To expect to be allocated airline seats next to my kids?

[correllia]

My partner and I are off on holiday to menorca at the end of September with Monarch. They have emailed us to tell us we can check in online now, which saves time at the airport.

So far so good - but to complete the process I have to prebook my seats at the cost of £5 per seat per flight. We are on a tight budget and deliberately haven't bought the seats in advance to save the pennies.

Kiddies are 2 and 4, whilst I don't mind our sitting 2 and 2 apart from each other but looking at the seat plan even this option is fast disappearing! Can the airline force such young children to sit next to strangers?

Am I unreasonable to demand that we sit with them?

PS this is my first post, so please be genttle :-)

I think what bothers me most in this is the sort of stealth charges levied by companies, often in the leisure/tourism industry. The basic dishonesty of it. If a concert ticket costs £55 + £5 booking fee then it costs £60 and that should be the amount displayed - that's it, no surcharges, no "Oh by the way it's an extra £5" just before you hit "complete transaction".

Just be honest about what things cost. Is it so hard?

So if you pay to pre-book a seat it doesn't guarantee you that seat. Because the airline reserves the right to either bump you onto another flight because of the tradition of overbooking and because the CAA guidelines (and underlying H&S issues of seating children apart from accompanying adults) would not permit a guarantee to stand if it conflicted with the guidelines.

So essentially the people paying to pre-book their seats are paying for a minimum 51% chance they get to keep their seats and the airline gets to pocket money for a 'service' which doesn't really exist. I don't think I'd bother booking seats if they have to seat children with accompanying adults in that scenario. If the other people want to delude themselves they are doing anything other than lining the airlines pockets for a slight increase in odds that they might get what they paid for then let them. Caveat emptor and all that.

I thought the same pendeen.

There seem to be some confused people on this thread! If you are arguing that you don't see why you should pay because it's the AIRLINE who insist that you are seated with your child, that's one thing. But if you are saying that you WANT and NEED to be next to your child because they will be scared if they're not and cant feed themself anyway, then at Least have the common sense to realise this is YOUR requirement as much as the airlines. In the case of the poster pendeen refers to, the poster said her eight year old would scream and sob on a journey sat apart from her parents. That is clearly about the parents and their childs needs, not the airline.

I agree that all these extra costs are a shit way of operating and I would rather the airline just bumped the cost up for all or got rid of it rather than creating this messy situation-'but given that this is how it is right now, I am shocked at the attitude of some precious parents who seem to have gained a huge dollop of self importance and entitlement the moment they squeezed a baby out.

Oh and if anyones child chucked food around over me during a journey they would be paying dry cleaning bills and any damage.'what a disgusting 'fuck you' attitude. (not to mention the fact that your average 3 yr old should be capable of eating a meal without spreading it over people nearby!)

I am absolutely staggered that any parent wouldn't pay the surcharge to ensure that their child sits with them. People seem to be getting greedier and greedier. Budget airlines, no frills, fair enough - but it's our responsibility as parents to take responsibility for seating children with us - not the airline's and not some random stranger's.

I don't buy it that £20 makes it a deal or no deal as far as the holiday is concerned. Build it into the cost of the holiday, for goodness sakes, have a few less drinks. It's YOUR responsibility. I don't see why the airline has to manoeuvre people once seated. It would make more sense for them to just put the surcharge on, added to the price of the flight and let everybody book their seats beforehand.

Regardless of how well-behaved, sweet natured, confident to sit on their own a child is I wonder how many people would want to sit next to an unaccompanied child on a flight?

And dealing with airline food/drinks (if you are 'lucky' enough to get any) on a pull down table, with turbulence or just the natural movement of the aircraft is often a challenge for adults, let alone a three year old. It's a bit different from eating at a table at home. Just think about opening all the packaging, for starters. Can just see the breakfast orange juice going everywhere, that's if they could get into it at all. Of course a nice person would help them but not everyone is like that.

I totally agree LWITW

Airlines are businesses; they have shareholders to answer to. As consumers we have a choice. Book with someone else, or don't go at all.

It may be better as donthateme suggests that the airlines just offer a higher price for an 'all inclusive' flight. But I wonder how many of us took advantage of the cheapest flights, not taking anything but a rucksack, packing our own meals, flying at 5am then making a half hour bus journey into the city we were visiting etc. when we were childfree? I certainly did, and it allowed me to have some great holidays, which I may not have been able to afford otherwise. I wouldn't begrudge others this opportunity just because I now have a child. I now need to pay a bit extra (in our case so DH and I can sit together as our child is only six months), so be it. On a recent trip we costed flights through BA, Thomson and EasyJet to Cyprus. Thomson worked out much cheaper than BA, even with the excess to pre-select seats (about £20). Easyjet was a little cheaper still, but we didn't want the hassle of not knowing we had prebooked seats flying for the first time with DD.

We all have brains. We can all add up the charges before we pay. We can read the small print. We can then make an informed choice as consumers.

