E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Cliff Owen / AP
Travelers wait to board Amtrak's Northeast Regional train to Boston at Union Station in Washington earlier this year. On Nov. 1, Amtrak is initiating new rules for unaccompanied minors.
If your child will be traveling alone via Amtrak, check the rules. Starting Nov. 1, Amtrak rolls out new rules that, among other things, increase the minimum age of unaccompanied minors to 13, up from 8.
Previously, children age 8 through 14 could travel alone on Amtrak trains. Now, children 12 and under may only travel with another person who is at least 18 years old.
Children between the ages of 13 and 15 may travel unaccompanied under a revised and streamlined set of rules.
“This is not in response to any incidents,” Jeff Snowden, Amtrak senior director of service delivery, said in a statement, but “... out of an abundance of concern for the comfort and safety of all our travelers.”
Under the old rules, children traveling as unaccompanied minors were issued wristbands that had to be worn for the duration of their trip. The new rules lift that requirement, in part because those wristbands too easily identified a traveler’s age. “Also, if a specific train station ran out of wristbands we’d have to deny travel to that child because of no fault of their own,” said Amtrak spokesperson Marc Magliari. He called the new set of rules “more customer friendly.”
Previously, an adult bringing a child to the station had to sign a release form and remain at the station until the train departed. Those requirements are no longer part of the official policy. However, as before, a child traveling as an unaccompanied minor will be interviewed by station personnel, who will determine if the child is capable of traveling alone.
According to Magliari, about 35,000 trips are made on Amtrak each year using the unaccompanied minor ticket code. Total ridership for all children on Amtrak in FY11 (Oct. 2010-Sept. 2011) was more than 1.1 million.
Click here to read Amtrak’s policy for unaccompanied minors.
More stories you might like:
- Amtrak rolls toward record ridership
- Q&A: When your child flies alone
- Take a trip ... with a little help from your friends
- Stranded JetBlue pilot pleaded for help from airport
Find more by Harriet Baskas on StuckatTheAirport.com and follow her on Twitter.
Leave a Comment:
Public carriers, such as passenger trains and airlines, shouldn't accept responsibility for any unaccompanied minors. Why should they be babysitters? They should make it know that parents and others may put minors on board but that it is their responsibility in the end to see that the minor gets to his/her destination.
It is good that they are raising the age BUT as a parent, I think that no child should travel alone unless it is non-stop. My daughter has flown on a plane but only when it is non-stop. I can't imagine a child trying to figure out which stop to get off the train on. It is not an airline or train's responsibility to make sure that a child can figure out where they should go.
Changing planes and figuring out which stop to get off on is something that some adults have trouble with and a child should not be left on their own in that situation. Yes, there are some children probably over the age of 13 that can navigate a train or airport but they are the exception. I have found that non-stop flights really aren't any more expensive, they are just really early or in the evening. Not sure if that is even an option for trains.
Anyway, good thing that the rules are changing.
The non stop flights I look at are ridiculously expensive. Lots of times they are 3x as much as a flight with 1 stop. Also, I was able to navigate the airport by myself when I was 9. It really isn't hard...
Leaving a 9 year old to navigate the airport for multiple stops is ridiculous. My daughter has flown three times in the last 3 years. (at 13 & 15 yrs old) Even at that age, the airports are not very user friendly. We live near an International Airport and its huge. The last time she flew, there was a delay due to the plane she was flying on being stuck in Louisana with a mechanical problem. Her flight was 7 hours late leaving. There was a kid there that was supposed to just change planes onto the flight my daughter was on. He was scared to death, had no more money to buy anything to eat and had no idea what to do. We bought him dinner and let him call his Mom on my cell. I talked to her and let her know that I was there with my daughter and would stay with him until they boarded. This kid was 12 years old. Kids are not adults, we can not expect them to handle adult situations like we do and we can not count on someone else stepping forward to help them. I still stand by, Kids should not be flying alone unless they are on a non-stop flight.
Also... all the times that she has flown, it has cost me less than $100. Yes there are airlines that charge an arm and a leg. But, she flew from Florida to Missouri and back. it was still less than $100 each way. Now, because she is only 5'1, I pay for all of her luggage to be checked. Can you imagine trying to get a bag in the overhead when you can't reach it? On Southwest, the first bag is free, so I only paid for one. The other airline we used did require that I pay for both bags. If a person can't afford for their kids to fly on an appropriate flight.... then the kid doesn't go.
