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 :-)

Fontsnob... No, pay or don't go was my suggestion. No blackmail there. Do you understand what 'blackmail' is?

I guess we should all shut up and pay for everything we get told to, without question or without any thought to the legal/ethical side to it. Hurrah for progress.

With the costs of fuel going up, there will be a natural end to 'budget airlines'. They will pass on the costs to the passengers and as they escalate, these problems will go away by themselves.

Oh, pay extra for a bullshit fee or don't go to visit family/friends/go on holiday.... makes far more sense then.

Well I paid my tenner and then felt I had to give up my (aisle) seat to allow a family to be seated together. The children were probably 5 and 3. I got stuck in a "middle seat" (I had booked aisle because I'm tall). I did it for the children and for the stewardess who was getting some real grief. I suggested to the parents that they should reimburse my tenner. They refused and went on to spend £30 on drinks, Pringles etc from the trolley.

the parallel lyingwitch is when people start saying that you have absolutely no special entitlement to anything unless you pay for it and why should I give up my hard-earned privileges just because you have a tiny child or indeed (a la michael o'leary again) a wheelchair. A commercial airline still has a responsibility to its customers and should not be making extra money out of basic safety necessities such as small children sitting next to parents.

The 'you chose to have kids, you can't expect even the tiniest smidge of help from society at large' is the kind of crazed libertarian/ capitalism in tooth-and-claw attitude that seems to go with an aversion to paying taxes for anything vaguely communal. Like a poster said earlier, that would apparently be communism, and then where would we be!

Mine are not 2 yrs-I suppose that I would give into the blackmail having read this, because I would put my DC first. At the time they were 2 yrs I would just have assumed that airlines would place you together from a safety point of view.
It doesn't mean that I agree with it.

Actually grovel, the airline should have paid your fee back. Because they shouldn't have charged you in the first place, because the can't (and don't) promise that you will get what you pay for.

Might be the case Lying or they might just continue to recoup/bolster profits by adding increasingly ridiculous surcharges. I guess if people are willing to pay them and feel health & safety is something to be charged for then we will see it continue or increase.

Not following the CAA guidelines would have an effect on the airline's insurance and validity.

Surely if you get to the airport right at the start of check in, then there will be two and two on the plane somewhere.

I was booking DH in online with BMI baby the other day they have a seat selection option but if you choose not to use it they'll randomly allocate you seats but will keep together if poss. Nothing like that on Monarch?

I think that airlines should be up front with all their costs. Not make out it is cheap and then put forward all the hidden extras.

Exotic- it's a strange game because I wouldn't try to force my child to visit the toilet to prove some 'point'. I respect my kids enough to let them go when they need to- not when I want them to.

I still think there is a lot of confusion on here.
To clarify my point- if the AIRLINE insists that a parent sits next to their child then obviously they should not be charging for the privilege. But awful lot of people seem to be quoting instances where the airline clearly did NOT insist on it, because people are writing about situations where they were separated from their child by one other passenger etc. So which is it? Is it the airline forcing you, or you wanting to? I just don't think people can have it both ways. If you choose not to prebook, and end up separated from your kid by a couple of seats, it's a pretty childish and pathetic attitude to then want to use your kids to be as disruptive as possible to those around them.

That should obviously be people CAN'T have it both ways!

Blackmail: The crime involving a threat for purposes of compelling a person to do an act against his or her will, or for purposes of taking the person's money or property.

Think that applies here, give over your money or don't sit with your dependant child.

When I said encourage I mean I would be asking them at intervals if they wanted to go. I wouldn't do anything that I wouldn't do anyway. Would anyone imagine that you could just sit a 4 yr old down and ignore them for the flight?
As I said I would give into blackmail because I wouldn't put a principle over DC welfare, but the whole thing stinks!

Oh and according to some this also will mean if you don't pay your being a shite parent.

libelulle... That's not a parallel. You keep refering to 'Michael O'Leary' as if that means something. Many of us are parents, many of us would see the seat booking charge as a neccesary cost added to the cost of the holiday, for the sake of the child and our own peace of mind.

You are talking about sectors of society that might 'need some help', ie. the vulnerable, disabled, etc. I'd give up my seat to anybody in those circumstances. Do you really have the cheek to include self-indulgent,, feckless parents in that?