Or maybe not reading some comments on here

I am absolutely staggered that any parent wouldn't pay the surcharge to ensure that their child sits with them. People seem to be getting greedier and greedier.

The airlines are greedy, not the customers. You should pay one price for your ticket, that's it.

People have different needs. Some passengers may be elderly or disabled. Some have children. Some may not have English as their first language. As a people-facing industry they should try their best to accommodate those needs not make some people pay more than others. They are dealing with people not standard crates. If they want to deal with crates they should be in cargo, not passenger transport. Let's not base everything around the white, middle class, middle sized male being "normal" and everything else being "weird".

donthateme if you refuse to give up your seat so that I can sit next to my 3 year old on a flight, you deserve everything that's coming to you. Have you ever had a 3 year old?! You seriously reckon they are capable of opening and eating an airline meal alone, sitting still without adult attention for upwards of 3 hours, and getting themselves to the aircraft loo unassisted? Oh and getting their seatbelt on and off alone, of course. That is just cloud cuckoo land. Yes of course it's a sense of entitlement - entitlement to not abandon a small child who is too small to look after herself. No-one's right to pay a fiver for a window seat should come above that, and I am 100% sure you'd never let your own three year old fend for herself like that.

And lyingwitch, no, it is ultimately the airline's responsibility to ensure the safety of its passengers. You don't charge for seatbelts. You don't charge for parents looking after their own children. Next they'll be charging you to sit down at all... oh hang on. Are you Michael O'Leary in disguise?

I haven't been so cross in a long time!

We can then make an informed choice as consumers.

Yes, people are, in droves. That's why many airlines are going/have gone down the pan. Flying is a thoroughly unpleasant business.

Michael O'Leary tried to charge people extra for the temerity of being disabled, let's not forget.

Let's have a race to the top, not the bottom. Everything stripped out. Soon they'll be expecting us to fly the plane ourself.

Yes I have 3 children libelulle- I know exactly what 3 yr olds are like. But unlike you I see my children as my responsibility and don't use them in a demeaning way as a threat to fellow travellers "ha ha look how messy, noisy and annoying my child is- you'll have a shit time sat near them!"
Very odd how some people see using their kid as some sort of threat currency is good parenting...

Anyway the poster pendeen and myself referred to also talked about an EIGHT yr old who would scream and sob if separated from the parents. That is not the airlines responsibility; the airline would be quite happy for an 8 yr old to be seated separately. If the child and parents aren't happy then thats a different issue- hence my comment about some posters being confused. I don't need to sit next to my 10 yr old. If she particularly wanted to, I would pay the extra. If shes not bothered, I wouldn't. The one thing I wouldn't do is refuse to pay and then expect someone to swap seats to accommodate my wish

Kungfupannda - you and I would have a great time together on the train!! Whilst at university, I once got on the train at Crewe, travelling to London to visit dh (he was dfiance at that point). I had booked a window seat at a table for four, and when I found my seat, it was occupied, but the aisle seat next to it was free so, rather than making a fuss, I started to sit down there - at which point the party of three business types occupying the rest of the 4 seats informed me that the seat I was taking was booked by them. I responded that, in that case, I would have MY booked window seat please, and looked firmly at the chap in my seat until he meekly moved so I could sit down.

The best part was that, over the course of the journey, I gathered from their conversation that they'd been at a training course in Crewe. The subject of the course - Assertiveness Training! I don't think it had taken very well!

I have to say that I absolutely agree that it is the airlines who are creating this problem, by their policy of charging for optional extras - some of which are clearly NOT optional for some people. I also think that airlines who have this policy should make it absolutely clear in all their advertising etc that you will not be guaranteed seats together unless you pay for them, so that people are aware of the full cost of what they want long before they book it, so that it is part of the budgeting process for the holiday. This is what dh and I do when we are planning a holiday.

However, like many on this thread, I think that the policy needs changing, as it does look like blackmail on parents (or anyone who needs to sit together - a disabled person and their carer, for example). Perhaps the easiest compromise would be to allow only a certain percentage of seats on the aircraft to be prebooked (or only sell a certain number of priority boarding passes), so that families who didn't want to pay for the guaranteed seats together/priority boarding, would at least have some assurance that getting to check-in early should allow them seats together.

But I do not like the attitude that people without children must give up their prebooked seats so a parent can sit with their child, otherwise the parent will happily let their child make the flight a misery for the people they are sitting with; or that parents can 'demand' that the childless person moves and can call them names if they don't (even if that name calling is here, anonymously on the interweb). I've seen an attitude of 'I don't care if they've paid, they have to give up their seat for MEEEE and my precious child' that is not pleasant, and would get my back up (but would NOT get my bum up off the seat) if I was faced with it on a plane. Guaranteed seats together cost money - manners don't.

