Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

751 replies

correllia · 30/08/2011 13:24

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 :-)

OP posts:
TheBride · 31/08/2011 12:32

Tbh, most posters are missing the entire beauty of the business model of the budget airline. It's user pays taken to the line.

What they are saying is that for £10 they will fly you to X. It then pretty clearly states that there are extras. You pay for

  • baggage
  • snacks
  • if you care where you sit
  • if you want to get on the plane before someone else
  • if you want them to print your boarding card
  • if you want to check in at the airport

All these things cost the airline money- that's why they charge.

There are (believe it or not) many people who don't care where they sit on a 1 hr flight. These people probably don't have tiny kids but thats not the point. They are saying "I don't care" and I'd rather pay less and not have an assigned seat. They may also not have luggage. I've seen loads of people do Easyjet for a weekend with hand luggage only. You do have luggage, so you pay to transport it.

It's really not that hard. Just read the T&C

silverfrog · 31/08/2011 12:32

lyingwitch - sorry, my original point was a little lsot - have small children rabbiting on. I meant to say that even when you have booked your seats, if the airline deems it necessary to move you (as they clearly did with us) then they do so. booking your seat is no guarantee you will get that seat, and depsite several conversationsw ith the airline where we (and the travel agents) told them that splitting us into 2x2 front/back seating would not work, they went ahead and did so, meaning we had to rely on asking people on the day.

and the year before, where they kept moving dd1 down out of the top deck, on her own, as a severely disabled 3 year old - that was just ridiculous. and the airline could not justify why they were doing it, but for the 4 weeks or so before our flight, I had to call daily to ensure that dd1 was not re-seated away form dh, me and dd2. absolutely bonkers.

re: the t shirt. I have mixed feelings. we only really use them for potential stressful situations, where she might get loud in close proximity to other people, like check-in/security at airports, or sitting next to people on aeroplanes. now she is bigger (just turned 7), I doubt we will anymore - it is obvious that she is not NT now, whereas a coulple of years ago she could have been a misbehaving small child, iyswim? so we thought we might as well pre-empt any catsbum faces by letting people know that she couldn't help it. it clearly didn't work for the ridiculous man next to her on that flight, but I suspect that was, in part, his own guilt too, as he knew he could have avoided the situation entirely. it was as much to warn people - eg staff at security etc that she might not understand any questions, or to highlight why she might not answer as to warn about behaviours anyway.

StarlightMcKenzie · 31/08/2011 12:32

I cannot guarantee my 4yr old will keep his seat belt on if he does not have me sat next to him to hold it. I cannot stop him from flipping the table in front of him up and down during the whole flight, same with the windown blind. I cannot stop him from weeing in his seat, or from coating the person next to him in chocolate.

Pretty much all that goes for my 2yr old too.

I think I should be paid £10 per flight for ensuring he doesn't sit next to anyone else.

Fontsnob · 31/08/2011 12:35

I think it's very sad that people think it's okay to sit a small child away from their parents, that it's needy to want to attend to their basic needs. That it is okay that airlines can charge extra so that you can feel secure that you will be able to do these things.

CustardCake · 31/08/2011 12:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TheBride · 31/08/2011 12:37

They're not "charging extra". They're stripping out the cost for people who don't care. There is a difference.

If people want the service of a national carrier, they should book one, and not a low cost carrier.

Look, you can pay £10 plus an extra £20 to prebook seats or you can pay £90 and go BA. The low cost carrier is still a bargain by any measure.

Fontsnob · 31/08/2011 12:41

They are charging extra, they introduced a charge that never used to be there, and they are forcing people who have to care (because they have small children/elderly etc to look after) to pay. This is not on.

grovel · 31/08/2011 12:41

You're right, TheBride.

Fontsnob · 31/08/2011 12:42

And it's not all budget airlines, easyjet doesn't seem to have this policy.

CustardCake · 31/08/2011 12:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

donthateme · 31/08/2011 12:43

WreckaJones- if I had prebooked a seat and was asked to move so the plane could comply with regulations to seat a young child, then yes, I would claim that I had been mis-sold a seat, and I would request a refund. I might not get it, but frankly the important thing is kicking up a stink and giving the airline bad publicity.

But - I repeat - MOST of these posts are about situations where the airline is not insisting the child sits next to the parent. It is 'the PARENT who wants it. And my point was that if they don't get it, they should not expect other passengers to move. That clearly would be at the expense of the other passenger. The airline has the right to insist a passenger moves, (though they deserve to be given a hard time over it if they've taken a seating. Surcharge off the customer). A parent who simply wants to sit next to their kid does not have the right to make other passengers move.

TheBride · 31/08/2011 12:43

No- Easyjet asks you to pay more to get priority boarding instead. Same same, right?

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 31/08/2011 12:44

Fontsnob... I don't need your(general) 2-year old to sit with you, you(general) do. It is one of your needs and that of your child. If you have taken no steps to ensure that this happens then you are basically abdicating your responsibility as a parent.

In terms of being 'needy', I'm referring to people with the inflated sense of entitlement rather than those in genuine need. Some people (Silverfrog's post is an example), make provision to ensure that their childrens' needs are met, sometimes it goes wrong and that's outside her control. Some people don't, they put the onus on cabin crew to move people about to accommodate someone else's needs, that someone else being the person who should have made arrangements themselves.

