"But as you say, the airline have a duty to comply with the regulations anyway, regardless of whether seat surcharges have been paid for. They can also instruct passengers to move in order to fulfil their obligations. Therefore I don't understand your point. The airline will make a judgement call on whether their seating arrangements Are complying.Therefore, any situation where a PASSENGER is asking other people to move, or asking other passengers to agree to certain stipulations is simply not relevant. Why would they need to? It is the Airlines job to do that.
AAARGH. I refer you to my second post on this:
"No one should have to sit next to an unaccompanied child on a flight. The airlines are pretending to unsuspecting punters this might be the case and getting them to cough up a fiver to 'protect' their choice of seat. So long as the airline are able to guarantee in writing that the person the child is sitting next to will be responsible for their health & safety throughout the journey (e.g. attach their oxygen mask if necessary, lead them to safety etc) then they can do this. But obviously they can't. For those willing to pay a fiver and getting outraged at the OP or anyone who has children not paying, why not be outraged at the airlines that they are making you pay for something that isn't guaranteed."
I have been very clear that this is the airline's problem and I would expect them to sort it. I would suggest to them that if they think they can legally pass on their responsibilities under the CAA and general H&S to a random stranger then they can get that guarantee in writing from their random passenger and pass it on to me. They would then have to point out to me that they can't get a random stranger to take responsibility for my child legally and I would have to point out to them precisely, this does not seem compliant with the CAA guidelines so you will have to sit a child unable to reach oxygen mask etc within adequate supervision of an accompanying adult. Me, for example.
"This thread is littered with people saying 'i'd give the passenger what for!' , 'i'd tell them to move' or 'i'd make sure they had a hellish journey next to my kid'! That is what the debate has been about."
I have never said any of that. You appear to have taken particular issue with me re the worthless guarantee which is purely a means of demonstrating to the airline that THEY have to fulfil their duty and they cannot pass it off onto a random stranger. I think you now understand that...not sure though.
"And as you now agree, it's irrelevant because the airline will comply with what it has to."
I agree that an airline will not be getting random strangers to guarantee that they will assist my pre-schooler (18 months by the way - and yes, I buy him a separate seat even though I don't have to) to reach oxygen because in doing so they would have to admit they are not complying with the guidelines. I don't recollect ever not agreeing with that? Was my whole point surely? Hence why pay £10 to 'guarantee' seats together that are guaranteed under CAA guidelines?
"Anything else is just what the parent might want - and that's a different issue." So long as it's not a H&S issue quite possibly - but there is the general tortious duty of care that the airline owes to both child and parent/accomp.adult in this situation which could encompass wider harm than that of a child not being tall enough to access oxygen. But that's not about compliance since it would all be decided retrospectively in court.
"And incidentally there is no guarantee that in an emergency the parent wont panic and possibly not fit their childs oxygen mask correctly, or may forget to fit theirs first, or may be slower than a 'stranger' would be."
No, or course not. But in that circumstance who's the parent going to sue? Themselves? Or will they just be devastated and consumed by their own guilt. See if I let an airline effectively usurp/reallocate my parental responsibility to a random stranger they sit my pre-schooler next to, I would want that explained to that stranger and for them to realise that the airline was now placing them under a duty of care towards my child if they wanted to stay in that seat. That's the swap the airline is effecting.
"You could argue that a parent in charge of a 4 yr old and a newborn might be less effective in a crisis than if the 4 yr old was sat elsewhere."
Yep you could argue that. Not sure how that's relevant but still...keep those straw men coming.
"Thats why the airline cannot and will not guarantee the DETAIL of how anyone one will respond in a crisis- they simply comply with the requirement to make sure there are people who potentially can assist."
No. That's why an airline will not guarantee pre-booked seats.
"A parent who is highly anxious and might pass out in a crisis would not be held liable for failing to assist their child- and neither would a stranger."
Not if that child was sitting next to its parent, no. If the airline wants to place a pre-schooler next to a stranger then yes, they would be trying to force that person to be responsible in order to comply with the CAA.