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 :-)

The 6'6'' thing is what my friend who is 6'5'' told me as he regularly flies to aus and always bemoaning the fact that he needs to be a couple of cms taller to get legroom as a given. Sorry, if he's been bullshittin me, i shall call him up on it next time!

slave correct me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure that no one has said anything about parents and babies being given something over someone else with an equal need. That's not really what people have been arguing on this thread.

Although I would argue that a 2 yr old has a greater need to sit next to a parent than a tall person needing leg room. Simply because they are able to look after themselves. 2yr old, not so much.

Re. legroom for tall people - years ago you used to be able to show up early at check-in and have them look at you and realise you needed extra-leg room. Now a lot of airlines are flogging off extra legroom seats at a premium (usually £40 or £50 one-way), so your ability to get them is dependent upon getting online with your credit card out as soon as online check-in opens. Airlines (and that includes supposedly decent carriers like BA) are more interested in making a fast buck out of exit row seats than ensuring passengers can actually sit down. Flying in a non-exit row is such an impossibility for DH on a long-haul route, and availability of exit row seats so uncertain that flying economy is just not possible. We can't afford business class either, so are limited to travelling on airlines that have premium economy.

"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!"

What is cheeky is that the bastard airlines are allowed to charge you for something that costs them nothing. You should be able to book your seat for free, just as you do on a train. End of problem.

It is fine (imho) to charge for checked luggage, for drinks, food etc. But it is just wrong that you can check in online and not book a seat.

Fontsnob, I know what people have been arguing about on the thread thanks. My first post was in response to QueenofDenial who posted a story about men being asked to move for a woman with a baby and a toddler, who had been given seats together, but hadn't been given the sky cot space.

I realise that her story and my response were irrelevent to the OP, but as I have said, this thread is so long, it's no wonder it has gone of on a slight tangent between a very small number of posters.

So although most of the thread has not talked about situations with equal need, the post I responded to did.

I would agree with you that a 2 year old has a greater need to sit next to a parent than a tall person has to get extra leg room. I never said any different. I was talking (in response to someone else) about the extra leg room space, not about parents and infants being separated.

In my opionion, the reason this thread has needed to be as long as it has, is because there are no clear guidelines as to what age a child should be guaranteed to sit next to a parent.

If there were clearer guidelines, then parents would know what to expect. ie, a child of two is guaranteed a seat next to an adult, a child of four isn't. (Or whatever age the CAA decided to implement, I'm just using four as an example) That way, a parent would have a clear choice. They take the chance that their four year old may be sat away from them, or they know they have to pay. If their child is below four, they choose to ignore the offer of priority boarding or pre booked seats, safe in the knowledge that the airline cannot seat then away from their child.

Then anyone who was being asked to move for a parent would know for certain that they were either being asked to move to comply with the law if the child was below a given age, or if they were being asked to move because a parent didn't want to pay so they took their chances with their childs happiness on a plane.

It would then be up to parents to judge if their child of the given age would be ok on their own, or if they knew they wouldn't, then they can choose to pay.

Actually, slave didn't you assume the men were tall?

Wanting extra leg space does not mean automatically mean they were tall, there was no mention of tall, they may just have been average height but wanted to be more comfy for their flight.

You should be able to book your seat for free, just as you do on a train. End of problem.

Exactly. It cost me £1 extra last time I did it on line and I don't begrudge that-I do begrudge £5. (they made a mistake and although I had a seat number on the ticket the seat wasn't booked-but that is another story!)

"I would agree with you that a 2 year old has a greater need to sit next to a parent than a tall person has to get extra leg room.".

It's not about "extra" leg room for that tall person, though, is it? It's a case of actual leg room, if they cannot fit into economy seats. In any case, most of this thread hasn't been about degrees or equality of need. It's been about one's right not to have to pay £5 to prebook a seat. So (and this is hypothetical) assuming that the two young men mentioned above were very tall, and had paid to prebook exit row seats (since the CAA and airlines don't feel they have to make provision for them to sit down in a normal seat) this is about someone's right to kick those men out of their seats and effectively make them stand for most of the journey because they refused to pay the £5 charge to sit next to their child.

Except crazy in that case it wouldn't happen anyway because exit seat (by the wings etc) have to be filled by people willing to help in case of emergency. So young children can't sit there but tall people can. Therefore there is more provision for tall people than young children.

Sooooo the tall people could have kicked out the average people in the exit seats so that the mother and baby could sit at the front with skycot. The airline could have done all that before anyone got on the flight for minimal fuss and no charge and everyone is a winner.

