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 bet the OP has scarpered off of MN! Good thread for a first post!

As an aside - when you check in and get boarding card it has seat numbers on it - if you are separated (as I said earlier we never have been) would you not query it with check in rather than wait until boarding the plane? I recall on one holiday we had boarding cards but not yet boarding when announcement made and we all had to hand in boarding cards and get new ones (we were still together but in different rows to before) - am assuming this might have been to address seating problems - it was a full plane so wasn't to balance out the plane - have had that before as well.

I am more concerned about my formatting! :(

Can we all just agree to agree with Potty (sorry to cause more blushes). I really need to do my planning for next week!

Potty, if only we had a emoticon on here, I'd award you one! :)

I just wanted to post my experience but it's not a budget flight and it was longhaul, so it might be different.

Last year, coming back from the UK to Australia, we couldn't check in on-line because I'd booked through expedia and they didn't give us a valid code to use on the BA website. So, turned up at the airport, check in was a bit of a mess as most people had checked in electronically - but I couldn't, so had to see an actual person. She was lovely but there was clearly A Problem - which turned out to be over-booked plane and no 2 seats together in cattle World Traveller class. As I was travelling with an under 3yo, they obviously wanted to seat us together, so we got a free upgrade to World Traveller Plus, so that we could be together.

I would expect this to be normal for most airlines but wouldn't be so surprised if cutprice budget airlines were less inclined to do this for free.

donthateme

1. Pre-booked seats do not guarantee your choice of seat. Why do you think that is? Could it be because the airlines are subject to guidelines or regulation or statute that conflicts with them being able to guarantee. e.g. if a disabled person pre-booked the seat next to an emergency exit? Could they ask that person to move seat? Of course they could. If a child needed to be sat next to an accompanying adult (note use of word accompanying - not generally interpreted to be 'adjacent stranger') could they ask others move to make that possible? Of course. So no one booking a seat gets anything they wouldn't get otherwise. They are at best buying a decreased likelihood of being asked to move - but being that the airlines do not say to people "can anyone who has not pre-booked volunteer to move so this child can sit next to a family member?" it's not even that really is it?

1. Asking the airline to provide a guarantee merely highlights to them that they cannot and are not complying with CAA guidelines and have to find another way to sort the problem out. The 'guarantee' from a stranger is worthless. It just shows that they, the airline, cannot pass on their H&S duties to other passengers if they cannot comply. So how can they make a child sit without someone able and willing to take responsibility during an emergency situation?

Potty definitely gets star of the thread award. Most civilised and considerate of you!

So the CAA has asked that airlines implement a policy which sees family groups containing children to be seated together. Together being interpreted as ideally in the same row, but never separated by more than 1 aisle. If not the same row, then the one in front or behind.

Monarch have implemented said policy by introducing a blanket rule that travellers can only be guaranteed seating together by paying a supplement for it. This is made very clear on booking. I have booked and flown with Monarch myself. It is then the parent's responsibility to ensure that they are complying with the terms of the booking.

I have also flown budget airlines with no luggage, no boarding pass being printed for me etc, as do many thousands of people each day travelling for business purposes. Why should the cost of those peoples' tickets be increased to supplement things that do incur a cost for others? Of course ticket prices have risen. Taxes and fuel have both risen rather dramatically over the past 10 years, and the airlines are hardly likely to absorb all of those costs. The concept of a budget airline is very simple. The basic ticket price secures you a seat. If you require any further services, you may have them, but a charge will be levied for those services.

If someone asks me nicely, and I would be moving to a seat of equal standard, then I wouldn't have a problem moving. If someone wants me to move from my aisle seat to a middle seat, or asks me in a way that smacks of entitlement, they can swivel. And no, I wouldn't be entertaining somebody else's child for them during a flight. I use the opportunity to plug my ipod in and catch up on some reading.

Wrecka - I am aware prebooking doesn't guarantee a seat! Blimey keep up , we reached that point pages back! You are going off the point to avoid answering why you think an airline would ever support your weird idea of trying to force passengers to sign a 'guarantee''!

If you are not sitting with your child, and the airline is completely happy with the arrangements, you do not have a leg to stand on trying to either shift other people or get them to sign up to YOUR idea of how you want your child assisted!

So Squidgy you would ignore a 2 year old sat next to you, who may need help with food/drinks/turbulance? :(

No for you!

