 

[RCBev]

NOOOOO!!! Say it ain't so!! This is sooo disappointing. My son and I had a couple more years of that discount. So sad.

 

[fairviewroad]

Meh. They still take a full seat that a full fare paying adult could occupy so I have no problem with this.

Well, my two-year-old son, who no longer qualifies as an "infant" on Amtrak, still rides in my lap. If he's not in my lap, he can't

see out the window, which upsets him mightily.

When my SO and I ride with our son, we pay for three tickets (okay, we pay for 2 1/2 tickets) but occupy two seats. By your logic

we should only be charged for two tickets. I'm perfectly happy with the yardstick of charging for a ticket only if the child occupies

a seat. I'm sure I can get by with Fairviewroad, Jr. sitting on my lap for a few more years (for short-haul trips, anyway).

Will it generate more revenue for Amtrak, ensuring service continues? Definitely.

It only generates more revenue if every family with 13, 14 or 15 year-olds that would have taken a trip under the old policy ALSO

takes a trip under the new policy. But since the "plane-versus-train" or "car-versus-train" math now CHANGES, it's quite possible,

likely even, that some of those families will choose to fly or drive instead. Thus, one could just as easily hypothesize that this change

will result in less revenue.

I suspect it will be closer to a wash, revenue-wise. Some families will choose to pay more, others will ditch the train. On average, the

two groups will offset each other. But a "wash" does not equal more revenue. (I realize I'm speculating, too)

 

[Green Maned Lion]

No, it does offer that potential. Some of those half fare seats will be vacated- and many will be replaced by adults who previously couldn't get a seat.

 

[fairviewroad]

Some of those half fare seats will be vacated- and many will be replaced by adults who previously couldn't get a seat.

Only on trains that were otherwise sold out. Rarely the case for coach seats outside of a handful of busy holiday periods.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

That is not what I've been seeing lately on Amtraks website.

 

[amamba]

Meh. They still take a full seat that a full fare paying adult could occupy so I have no problem with this.

Well, my two-year-old son, who no longer qualifies as an "infant" on Amtrak, still rides in my lap. If he's not in my lap, he can't

see out the window, which upsets him mightily.

When my SO and I ride with our son, we pay for three tickets (okay, we pay for 2 1/2 tickets) but occupy two seats. By your logic

we should only be charged for two tickets. I'm perfectly happy with the yardstick of charging for a ticket only if the child occupies

a seat. I'm sure I can get by with Fairviewroad, Jr. sitting on my lap for a few more years (for short-haul trips, anyway).

Will it generate more revenue for Amtrak, ensuring service continues? Definitely.

It only generates more revenue if every family with 13, 14 or 15 year-olds that would have taken a trip under the old policy ALSO

takes a trip under the new policy. But since the "plane-versus-train" or "car-versus-train" math now CHANGES, it's quite possible,

likely even, that some of those families will choose to fly or drive instead. Thus, one could just as easily hypothesize that this change

will result in less revenue.

I suspect it will be closer to a wash, revenue-wise. Some families will choose to pay more, others will ditch the train. On average, the

two groups will offset each other. But a "wash" does not equal more revenue. (I realize I'm speculating, too)

I know that the FAA requires that children 2 and over have their own seat (regardless of if they spend part of the flight on your lap). Does the FRA require that children 2 and over purchase a seat or is that an Amtrak policy?

Regardless I don't think Amtrak is out of line with other modes of transport in requiring a seat/ ticket for children 2 and over.

Good luck finding an airline that charges half price for children under 12.

 

[afigg]

It only generates more revenue if every family with 13, 14 or 15 year-olds that would have taken a trip under the old policy ALSO

takes a trip under the new policy. But since the "plane-versus-train" or "car-versus-train" math now CHANGES, it's quite possible,

likely even, that some of those families will choose to fly or drive instead. Thus, one could just as easily hypothesize that this change

will result in less revenue.

I suspect it will be closer to a wash, revenue-wise. Some families will choose to pay more, others will ditch the train. On average, the

two groups will offset each other. But a "wash" does not equal more revenue. (I realize I'm speculating, too)

It would be useful to have an estimate of how many 13 to 15 year olds travel on Amtrak on trips with their families and also how many 16 or even 17 year olds are paying the discount with the parents claiming their teenager is really 15. It is likely that many parents will claim their 13 year old is 12, but 14 or 15 is harder to get away with.
If 2/3rds of the families with 13 to 15 year olds still take Amtrak and if 55% of the seats freed up by the families not taking Amtrak are sold to other adult fares (system wide load factor was 55% for the 1st quarter of FY14), this change will increase total revenue. The change to 2-12 years is not going to help to build long term business with family travel but Amtrak has more immediate reasons for changing the age cutoff.

 

[BCL]

Good luck finding an airline that charges half price for children under 12.

Some airlines still do. However, the few that still do only charge that off the full, unrestricted fare. That can be 4-5 times more than a decent nonrefundable fare.

 

[fairviewroad]

That is not what I've been seeing lately on Amtraks website.

I'll see your anecdotal observation and raise you a statistic. According to the US DOT, Amtrak's system-wide load factor in November (most recent

figures available) was just 48.7%. In fact, over the past decade, there's never been a month where the load factor has reached 70%. As I said, there

are certainly sold-out trains on certain routes at certain times of the year. But overall the numbers support the hypothesis that families that book away

from Amtrak will, on average, NOT be replaced by full-fare passengers.

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

Considering most trains are selling out, a seat going for full price is much better than half price. With the capacity strain this makes perfect business sense. However once more equipment is available or if ridership ever drops this could be resurected to fill empty seats. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[BCL]

Considering most trains are selling out, a seat going for full price is much better than half price. With the capacity strain this makes perfect business sense. However once more equipment is available or if ridership ever drops this could be resurected to fill empty seats. Makes perfect sense to me.

What trains are selling out? I've never been on one. My understanding is that the big sellers are the ones used for commuting in the NEC, and typically few children are going to be traveling on those.