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 :-)

Queen, I didn't call you any names, but I'm sorry if I offended you. I do accept your judgement on the situation, I'm just trying to put across the possible other side to the story, as of course, there is one.

My point is that having a baby and a toddler on a flight does not automatically make your needs greater then anyone elses. And in the same way that that assumtion annoys me, perhaps it annoyed them. Both reasons for needing the space are equally valid, therefore there is no other fair way of deciding than first come first served.

I think the thing that I was really getting at, was that following your post, there were other posts supporting the view that these men should have moved, and that they somehow deserved their needs to be taken into account less than the Mother's. You didn't say what points they raised (if any) so none of us that weren't there know their reasons for wanting the extra space, of which there could be many. And I do think it's unfair that there is an attitude that people shouldn't mind being asked to move for people who have an acceptable alternative, as presumably (because you didn't say otherwise) the Mum did have seats together.

I just think a little more consideration is needed by everyone and not just those who could be doing parents a favour. It works both ways.

On a collective level, shouldn't we work this sort of think out as a society? This attitude of 'well, you had children, your choice' is really individualistic and pisses me of somewhat. I'm by absoltely no means a hippy but if i see an old person on a bus, i'd offer my seat etc. On a plane, people flying with small children and others who are more vulnerable and need a bit extra should have it. It's only public transport at the end of the day.

Yes, people who need a bit extra should have it. But what if there are two sets of completely different needs, that are equally as great as eachother but both require the same solution?

Someone is going to miss out, and sometimes, that will have to be the parents of small children.

slave what would your example be, i may well agree with you.

Thanks slave you didn't offend me. I am just being stroppy so also apologise

The skycots is a separate issue from the problem in the OP. However what appears to have happened with many airlines is that they have realised they could easily, and without incurring wrath, charge for extra leg room seats.

Not so with the basinet/skycot seats, presumably because people travelling with infants who still have to pay a charge without getting a seat would not tolerate being charged again to sit in the only area on the plane that was suitable for them. Thus you can book and pay for extra leg room but not for a basinet.

In addition gold club members on BA can specify seats ahead of the general public and so they are almost always taken by the frequent flyers.

The example given by Queen is good enough for me.

Although she doesn't say that the two men in the extra legroom seats were particularly tall, they could have been, so if you want an example that one works.

Two particularly tall men having the seats at the front of the plane, versus a Mum with a baby and toddler who would like to be able to use the sky cot.

Neither is a medical need, both are just about comfort or convenience for the passengers involved.

I've seen both on many occasions, and personally (just my opinion), I feel much worse for the 6ft tall adult who simply doesn't fit in the space provided as standard and has to end the flight with bruises on his knees.

X posted Queen.

I agree that is does seem unfair that you can book extra legroom seats, but not the skycot. But on the other hand, Mum's would probably have been free to book the extra legroom too.

I know it would work differently with a frequent flyer programme, but that just comes down to airlines rewarding their best customers really, and if both sets of needs are equal anyway, then that seems a fair enough way of doing it to me.

Appreciate that this situation is irrelevant to the OP, but hey, 28 pages in, that might not be a bad thing!

I disagree that the front of the plane is the only place suitable to travel with a baby and toddler, if they have been seated together elsewhere. I've managed it in a normal seat. I'm sure on most full flights there is more than one passenger with a baby and another child, and more than one or two who are very tall.

On long haul flight you pay airfare for a baby, they don't get allocated a seat so it seems fair to me that you get a bassinet seat for that extra cost. I don't see why they should have to pay for extra legroom as well, they're already paying extra for the baby.

What if there's more than one baby on the flight though, as regualrly happens? They can't all have the sky cot. That's why airlines say that it's not guaranteed you will get it, even when you do have to pay airfare for a baby.

It is out of order that you have to pay for a baby without being allocated a seat though, that's something that should be stopped.

Well we will have to agree to disagree then slave . When I have flown alone with a baby and toddler I have been in business and been able to put the baby on the floor for a few mins to help out the older DC.

I think it would be extremely difficult to manage if you don't have the floor option once they can wriggle off a seat (so a few weeks +) and so that rules out being able to travel in economy, the chances of cabin crew helping out would be slim.

Out of interest how old were your baby and toddler when you flew?

I have seen mums of older babies 1yr + give up the skycot seats to mums with younger babies. I have also seen couples sit apart (so dad moves) so that another mum can have the second basinet and I have seen people split the seat half and half. All very friendly

I don't think that being merely 6' makes your needs more than that of a mother with a baby and and toddler. If you are over 6'5'' you are a giant and are recognised as needing extra consideration. A baby is recognised as needing a cot, hence the bassinet seat system. The small family group are three that need to be seated together, however short the mother's or father's legs. However, if the baby is more than 6 months and can sit a spare seat, ie three seats should be provided elsewhere on the plane. (Which happened the last time i flew economy and i swapped from the bassinet seat as DC2 was too big for the cot).