Squidgy No, pre-booking cannot and does not guarantee seats. That's a lot of what this thread is about. So they have not implemented any such policy. Even if parents or non-parents pay they can be asked to move/told their seat is not available and they will have to sit elsewhere.

The bottom line is: the plane wont take off unless the crew are happy they are complying with procedures - its more than their lifes worth. Therefore any parent kicking up a stink is clearly just wanting something which may well make them feel better , but in no way is an obligation of the airline.

Simple.

donthateme, why is sitting with a 2yr old something that will make them feel better?

Fontsnob... Have you actually thought of how wide open you might be to being sued were you to engage with/touch another person's child? Any person really is at risk of ignorant nutters screaming 'abuse'.

donthateme I have said several times the guarantee from a stranger is worthless. It merely shows the airline they are not complying with CAA guidelines and they have a duty to seat people under those guidelines and cannot pass on their liability under those guidelines to some random person on their plane. The guarantee is as worthless as the pre-booked seat the stranger has.

The airline's insurance will have a boilerplate clause in the Ts&Cs that insurance will be voided (or excess incurred at specified tiered levels for non-H&S/non-regulatory non-compliance) if airline is not compliant with all relevant guidelines, law etc.

donthateme Of course they won't. Which is why it is very hand to carry a copy of the CAA guidelines on you for boarding. Airline staff feel better approaching someone to ask them to move having guidelines to point to and then if they kick up a stink about not moving, well out of a polite parent and child waiting for the airline to adhere to their own policies and a recalcitrant stroppy adult who won't accept their pre-booked seat did not guarantee them that seat despite Ts&Cs clearly stating so...mmmm..wonder who's getting off the plane then?

So lying that surely goes on the side of not being made to pay to sit with your 2 yr old? Would you ignore the poor little bugger who hasn't eaten for 4 hours because he is sat in the middle of a row and no one will help with his food? :(

Or would you be happy whilst their parent leans across you to help them? Or would you tell the parent that they should have sucked it up and paid...now let me guess which one it'll be!

Again, Fontsnob, that's down to the parents. Why would you think that a stranger would have more consideration for a child than it's own parent would? I'd pay anything to sit with my child. I certainly wouldn't be congratulating myself for having 'beaten the system' whilst my child is miserable away from me. That's the whole point.

As a woman, I'd probably feel a bit more secure about engaging with a child, helping with its food, but it is risky. What would you do? Would you feel any different if you were a man (assuming that you're not, of course)? What when they then want to sit on your lap, be read a story?

Other people's children are just too risky, there's a preponderance of calling 'paedo' and I think it's made most people very wary. The parent must take the steps to keep their child safe and I think that any parent who won't is derelict really.

I've just come back on and I'm a bit

Thanks for the nominations!

Fontsnob... I'm guessing that the parent just wouldn't care actually. If they did, the child would be with them and not me.

You don't know what I would do/have done.

So using your argument...why should i have to pay an extra fee to ensure that my 2yr old isn't sat next to a peodophile?

(by the way I really do not subscribe to this molester on every corner bollocks, and wouldn't sue someone for touching my child, male or female, I am just turning your argument around).

This issue isn't restricted to budget airlines. BA charge £40/£60 per seat for advanced booking.

TBH surely this isn't as much what the child/parent wants as what the other passenger wants. My DC's would love to sit alone, but at 5 & 6 one of them will inevitably spill their drink, fall asleep on your shoulder, get up once every ten mins to find me/their sibbling or go to the toilet. They might ask you to change the channel on their TV or if you can get the blanket from the overhead locker.

They will be very polite: apologise for spills, say excuse me and say please and thank you, they will offer you their sweets and explain what they are drawing. I short they will drive you demented.If you put your head phones on they might tap on your shoulder. Repeatedly. In short they will unintentionally drive you demented. Trust me I know

I can barely tolerate this off my own DC's let alone someone elses so I refuse to believe I would be the only on willingly paying £60 to sit elsewhere!

Wrecka - why have you got this idea that the airline would not be complying with guidelines? The plane is full, ready to go, if a child happens to not be next to its parent, the airline are nonetheless quite confident they are not in breach of their duties. Therefore your point is??

If you as a parent aren't happy, that is YOUR issue. You seem to be equating that with the airline being at fault.

No, I don't thats why I asked you, just guessing what you'd answer on here (who knows if you believe what you are saying) judging by the rest of your responses.