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'm sure that most (all?) posters on this thread would move if asked politely. I think though that those who have paid extra to get a preferred seat could reasonably be a bit resentful at the same time if they are moving for people who have paid less for their seats. That's human nature.

I read it that she was demanding the airline to provide proper seating arrangements...she said nothing of making paid people move.

I think it's okay to demand the airline to sort it out.
Okay to ask politely once on the plane if the airline haven't doen that
And not okay to behave like a brat once on the plane.
Also I do think anyone should expect to be able to sit with small child free of charge. I also do think the airlines are ripping everyone off and creating a horible attitude in some people and that NO ONE should pay this fee.

Is that clearer on what I am thinking?

And the relevant word in your last email (yes, we can all read 'the guidelines wrecka!) is IF. IF the airline has failed to comply with uts duties. If they are confident that they have, why would the accompanying adult feel it necessary to try to get a written "guarantee" from a passenger which would carry no weight anyway!!

Lets just assume - radical idea here- that the cabin crew do actually know the guidelines and comply with them. I mean, why would they not? They have a vested interest in doing so after all. Therefore, any parent who complains is complaining about something which may well be an issue for them. it does not mean the airline is breaching it's duty. Geddit?!

Oh and what custard said

And grovel I also agree with you there, but the resentment should be towards the airline, not the parent and small child.

Squidgy Please remember this thread if you ever have to board a plane and sit separately from your pre-schooler in future. Hope your TTC is swift and easy (my friend is currently TTC - she looks positively glowing, her husband on the other hand is a grey, exhausted wreck so I should really be wishing that for your partner in conception!)

grovel You'd think wouldn't you? Funny how many people haven't said that though.

It is quite plain. If my DC couldn't reach the oxygen I would want absolute assurances that the person next to them was in charge-it is utterly irresponsible for the airline not to ensure their safety.
The CAA makes it plain that although airlines can charge for an allocated seat they cannot guarantee it and the person would not be able to have the seat if it breached safety rules.

I absolutely agree custardcake

my family of five are flexible and we don't need to sit together, so we save money by not buying the seats. I think it's quite logical that the airline rewards felxible people by letting them fly more cheaply than groups who need/want to sit together.

Of course a family of 5 are flexible! That isn't the issue. An under 5 yr old MUST sit next to one adult they are travelling with-there is NO flexibility in it and so the airline can't ask them to pay for something that is quite clearly a safety issue.

Exotic - the point is that the onus is on the AIRLINE to be assured they are complying with safety guidelines. If they are not confident they are, they will do something about it. It is not up to individuals to start demanding seat changes, written 'guarantee' statements about oxygen masks etc!

Why are budget airlines seen as 'money grabbing' for charging a low price, bumping it up with a few extras but still charging less overall than the other 'non-budget' airlines are seen as completely fair?

I'm still not getting what the fuss is.

Bride has spelt this out before but the way I am seeing it is when you book you have all the charges in front of you and you pay for what is applicable.

Therefore you have your basic ticket price - no frills nothing just a seat.

If you are happy with that you check that and then move on to the next thing you require.

i'm not bothered where I sit so I pay basic. DH wants leg room he picks an chooses a seat because he is both tall and large. He pays for that if I end up sitting next to him it is lucky, if not never mind.

If I had to have my family sitting together I would tick that box and pay for tickets to cover that.

Sometimes I have no luggage so I don't pay for that. If I'm nipping over to Ireland I may just have a small holdall so I don't pay extra.
If I take my rucksack I pay and so on.

Some one mentioned purchaing a new car and I thought that was a good analogy. When the kids were young I have to pay for two car seats. That's because I needed them to be safe and it was the law. Now when I buy a car I don't have to think about car seats. I would be pissed off if a price of a childs car seat was factored into the purchase price of a car.

If you want a one price ticket and sit together go for an airline that offers that.

Have you kicked off over there donthateme?

custardcake just did a much more succinct less legally boring explanation of my argument. But seeing as you kicked off so nicely I shall bother to bore you once more.

"And the relevant word in your last email (yes, we can all read 'the guidelines wrecka!) is IF. IF the airline has failed to comply with uts duties. If they are confident that they have, why would the accompanying adult feel it necessary to try to get a written "guarantee" from a passenger which would carry no weight anyway!!"

IF...I thought the scenario this thread was debating was about pre-schoolers (most posters seem to be referring to a 2 year old, and the OP's children are 2 and 4 years old)? So IF the airline sat a 2 and a 4 year old apart from adequate supervision by accompanying adults then yes they would have failed to comply. I wasn't aware we were discussing something that had actually happened - hence the use of if - but are you now saying IF is not relevant because this is not a hypothetical scenario? Sorry am just not really clear what you can't grasp? No the airline would know they cannot pass on their legal liability with the guarantee from a stranger in this way and would therefore have to ask another passenger to move so that the accompanying adult could sit close enough for adequate supervision.