As an aside, what is the point of standard policy of not selling a seat for a child until 2, and then having a crib that can only be used until the baby is 10kgs. It's a con and seats should be made available.

female most airlines will let you pay for a seat for an under 2 if you wish.

I agree with queen and have seen families divide to help out each other.

The floor space in club is useful (as is BA's toddler seat) but that's because 'room' itself is a premium and infants just don't recognise the adult chair configuration and have control of gravity that we adults have.

I know that you can buy (and if we don't go premium next time will definitely buy a seat for DC2 never mind that he's not even 1!), it's just that it isn't standard policy and we had no idea the bassinte weight was so low. DC1 was 18months before 10kgs and we bought her a seat from then on anyway as she was abe to sit properly.

Baby was six months, toddler was 2 and a half. It was a nightmare! I would never do it again given any choice whatsoever in the matter! It was only a short flight to Nice, so I appeciate it could have been worse. But I got through it by putting the baby in the sling when I had to take the toddler to the toilet, I had the buggy at the door of the plane every time, and the baby just sat on my lap while I was helping the other with food or toys or whatever.

It wasn't fun, but it wasn't that bad either. I certainly don't think it was any worse than it is for a tall person to have to squish in a too small seat. It's hard work, but it doesn't physically hurt.

I have a friend who comes on many group trips with us, and he is 6ft 4. I feel so so sorry for him on flights, he litrally can't even sit down properly. Last time we went away he had to pay £40 each way to have an extra legroom seat, because the time before that he finished each flight with bruises on his knees and backache from the position he has to sit still in for hours.

On a collective level, shouldn't we work this sort of think out as a society? This attitude of 'well, you had children, your choice' is really individualistic and pisses me of somewhat. I'm by absoltely no means a hippy but if i see an old person on a bus, i'd offer my seat etc. On a plane, people flying with small children and others who are more vulnerable and need a bit extra should have it. It's only public transport at the end of the day.

I so agree with that. People seem to be so selfish these towards children/pregnant women/elderly people. I remember once being on a rush hour bus while 7 month pregnant. I ended being the one giving up my seat to let an old lady sit down.
I just find it sad.

"If you are over 6'5'' you are a giant and are recognised as needing extra consideration."
Actually, that's not true. My DH is 6'7" and can't physically sit down in economy class seats. But airlines make no provision for people like him, other than "allowing" him to pre-book extra legroom seats. Given that these can't be guaranteed we end up having to fork out for premium economy class when travelling long haul. I can't understand why being able to sit down in a seat for the duration of a flight is not considered a necessity under health and safety legislation.

Sorry...but if you can afford to go on holiday you should be able to afford the £20 to make sure that your kids can be supervised by an adult on the trip.

It's cheeky to not book and then expect other passengers to be inconvenienced by having to move or offer you their pre booked seats.....really cheeky in fact!

It isn't really cheeky. They have to sit you together-it is cheeky to ask for £10 to sit together. You don't need 2 adults and 2 children sitting together so don't need to pay £20 unless it is important to you. I refuse to pay £10 for something they have to do for safety reasons.
The CAA is quite clear-you can pay for priority booking, but the airline can't guarantee it. Safety comes first.

Yes, exoticfruits, I suppose that if they split a family of four two-and-two they are complying and the family must suck it up. Just like a family of four who want a table on a train and find that reserved seats make it impossible and they have to make do with two twos not at a table.

What about a parent with three DC's who cannot, jiggle it how you like, sit next to all three? One of them - probably the eldest - must sit between another DC and an aisle, a window or a stranger.

What if it's triplets and there is no eldest in any real sense?

Therapeutic, we have just done long haul flights. When the flights had been booked, it gave us our seats straight away on the outgoing flights, but for coming back it said they would be allocated on check-in. For some reason (booked under BA but came under American Airlines) we could not do online check in either way.

On our return, we just got to the airport and checked in as early as we could, it gave us two and two (behind each other) and there was no one in front of the seats that DH and DS1 had, so they could stretch out but on our second flight we were two and two (behind) bit in the middle of a five seated row - so in effect they did put us together.

I really wouldn't let it spoil things for you.

It is quite simple-if the DCs are old enough to cope they can sit where they are put.
If you don't want this to happen then they need to pay the priority seating.

If the DCs can't be split from an adult, due to age then there is no need to pay-it is a safety issue the airline has to comply with.

It would be a very brave parent to fly alone with 2 yr old triplets and he/she would have to be in an aisle seat with one across and 2 next to her,window side. There is no need to pay-you can't have 2 yr olds in odd seats here and there.
Basically if you can sit alone only pay if you really don't want to -and if safety means the airline has to sit you together don't pay.

We wouldn't pay because it doesn't matter but we have always had seats together anyway-we couldn't complain if we didn't.
I wouldn't begrudge moving to let a small DC sit next to their mother. (if I did pay anything extra it would be not to sit next to an under 7yr old DC!!)

I was just ever so slightly taking the piss about triplets which, I agree, is not very likely. But three children all of whom it would be better to seat next to a parent is possible, and then as you say the best solution is two and one across the aisle. But then the one will be next to a stranger and it's JTB.