If you don't agree with the airline's policy, hit them where it hurts, don't fly, don't give them your business, write to them, write to your MP, stage a protest, do whatever - or suck it up when your non-arrangements result in your child being seated elsewhere. Don't expect others to accommodate your inflated sense of importance of need.

There's a huge difference between actual need and the whiney 'I'm a parent so mooooove' scenario. I've got all the time in the world for the first and none for the second and if I choose to move to accommodate the cheapskate, it will be for the child, not the parent who will get short shrift from me. Hmm

Fontsnob · 31/08/2011 12:46

No not the same as small kids get to go on straight after, and there is always plenty of seats together. So the situation of 2yr old seated away from parent doesn't arise.

Quodlibet · 31/08/2011 12:47

But, TheBride, surely you'll agree that there's a point where stripping out the cost in this way is unethical, because it disadvantages certain people with particular needs? Such as charging people to use the toilet - yeah OK if I'm young and healthy I can 'not care' and cross my legs for 3 hours, but if I'm older and have continence issues?

In any case, it doesn't 'strip costs' to run a 2 tier system where one lot of people have paid to reserve seats and another lot have to bundle at the boarding gate, how does that make your business model cheaper? It doesn't, it's just cynical.

TheBride · 31/08/2011 12:47

custardcake Yes, but that's going to happen anyway, because on the plane, the airline will insist the child sits next to a parent. The worst that can happen is that the family will be split up, but, come on, Menorca is about 2 hrs away. I'm sure they'll survive.

So,......OP should not pay.

I cant help feeling we're arguing over a straw man here with lots of people having imaginary arguments with imaginary stewards when in fact, in RL, when you get there, Michael O'leary is not going to make your 18 month old child sit next to a peado in row 2 when you're jammed next to the loo in row 49.

LyingWitchInTheWardrobe2726 · 31/08/2011 12:48

CustardCake... Do they say that, a child must sit with "a parent"? Any parent or their own. The devil really is in the detail. I think that if it is an absolute requirement then children would not be able to fly unaccompanied (they do, I did from the age of 7) and, in the event that nobody moves to accommodate the lone child sitting away from the parent, the plane would be grounded (and that would not happen).

I agree with The Bride, the costs are stripped to the bone, those that do care that their child sits with them will pay...

TheBride · 31/08/2011 12:49

They're not charging people to go to the toilet. MoL admitted he just said that for a bit of free publicity........and he was right!

It's not about making your business model "cheaper". That's not what I mean by business model. The model is that the user pays, so that if what the user wants incurs additional costs to the airline, then that passenger pays, not everybody.

Fontsnob · 31/08/2011 12:49

Well, this is where we differ, I see a 2 yr old sitting with a parent as a need, I don't see that as over inflated. I don't see that as something I should be made to pay for. A ten yr old, not so much,they could be without me, a 2 yr old. No way.

TheBride · 31/08/2011 12:52

They will sit with a parent. Do not fret. It will happen. The airline will make sure it does. For a start, there will be many people on the flight who fall into my "do not care" category such as groups of singles who don't mind not being within spitting distance of one another for 2 hrs and would rather spend their fiver on 5 pints in Yates. The airline knows this. This gives them flexibility to accommodate situations such as the OP's

WreckaJones · 31/08/2011 12:52

custardcake Ha that made me laugh. I wonder whether all the posters hmmphing about needy parents would be happy to pay a £5 surcharge for a seat on a 'serviced' airplane and think the unlucky fuckers who die in a plancrash because they couldn't/wouldn't pay for the airline to adhere to basic H&S were tightarses who got what they deserved. Since when did we as consumers expect to pay for the option of H&S compliance? Seems they've managed to fool a lot of people into handing over their money so why would they stop?

donthateme So how have you been mis-sold something when you have paid for something that has quite plainly been spelt out as NOT GUARANTEED? If I pay for something on t'internet (happened with a birthday cake a year ago) and they tell me they can't guarantee delivery by x date but I can pay extra to increase my chances that they will deliver by x date, if I pay and I don't receive it on time, my fault. The Ts&Cs were quite clear, I chose to pay, there was no guarantee. Same for you and your non-guaranteed seat.

grovel · 31/08/2011 12:53

Agreed. Sitting next to 2yr old is a need. It's not needed by solo passengers so you pay extra to have the need satisfied.

silverfrog · 31/08/2011 12:54

lyingwitch: I think CAA guidelines are that a child under 5 must be in the care of an adult. not jsut next to an adult who could care for them, but specifically under the care of an adult.

in the case of unaccompanied minors, they are in the care of a cabin steward. we were when we flew (I was 5 at the time, my brothers 8 and 9).

but airlines can and do ignore htis, to suit their own needs - see my example of a 3 year old dd1 being repeatedly moved away from our party to sit not only in a separate section of the cabin but on a different floor entirely! and all because, I suspect, a preferred customer (ie one with a gold card) wanted to book an upstairs bulkhead seat - we were allocated the other bulkhead seat as dd2 was only 14 motnhs, but dd1, having her own seat etc was apaprently fair game to be bumped...

StarlightMcKenzie · 31/08/2011 13:01

Northern. It is much easier for a single person/couple to arrive early, stand in long queues, manage their boredom, toilet breaks, hunger etc to do so. than a family.

VivaLeBeaver · 31/08/2011 13:02

Easyjet used to have a policy whereby disabled passengers went on first, followed by family groups with young kids, followed by paid for priority boarding. I'm not sure if they still have this or whether in a money grabbing ploy they've abandoned their previous policy to try and get more people to pay for priority boarding.