It isn't always possible to get flights that are non stop. Not every airport flies to every other airport. I cant get tickets for less than 100$ at all. I have to fly to far away. Non-stop flights are around 700 or 800 for my destinations. I can fly my whole family there for that amount. When I flew at 9, I had no cell phone at all. I also was shorter than your daughter (and still am) I had one carry on, and checked bag. We made sure I had a decent amount of time for a layover in case the plane was a little late, or I had trouble finding my next flight. I also had plenty of money. I didnt have problems though. They have these things called signs. You just follow the signs to the gate you are supposed to be at. At 9yrs old, a kid should be able to read. They should also know how to ask questions if they did need help. I was told to ask an attendant at a gate if I had any issue with anything. Didn't need to do it though. Just followed the signs to the other concourse (even had to take the sub) and then walked down that concourse until I got to the gate I needed. It was really easy to find, because they are in numerical order. Maybe some kids cant handle that, but I really dont see how it is that hard...
BTW... The airports I am talking about are ALL international. SeaTac, O'hare, and PVD. Granted PVD is small, but the other 2 are not.
It is a good thing that nothing happened when you were allowed to fly at 9 years old. I have been on flights that had connecting flights that I had to take a shuttle to the other side of the airport, up an escalator to get to the next flight. Those are the ones I am talking about, not the ones that you just have to move over to the next concourse. I travel alot and there are some real freaks in airports. You may feel that it is OK and that is fine. But I would rather have the peace of mind knowing that my kids just have to get on the plane then get off. If that can't be accomplished then I either drive them or will escort them myself. Just my opinion
I had to take the sub, or shuttle, or train, or whatever you want to call it... as stated below (I copied from my original post)
Its still just a matter of following signs. It just takes longer.
Not always feasible. Especially when there are NO direct flights between your airports, or it costs 3x as much and you cant afford it (it was court ordered, so not going was out of the question) Not feasible to drive all the way across the country and back. Neither of my parents had 2 wks to take off to do so. They also didnt always have 2 days to take off in order to do so, hence, why I had to take the plane by myself.
I like seeing a company take a proactive approach.
I wish airline personnel would do that for some adult passengers! One of the reasons I hate to fly: there is always some obnoxious fool seated too close for comfort that you cannot get away from.
I never had a problem with a fellow passenger on a train, however.
This is stupid. Every time Amtrak makes an unnecessary rule - they lose passengers. They lose money already and they won't get any closer to being a good return on the investment of our tax dollars if they can't INCREASE ridership by accomodating the diverse needs of the traveling public. They are turning into a subsidized shuttle for the wall street buffoons in the NE corridor that no one else can actually use. A private business would do whatever it takes to get customers. The airlines take unaccompanied minors. I remember travelling between my mom in GA and my dad in IL several times a year when I was 9-13 years old. I did just fine, even with transferring. They charge a fee which pays for someone to assist you and keep watch. That's the thing here folks, there is a business cost to doing this, but businesses don't just say "well that costs so let's not do it." They say, "here's the cost and here's the value to the customer... now can we charge for that service and will they pay for it." I'm guessing that they could have raised the price to handle unaccompanied minors, but in typical government fashion, there is no incentive to actually make the service cover its' costs, they are just making up stupid rules to avoid any kind of liability. They also have a lot of trains that don't accept bicycles unless you put them in ridiculous boxes - again - stupid. and they don't take pets, which understandably is a higher cost to deal with, but people spend ridiculous money on thier pets. City dwellers who take the train to other cities, would love to take thier little buddies. Putting a pet at a kennel is expensive and people don't want to leave thier pets behind.
Congress should mandate Amtrak to review every stupid rule that decreases ridership and find a way to accomodate travelers at a price that covers the additional cost of expanded more responsive services. Shark - why should they be babysitters? Because we are paying them to do that, because they have empty seats that need to be filled, because if they don't fill those seats, they are burning your tax dollars on wasted diesel fuel, because sometimes kids need to get from one place to another independently and thier responsible adults have other obligations, because not every family can afford to send someone to travel with the kids for the sole purpose of being a body over the age of 18, because life is complicated and passenger carriers should accomodate and adapt and profit from our diverse needs rather than trying to shove us all into the same one size fits all box.
I feel sorry for the youth of America, who have the least "free" childhoods of almost any nation - because everything they do is supervised and regulated and banned and there is "zero tolerance" for anything not approved as being good and wholesome and boring. Well I can tell you, my kids will not be held down to the fantasy reality people are trying to create. They are learning how the world really works and how to take thier fair share of it and how to defend themselves from jerks that want to control everything. And If Amtrak won't take them, maybe they will just hop on a freight train like their great-great-grandmother did to cross Europe at age 15- on her way to what was then a free country filled with hope and promise, and less rules and more people willing to work for a dollar...
Actually this liberalized a lot of rules.
Actually, Amtrak is having a banner year - more passenger miles that ever! Now, if they had some more sleeper, coach and especially diner cars, they could add routes and do even better!
Hit them in their pocket book; STOP FLYING JET BLUE!
ms bell put the blame where the blame is. you must be one of those that can't accept faults, therefore put everyone out of business, jet blue.