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 that's another urban myth. I actually think the brace position is supposed to protect your head and neck from the impact.

I'd like some more inside informatinon from TheBride, really interesting!

Wrecka - you would ask for a written guarantee that the passenger would assist your child? Are you serious??
The airline does not have a legal duty to insist on this. If the regulations state that children of a certain age need to be seated in certain seats, then as long as the airline complies with that, they are executing their duties. Good god- even the parent sitting next to their child might panic and fail to assist their own child correctly in An emergency- no way can the airline be responsible for guaranteeing it. They can insist where 'the child sits, and advise on procedures- but that's where their duty of care ends.

And frankly if any parent tried to blackmail into Moving my seat and then expected a written guarantee that I would assist their child, it would make me LESS inclined to bend to their veiled threats!

x-posted.

Oh... and there I was, dilligently reading up on how to protect my teeth...

So for the people who didn't read the link above and keep on arguing about this not being about H&S and all about perceived parental privilege/entitlement.

www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1770&pagetype=90&pageid=9855

"CAA guidelines ask airlines to develop procedures for the seat allocation of family groups, particularly when a group includes children. It is probable that family group members would seek each other out should an emergency evacuation be required, an action that could adversely affect the passenger flow rates towards emergency exits and might seriously affect the outcome of an evacuation.

Additionally, children and infants should be seated where they can be adequately supervised by an accompanying adult in the event of turbulence or a decompression in the cabin"

So on that basis, it is up to the airlines to have in place procedures for family seat allocation (where children are in the group) to seat children with accompanying adults. And they do. They charge the suckers who can't read Ts&Cs for non-guaranteed "pre-booked" seats and when a child needs to be accompanied/sat near a responsible adult they bump those people and tell them they paid for something they didn't have to provide, whereas they do have to follow safety guidelines. Be outraged at the airlines or be outraged at the CAA. The people who book their seats really need to manage their expectations.

"*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.
"

Exactly.

donthateme It's pretty straightforward. Of course the airline could not insist on this, and neither should the adjacent passenger agree. But it would be the only way for them to show that they had a procedure in place which complied with CAA guidelines. And after all the pre-booked passenger would not be in a guaranteed seat so how could they complain? It's in the Ts &Cs when they book. Like I said before, caveat emptor applies. And the airline would have to find some way of complying, leaving them with the only option of seating the child next to an accompanying adult who could supervise/help in the event of turbulence or decompression.....er....someone like a parent they are travelling perhaps?

Oh course they are charging extra...did the price of seats go down when they added this charge?...um no...it went up for those that choose to pay.

"CAA guidelines ask airlines to develop procedures..." - not mandatory at all if it's an 'ask'. If it was a requirement, it would be 'stipulate', etc.

Wrecka you speak perfect sense.

Mayorquimby Stripping out costs of now includes costs of compliance with law and regulation? So you'll be happy when they start charging you for a seatbelt you are required to wear?

and I need to get the hell on with the work that I came into school to do today...argh...step away from the argument...

Wrecka jones- yes, there is a clear policy regarding SEATING. In the case of a child who the airline is happy to seat somewhere not next to their parent, Do you really think the airline interprets t
Its own policy as allowing the parent to try to cajole the other passenger into providing a written guarantee of exactly what they will do to assist your child? Seriously?

Utter nonsense. If the airline is happy with where they have placed a child, no way would they allow the parent to use bullying tactics like that. The written guarantee would be worth toilet paper in any case!

No, just anything which is optional, such as selecting your seats.

Well, Wrecka, go ahead and try to force a passenger to move for you. If they won't and you don't sit down, you'll get bumped from the flight and possibly arrested. You might also find yourself banned from that carrier. Nobody has to do anything for you and I wouldn't sign any kind of disclaimer, no sane person would.

So you'll be happy when they start charging you for a seatbelt you are required to wear?

FFS, Wrecka, don't give Mr Ryan ideas!

Lying In the event of a court case I can tell you what the court will say to an airline that tries to say "oh this is just guidance, we don't have to"...just like they say to employers in tribunals who say "ACAS who? Oh but they're just guidelines" and are surprised to see their damages get a mandatory 25% whacked on top for not following "guidance". The law works in mysterious ways, but it does work. Airlines will be more than familiar with this approach and will not want to be found being flippant about guidelines. "Guidance" can be extremely legally binding when it comes to the crunch.

Is this just a problem on budget airlines like RyanAir? I'm starting to panic about my flights with Virgin Atlantic now, we weren't given an option to pay for seats together.

Virgin is different, Potty. They treat customers nicely as they are not a budget airline.

Potty - you can prebook seats online for Virgin flights, I don't think you have to pay. Otherwise the policy is: "any child between 2 yrs and 12 years must be sat adjacent to at least one parent or guardian, or in the row in front, behind or immediately across the aisle."

Well, my expectation would be that any passenger insisting on others moving or signing disclaimers would themselves be asked to leave the aircraft, together with their children.

That said we have taken somewhere between 60 and 100 return flights with our kids, never paid to sit together and it has never been a problem. And on those flights I have only spotted separated children a handful of times, and even then it was a family split, no child left on their own. I'm surprised at a 4yo being left between strangers, but I'd have expected a 2 yo being on their own would have made the front page of the Mail by now.

So I guess the flipside of this is that we are all perfectly within our rights to insist our children DO NOT sit with us during flights since there is nothing to prevent an airline for forcing you to sit together is there? I think the CAA guidelines might get quoted pretty quickly in that instance.

I think the difference is that people are assuming that any request to move would be in the form of an order or aggressive. I argee this isn't on. I would politely ask if you would mind moving so that I can sit with my 2 year old (i don't actually have a 2yr old btw). If you refused I would ask a stewardess to sort something out (with you or elsewhere). If this still didn't happen I would be forced to leave said 2yr old next to you. What would you do with the 2yr old? Ignore them.

My point is that this should never happen, no one should be put in a position that forces them to pay to sit with their 2 year old, because other people have chosen to sit in an aisle (for the sake of it not for a valid reason - illness/fear). Sitting with your 2 yr old is not a choice really, it's a neccessity. Therefore no one should be forced to pay for it. Everyone pays, or no-one pays. Don't make something optional for some but mandatory for others.

I'm wouldn't be insisting anyone move though.

I would be insisting the airline comply with CAA guidelines as they should be. What's the problem with that?

Wrecka... It either is or it isn't legally binding, it cannot be both. The law is very clear from my perspective.

... and your 'disclaimer' is a nonsense, sorry.