It's only really a problem if you expect people to move to accommodate you.
If someone's chosen their seat, and potentially even paid for the privilege, your having children should not overwrite their decision.
And to those asked to move, if you've got a good reason not to, stand up for yourself. I travel by train a lot, and need a seat with a lot of legroom, for my knee. A family got on 2 parents, 4 kids, and asked would I move (well, the mother asked), I declined. I then received considerable harassment from this woman, but I stuck to my guns. Having the ability to perform a biological function doesn't get you extra privileges. She was a cow for the rest of the journey, but it was worth it for the look on her face. It was a look that told me nobody had said no to her since she'd had her first kid. I took great pleasure in being the person to say no.

Oh - and I am pretty sure that at 8 years old, none of my dses would have 'loudly whinged and sobbed' if they couldn't sit with me.

I've had this with ryanair and it worked out fine tbh. even if you get two seats in one row, and then another on the row on the other side of the aisle they are together. And I found that people were so keen not to sit beside my children that they leapt up like the seat was hot and said "would you like to sit here?"

many years ago my DS who was 4 at the time was split from me on a flight - across the rows of 3 were
window - my child - aisle seat
and
me in the seat across the aisle
despite all requests from the stewards no one would change places so that I could sit with my child - now he was very well behaved, but he was a lively chatty child who wanted to know, why, when , how - help me read, colour etc - go to toilet, open my food etc etc - and still the guy in the aisle seat next to him would not swop with me, even though he would still have had an aisle seat, neither would he sit in the middle next to his travelling companion.
and what a lively flight they had - my son enjoyed having new people to engage with !!!
( I now know that with this pre-booking seat thing selfish people book a window and an aisle in the hope of having a space between them )
believe me, if i was asked to move to move so that a parent and child could sit together i would - I DO NOT WANT TO ENTERTAIN YOUR CHILD !!!
I still, however, do not go with the 'book your seats together' RIP OFF - if no one paid it thet would soon get the message

SDTG - maybe we should ride around on trains together, ostentatiously Not Moving for annoying people.

Andrewofgg might want to come to.

Although that would get us dangerously close to a full table and people wouldn't then ask us to move.

[ponders dilemma]

So given that sitting with your child is totally compulsory, is a rule that exists for basic safety reasons and will have to happen regardless of where anyone else is sitting, why would you pay to do it? Why would you pay for something that is a non-optional, safety related and airline controlled policy?

Exactly! If you have a 7 yr old then it isn't vital that you sit next to them but it is vital for an under 5yr old.
If the airline want to charge just put the price of the seat up-I object to the stealth charge and the blackmail.
I can't see how a 3/4 yr old could sit without you. I can't see why someone wouldn't change- unless they welcomed helping them with a meal, helping them with a seat belt etc. If they wouldn't move I would hand them a sick bag, saying 'they might need this' and 'you will have to ask the 'kind gentleman to take the lids off your food' and 'do remember to ask in time if you want the toilet'. It ought to do the trick!
Having said that I have never had a problem.

CustardCake... Yes, it's in the guidelines/regulations/whatever - it's OUR responsibility to make that happen, you know, pay for our children? Not put the responsibility on the airline/cabin crew.

If you can afford holidays (and some people can't), on budget airlines or any other, YOU as the parent take the necessary steps so that your child is seated with you and if you can't afford to do that - don't go. It's really not much of a brain teaser. I really wonder at the mentality of the people who try to divest themselves of it. I would probably call them feckless, I would definitely think they were irresponsible.

As a slight aside (sorry), do children never fly as unaccompanied minors any more? I flew to Germany to visit my grandparents on a couple of occasions as a child (first time aged 8, I think). It was great! A huge adventure.

As I said above my DD is only six months so I plead ignorance on this, but I am quite shocked that an eight year old would whinge and sob if separated from their parent on the same flight!?

No one should have to sit next to an unaccompanied child on a flight. The airlines are pretending to unsuspecting punters this might be the case and getting them to cough up a fiver to 'protect' their choice of seat. So long as the airline are able to guarantee in writing that the person the child is sitting next to will be responsible for their health & safety throughout the journey (e.g. attach their oxygen mask if necessary, lead them to safety etc) then they can do this. But obviously they can't. For those willing to pay a fiver and getting outraged at the OP or anyone who has children not paying, why not be outraged at the airlines that they are making you pay for something that isn't guaranteed.

Do airplanes have those little 'reserved' spaces at the top of the headrest for booked tickets? If they have those than anyone with a reserved seat could show they had booked and only those that had not pre-booked could be asked to move to place children with an accompanying adult. But if the airplane lets everyone pre-book that doesn't work, which is essentially what they are banking on - someone paying for a service they won't get.

Yes, but LWITW, didn't you know it's our RIGHT to have foreign holidays?

Mollymole - if people have booked the aisle seat and the window seat in the hopes of getting a 'free' empty seat between them for their use, then they are being bloody unreasonable, and deserve to spend the flight having to talk to a 4 year old. In that situation, my sympathies would be entirely with the parent and child!

That is the sort of thing that I envisage mollymole!