"Lets just assume - radical idea here- that the cabin crew do actually know the guidelines and comply with them. I mean, why would they not? They have a vested interest in doing so after all. Therefore, any parent who complains is complaining about something which may well be an issue for them. it does not mean the airline is breaching it's duty. Geddit?!"

I am sure cabin crew are very aware of these guidelines, right down to the point where they are asking a nearby adult if they would move and that adult is "kicking off" about pre-booked seats and won't move! They will know they have to find seats for accompanying adult and accompanied child that are adjacent enough to allow for adequate supervision, especially in the case of an emergency. That's why I wouldn't bother paying £5 for the lovely cabin crew to know and action this. Apparently you think you have to pay £5 for cabin crew to follow the CAA guidelines?

Love the final riposte "Geddit?!" right down to the little mish mash of punctuation at the end - is that meant to convey frustration or a kind of crazed anger? Secret code for kicking off? Nope, not sure I do Geddit. But please feel free to explain.

grovel This forum is full of the sort of people who (if unencumbered) would move to help parents in distress. But believe it or not some of the people who are being allowed to fly nowadays are not so considerate!

(sigh)

Wrecka: is this simple enough?

If I purchased tickets with a budget airline I would not pay a surcharge for seats as my children would manage sitting apart. If asked to move by cabin crew because they need to sit a child somewhere to comply with guidelines I would of course move. If I had been sucker enough to pay the extra and was asked to move, I would ask for refund and tell them they are nobs ridiculous to charge for something that they cannot deliver- but I would still move. As you say- no one is guaranteed a specific seat.

But you were referring to a situation where the cabin crew are happy with 'the seating arrangements but a parent, carer, accompanying adult whatever, is not, and expects someone else to move, or provide a written guarantee (your words, no one elses). What on earth does that have to do with the airline complying with regulations? Tbh the cabin crew would probably be trying very hard not to pee their pants if a passenger tried to claim they were breaching their duty!

Airlines really can't be expected to put up with this sort of thing.

I don't mind cheap airlines getting the rock bottom basics, and charging extra for things on top, BUT I object very strongly for them charging to sit mother and preschool child when they know they have to do it anyway! Put the price of the seat up for basic-don't do it by stealth and blackmail.

To sum up: if airline staff request that you move, you have to. If you've paid a surcharge then complain like mad, but you'll have to move anyway if instructed.

If another passenger asks you to move, or starts questioning your suitability to sit next to their child (or god forbid expects you to sign some 'guarantee'') you don't have to do anything.

You may choose to, out of the goodness of your heart, but you are not obliged to.

Andrewofgg I would not be moving to "help parents in distress" (who might well be tightwads). I would be moving for young children who might otherwise become distressed.

"But you were referring to a situation where the cabin crew are happy with 'the seating arrangements but a parent, carer, accompanying adult whatever, is not, and expects someone else to move, or provide a written guarantee (your words, no one elses). What on earth does that have to do with the airline complying with regulations? Tbh the cabin crew would probably be trying very hard not to pee their pants if a passenger tried to claim they were breaching their duty!"

But that's not what the OP's situation is. The OP has a 2 and a 4 year old. That's what I was debating. Yes, I have made some assumptions about 2 and 4 year olds along the way (e.g. most 4 year olds would still not be tall enough to grab the oxygen mask when it came down and all 2 year olds would not be tall enough either.) but where does the OP say her pre-schoolers are advanced enough to feed themselves or are abnormally tall for their age? Why have you assumed I am debating your scenario above when I have consistently referred to pre-schoolers (even stooping to making up words like self-oxygenate in an attempt to condense!). I can't help it if you have reframed the thread to refer to your own hypothetical scenarios you have made up but are not sharing with anyone else! In my scenario (and I believe the OP's scenario) the parent/accompanying adult is NOT happy BECAUSE the child/disabled person is not able help themselves during an emergency and will need assistance! So that's where the disconnect lies....phew.

... And in' the OPs situation, the airline will seat 'the children next to an adult who can assist them if necessary. We have all agreed on that! There is no need to pay extra because the airline will comply with whatever it needs to. Simple.

Therefore, any situation where the adult is unhappy with the seating arrangements is NOT a legal issue, its about personal convenience.

Upahill how much do you think it costs the airline to book the seats on check in? Why on earth do you think this needs to be paid for? The cost of the cheap seats arwe covered by the cost of the people paying full price. Not the cost of people paying to sit where they like.

Well, this thread is about Monarch. The last accounts for them that I've seen show a 1% operating profit. And life has just got harder again for airlines.
I don't think they're royally shafting the punters.