Even one seat away (and certainly with an aisle in the way) is going to cause delay in getting a child's oxygen mask on when you are in turbulence, especially when you are not able to/allowed to stand up or remove your seat belt.

So ignoring annoying children needing help with toilet visits, foil food wrapping, eye spy etc..... worst case scenario: CAA guidelines are not followed, parent does not pay for airline to follow H&S guidance, turbulence, plane drops through the air, adult next to child will not/cannot help child with oxygen because not their responsibility, child dies/permanently brain damaged from lack of oxygen. (In event of a crash airline is obviously thinking everyone dies so they will (a) have much worse to consider from a PR angle; and (b) the people who could bring a claim are dead so no potential claim.)

Whose responsibility is the child's death? Airline for not following CAA guidelines or parent's for not paying £5 in order for the airline to follow CAA guidelines?

Fontsnob... There's no 'threat' to you. Don't be so silly! Are you really saying that the airlines are commiting a crime? Quick.... ring the police!

Posters keep referring to H&S but it's actually the upset to the child and/or the passenger they're seated next to that has been debated on the thread. The H&S only really comes into it should there be an emergency and it's a bit of a red herring that's being wheeled out to support points that make no sense.

Pay or don't pay, I personally don't care. If people think a child's angst is worth avoiding £5 or whatever it is, that's up to them. I think it's selfish but they know best.

Yes, the threat is, pay or you may not get to sit with your 2 year old. How hard is that to understand lying and you may see that I said it is morally blackmail, not legally.

I have already said I think the airlines should charge a standard amount for everyone- get rid of this ridiculous policy and then there's no problem. The airline sits children below a certain age with parents for safety reasons. Everyone else then takes their chances, unless you notify them of a specific reason such as medical need why you need to be sat somewhere. The airline certainly should not be charging people if a) they have no choice in reality because 'the airline insists they sit next to their kid or b) the other side of the coin, ie they cant guarantee you will get your paid for seat because you may be asked to move to accommodate a)

But there is still confusion on the thread because people keep quoting occasions when they were split from their child and how awful it was, and (bizarrely) how they hoped their child had an unpleasant flight, whining and making life uncomfortable for those nearby.
So, clearly in these cases 'the airline did NOT insist on 'the child being sat next to the parent- it was the parents desire. Tbh if the rules are: prebook if you WANT to sit next to your children, but over a certain age the airline is happy to seat them apart, then you can hardly complain if you choose not to pay.

By all means refuse to pay if you want to make a moral stand against the big bad budget airline (though it begs the question of why you choose to fly with them anyway ). But don't make a moral stand and then expect to get what you want at the expense of other passengers.

My take on the argument is that you should expect to be seated with your small dependant child and should not have to pay.

It is the airline's fault if they have promised a seat to someone and then can not honor it because the need of a small child is greater than that of someone who just fancies an aisle seat. By small child I mean 5 and under...as in the OP.

How anyone can dispute this i genuinely don't understand (and i'm the first one to say when i'm wrong).

exoticfruits: Wed 31-Aug-11 11:46:43
I think that airlines should be up front with all their costs. Not make out it is cheap and then put forward all the hidden extras

Agree with this completely.

... and all of Donthateme's post, especially this: By all means refuse to pay if you want to make a moral stand against the big bad budget airline (though it begs the question of why you choose to fly with them anyway ). But don't make a moral stand and then expect to get what you want at the expense of other passengers.

It would be great if budget airlines refused to take kids under 5. Problem solved.

Lying "Posters keep referring to H&S but it's actually the upset to the child and/or the passenger they're seated next to that has been debated on the thread. The H&S only really comes into it should there be an emergency and it's a bit of a red herring that's being wheeled out to support points that make no sense."

Er....that's why there is H&S guidance/regulations/laws. Funnily enough they are only reviewed after massive tragedies when people suddenly consider whether there could have been a way to prevent death/suffering.

You are disagreeing with posters who are saying they would effectively encourage their DCs to be a nuisance (or do little to prevent them) because they would not pay £5 to sit next to them. All that's a bit moot when the airlines are acting in such a way they risk invalidating their own insurance.