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 would happily ignore a child that wasn't my responsibility. I don't have kids yet (TTC) through choice. Part of that choice wasn't to be a substitute parent for children whose own parents decided that it was more important to make a stand than to part with a fiver.

I'd take the foil off the food, and open the drink, but past that - nothing. A 2 year old should be capable of eating.

If you do pre-book a seat and are asked to move, you are reimbursed for the money. But they can only ask you to move for very specific reasons, usually regarding exit row seats. When we flew to Philadelphia, we were on the exit row along with another woman. None of us had paid extra to sit there, nor chosen our seats before arriving at the airport. The woman didn't want the responsibility of sitting there, and in order to remain in those seats you do have to agree to the additional emergency procedures. The crew asked someone to swap with her, job done.

I have IBS, which flares up when I fly. For that reason, I pre-book and choose an aisle seat, so I can easily access the toilets. If I didn't do that, nobody else would be under any obligation to swap with me.

But i'm asking you if you think it is reasonable, because that has been my point the whole way through this, is it reasonable to expect to sit with your 2yr old/small child?

Potty

I think in reality your (caring) approach would be adopted by quite a few on here - myself included - and you are right it is often about the manner of the parent(s) requesting a move rather than the subject.

Expecting someone to move out of a pre-booked and pre-paid seat because the parent was too mean / bloody-minded to pay would, I'm sure, rile even the most sweet-tempered MNer.

Fontsnob, it is reasonable to expect to sit with your 2 yr old. It's also reasonable for you to pay £5 to ensure that you do so. Others with seating preferences are paying - why shouldn't you?

Very full flight to India (coming from Newark), we got on at Heathrow. Ds and I together, Dp in middle section bulk head. They had split a family of four up - three with dp in his row and the fourth about four rows behind - so one parent was going to have to handle small baby and toddler on their own. Dp moved without being asked, as it was just a crazy situation. Sometimes being split up isn't down to being too mean to pay the 'extra'

Because there is a difference between prefering an aisle seat and being there for your child. A big difference. All pay, or no-one pay, don't force some people to pay because if they don't their small child will be made to fend for themselves. Its really that simple.

Pendeen Oh, if they were arsey about it, I'd be riled too. But like I said, I wouldn't make the 2 year old suffer for the arseyness (sp??) of the parents, so I'd move. I just think its the right thing to do, and its more important to do the right thing than to prove a point.

What do you think the cost is to the airline to do plan the seating anyway? It was always done on check in before, unless you specifically requested something else. What did that cost that it needs to be passed onto customers?

Fontsnob- as I said, whether it is reasonable for someone else to move is dependent on so Many variables its impossible to answer. If the passenger is travelling alone, is perfectly fit and healthy, has no anxiety etc they very well may simply move. If they are anxious, unwell, specifically want to remain in the seat they are all ready occupying- then it may be entirely reasonable for them to remain put. My point was about the legality. Wrecka seems to believe that once a parent - or accompanying adult- kicks off about wanting to be next to the child, the airline is somehow legally obliged to comply with this request. They are not.

Everyone gets riled if people are arsey to them, no? Has that ever been the question here?

Font Was that to me?

No, sorry potty, was agreeing with you and commenting on Pendeen.

I think people have turned this into an immediate assumption that parents are stropping and demanding that other people be moved, of course that pisses people off. Thats not what i've been arguing about though.

donthateme I can't decide whether you are being deliberately obtuse or haven't had enough coffee to kickstart the old greycells this morning! I can't see why anyone would be "Kicking off" - surely kicking off is the fastest route to getting kicked off I should imagine?

CAA Guidelines again:

"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."

And as I said before:

"If that child who is not sat next to a member of its travel party (accompanying adult - doesn't have to be parent - not sure why you think it does have to be parent - perhaps have a read of the CAA guidelines?) and is not capable of reaching oxygen in the event of turbulence or decompression then whoever is sitting next to them will have to help them. Now that is fine, so long as that person (the adjacent stranger) is happy to do that and is happy to put that in writing (the infamous worthless guarantee). If they are not happy to do that (and I wouldn't be) then the airline have not discharged its duty and is not complying with the CAA guidelines. The airline has to make the judgement call on what that particular child is capable of. Now where this is a school age child (which is not what the debate has focused on) the airline can say ah but that child can self-oxygenate and the older the child the more likely this is a reasonable assumption. If however they sit a 3 year old next to an adjacent stranger, and that stranger has not taken up the responsibilities of the accompanying adult under the guidelines, then that child is not safe in an emergency is it? And no amount of ranting and raving from any surrounding adults about not moving from their pre-booked non-guaranteed seats is going to change that is it?"

So if the airline has sat a child incapable of self-oxygenating next to an adult who is a stranger and has not received reassurance from that adult that they are comfortable assuming the responsibility of an accompanying adult, then no, they have clearly not discharged their duty. Now if the parent is sat directly behind child (row behind as guidelines also refer to) then they can arguably be said to be in a position for 'adequate supervision' and can reach the child's oxygen for them, then tough on the parent if they want to sit closer - no amount of pre-booking or CAA guidelines give them that guaranteed.

So if I was waving the CAA guidelines around (really not necessary, quiet word only) then I can only get as close to my child as a seat providing potential for adequate supervision permits. So if the only other person willing to swap is five rows back, well tough, the person in the row behind is going to have to swap pre-booked or not. Which is why the pre-booked seats CANNOT guarantee anything - because it would provide no flexibility for the airline to comply with the CAA Guidelines and other H&S stuff (e.g. the disabled person who wants to sit next to an emergency exit for extra leg room but is not permitted to even if they pre-booked.)

Fontsnob

Quote from the OP

Am I unreasonable to demand that we sit with them?

So, my comment was quite relevant.

I think that I would print out the CAA guidelines here

I would highlight :

'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.

Airlines procedures should take into account the following factors:

Children, accompanied by adults, should ideally be seated in the same seat row as the adult. In wide-bodied aircraft, children and accompanying adults should not be separated by more than one aisle. Where this is not possible, children should be separated by no more than one seat row from accompanying adults.

Font I think you are right, most of the thread reads like awful family have got on plane and demanded everyone else moves. I've never seen this happen, though I suppose it must sometimes, it surely can't be the norm for the situation.

When my friends and I moved for the family I mentioned earlier, there was no hint of being demanding. In fact, they couldn't have been more relieved or grateful, as was EasyJet if I'm honest.

Am I unreasonable to demand that we sit with them?

She didn't say "get on the plane and demand the other passengers" though, did she?

cross posted with the same guidelines.

Though just read Pendeen post which shows the word 'demand', so maybe people are right to imagine gobby, loud parents demanding musical chairs??

So where is the problem? If no one has to move?

My point stands.

exotic Ahhhhh.....exactly. Thank you for that. Was beginning to think I had a different version of CAA.

Sorry Potty, meant for Fontsnob