Paying for seat choices on planes

[EmpressSoleil]

DS is in Japan at the moment and flew into Haneda so I was watching the news about the plane crash.

An aviation safety expert was commenting and he said (very strongly) that the practice of paying to choose your seat needs to stop as when people don't pay they are often separated. Then in a crash scenario, they will be looking for their partner or child etc and it could delay evacuation with fatal results. Which all makes sense.

So I wondered how many people don't pay and what they think they would do in that situation? I have adult DC I sometimes travel with and we've sometimes sat a few rows apart. On a short flight especially we dont see the point in paying the extra.

It's made me think that I probably would now have a conversation before our next flight and say that in a worst case scenario they need to just evacuate and not look for me, and vice versa. Although in practice it's probably very hard to go against your instincts.

Another expert commented on a reason for the successful evacuation being heavily linked to the Japanese passengers being compliant with instructions, in line with their general culture. Imagine if that had been a UK Ryanair flight, people would probably have ignored instructions and tried to retrieve their overhead bags and then rushed the exits.

There's hardly any incidents where this would and did happen.

There's no safety argument 😕 the amount of flights that crashed, that had significant injuries/incidents so low it's insignificant (around 30 incidents that involved the public in 9 million flights) of which how many genuinely required you to be sat immediately to the left of a loved in, or the fact that you were separated caused an issue for the rescue attempt...?

I agree with this. In an emergency situation, most parents who have been sat apart from their children would prioritise getting to their children over the safety of random passengers in their way, and this would slow an evacuation. Doesn't matter whether that's right or wrong, it's what would most likely happen in practice.

They'd just up everyone's prices.

They'd prioritise them anyway, which is why it's drilled into you to put your mask on first before helping others etc.

I had a similar conversation with my DH after the Manchester Arena bomb. I use a wheelchair and am used to waiting for everyone to else to leave before I move. This applies to most events, concerts and airplane/train travel etc. In an emergency he needs to take DS and run, go without me. He agreed. Rather too quickly and without any protest!

It's because the amount of incidents that involved public, where a person was separated from a loved one, who then hampered rescue by trying to retrieve the person is SO FUCKING LOW it's just not a risk.

There's more risk to your child by putting them in the back seat of your car. You're just as far away and in less control and less able get to them etc you climbing through to get them would hinder rescuing etc etc.

But nobody is on TV going "All children should be next to their parents in the car for safety in case of an accident"

Always pay to be seated together, while I'm fine with flying I do still get a bit scared so like to have my loved ones nearby! The odd time I've travelled alone I just suck it up. X

No. They were cashing in on a near tragedy.

If people want to sit together in selected seats they know exactly how to do that. It's not the small print at the bottom. It doesn't need an "expert" to tell them that if they don't sit together, then ermm, they aren't together...

The inquiry into the Summerland, IOM disaster (1973) highlighted the separation of children from adults in the building as one of many safety failings that had contributed to the tragedy. This is not a new insight. Companies do not prioritise safety over money.

Yep, me too

I always pay and treat it as part of the cost.

It’s fine not to pay to sit together if you 100% won’t EVER ask anyone else to move to accommodate you sitting together as a family. I see this all the time and have been asked to swap a few times. No way-I’ve paid to sit with my own kids. Just because they’re teens/young adults doesn’t mean I should give up my seat so you can sit with your kids when you couldn’t be bothered to pay. It’s a shit system but it’s the way it is. Don’t pay by all means but if you’re then split up, suck it up!

My bigger concern with a situation like this would be people trying to get their luggage from the overhead lockers instead of swiftly evacuating (as has happened on numerous other flights). One of the reasons for the survival rate on this plane is the willingness of the passengers to leave their luggage.

Indeed this.

Why should you pay twice though? You've booked a seat. Just a con to make the "flight" cheaper and praying on people's emotions.

Airlines already know who would be on the flight as you have to provide information.

I always pay, I don’t like flying and there are two of us plus two children. I’m a terrible swimmer so would worry if we landed on water and being in charge of the children, and i have read a lot about plane crashes and apparently a lot of the fatalities happen after the crash due to fire.

myself and my husband have one child each we are responsible for and in the event of an accident it would be a case of us evacuating ourselves plus the child we have.

If you're saying that no emergency or urgent evacuations of planes ever happen, then fine, there's no benefit to having people sit together or Indeed training flight crew on how to evacuate planes quickly and safely.

However, since they do train for this eventually and run simulations, I think it's a fair discussion to be had about an easily changeable issue that could hinder safety.

I never pay and so far Ryanair is the only airline I’ve used that purposely doesn’t seat non-payers together. Last flight with them three of us were in rows 1, 17 and 30. A family of five were in consecutive rows all in seat B, one behind the other. The flight wasn’t full so everyone just switched seats after take off. I’d have been miffed if I’d paid.

Anyway, despite never paying, I’ve never not been seated with my kids so hadn’t considered reaching them in an emergency. It’s an interesting point.

Well, if you crash in to the ground from 30,000 feet you're not going to be in a position to be looking for your relatives. There will only be a small number of crash scenarios (mostly from on the ground positions) where it is relevant. This latest being one of them. Ultimately it will be decided by Insurance companies, not Airlines or individuals. Japan Airlines do not charge to sit you together if you've booked together. If that is determined, during the crash analysis, to have been a major contributory factor in the speed of the passengers disembarking, then it will probably influence future ICAO rulings on airlines, whether they like it or not. And yes, of course they will increase charges for everyone to compensate.

A pilot friend always travels in cargo pants so that he can have passport, wallet and phone on him if he needs to evacuate.

My car isn't big enough to have an aisle or hundreds of others in it trying to move in the opposite direction to me while I'm trying to get to my child.

So I don't think your example really works

It's not a con though. The airline are providing you a seat on on the plane in the base ticket. If you want to specify the seats of your party then you can pay extra. If you don't care (like me) then you can take advantage of the cheaper ticket price. Just like you don't have to take extra luggage, or buy food and drink. Being able to select which parts are important to you means that those who don't care can take advantage of cheap tickets and those who wish can pay for a full flight service. If booking seats for an additional fee is banned, tickets will increase in price for everyone.

Crashes are thankfully rare, having to promptly exit a plane a little less rare.

A friend of mine who is a pilot told me airlines are well aware of the risks associated with parents and children not sitting together but because the authorities don’t demand it they don’t always do it.

she also says every type of incident she’s every had on board a plane: turbulence, redirection, abuse/violence, delays, death and difficult landing has at some point been exacerbated because loved ones are separated.

If aviation authorities consider there to be a risk associated with having your window blind closed on landing i find it remarkable that they disregard the separation of parents and children.

The point remains that you just aren't at all likely to ever be in a situation where you are having to get to your child and that action if attempting resulted in help not being given in a timely manner. Because so few flights actually have accidents, it's the safest form of transport