Can I ask why do both of you have to pay to sit next to each other on a flight - thats the bit I don't understand..?

My dd would have to pay to sit next to me that bit I get and would be happy to pay for.

But - then they want me to pay to sit next to my dd

thats the bit I don't get I have already pay for my dd to sit next to me so why do I have to pay twice for the same thing?

You get ripped off pay for the actual seat. So you could pay for 1a for dd but someone else the jolly green giant may have paid for 2a.Thus meaning you will not get to sit with dd.

Btw I am not giantist, I just like sweet corn ads.

I'm assuming that the two men were who asked to move from extra legroom seats to accomodate a family weren't seated by an exit, but in a middle block of seating in a larger aircraft, since you're correct Fontsnob that children can't be seated by an exit. But, no, there isn't provision at all for tall people. No airline cares if a tall person gets an exit row seat - they'd rather just flog those seats off to the highest bidder. The odds of getting one if you're tall are pretty slim now since they're usually gone by the time you try to prebook. But there is provision in CAA regulations for those travelling with under 2s. And on the basis that you can pay to prebook seats that suit you, there is far more provision for young children since the extra legroom seats are invariably unavailable, whereas it is pefectly feasible to plan ahead to ensure that two of your party can sit together.

I can't help thinking that there's a gap in the market for an airline that can make sure that tall people can sit down, parents can be seated next to children, the food is actually edible and there is room to store your hand luggage (another bugbear of mine - why is it that the locker above my seat is either full of airline crap or other's people's excessive luggage and duty free purchases by the time I board the plane?). I can't believe it would actually cost so much more to provide these things.

I agree for under 2 yr olds. That hasn't been any part of the discussion. And I agree regarding there must being a way everyone is happy. Because there was, this was never an issue until the airlines realised that they can extort money out of people for providing a service that should be, and always was, free!

Although maybe the food was never good...except on a S African flight where they served Nando's for free. Not too bad compared to most flights!

I did travel with monach - but It is to pricey for me and now go by train, which takes a couple of hours longer - no hanging around for two hours in airports each ends makes trains nearly as fast over short haul.

Trains just allocate seats, you get leg room, luggage you can wheel on yourself and not even weighed, no problems with handbags and rucksacs etc and you get a much better view out the window no extra charge.

it ok though as my dd is the jolly green giants granddaughter and he gets bumped into business class when he flys for me whilst I always sit in economy at 6f7 he does find travelling squashy

Oh and btw crazy I was answering your hypothetical situation where you said the men were sat on an exit row. We don't actually know if the men in the real situation were tall or not, they were sat at the front though, which is the only place the skycot could go.

No, we don't know if the aforementioned men were particularly tall. I was, I thought quite clearly, offering an explanation as to why they might have been annoyed at being asked to move. And suggesting that it was quite mean for other posters (I can't remember who) to act pleased that these men had to have their flight disturbed.

Fontsnob, what do you think to the suggestion that the guidelines could be made clearer for parents, so they know for definate whether they are going to be seated next to their child or not. After all, some people don't mind paying to choose their seat on the plane, and would prefer the option of paying, or not, depending on whether or not they were bothered where they sat. If the airlines allowed everyone to choose their seat for free, there would be no option to pay or not pay, and the airlines would undoubtably add the cost to every ticket.

slave you were basing a whole argument on the idea that the men were tall. I was pointing out being a smart arse that if indeed the info had been given that the men were tall and were being asked to move, then there would have been a different reaction, people would have understood their reluctance. That info wasn't given so people reacted to the idea of two men of normal height, who could have sat anywhere comfortably, being a bit mean in not helping the woman with the children. You were judging everyone against info that you yourself added.

As to your second question, I do not think that ANYONE should have to/be able to pay for a specific seat. I think small children should AlWAYS automatically be sat next to one parent. I think that as far as possible all other needs should be taken into consideration, I understand that this is not always possible. I think that disbled people and all small children should be the prioriy and be sat with the parent.

I think that we should generally treat people like this on a daily basis.

Also, you are forgetting that a couple of years ago the airlines allocated seats in this way. How much do you think it costs to do? You can do it yourself at the cinema, or when the ticket gets purchased. It's not an expensive task. The airlines just saw it as a way to get extra money, nothing will get added to the cost of the ticket to cover it, and as i've already stated, everyone pays a different price for their ticket anyway!

WHY is it really necessary for so many people to drag young children around the world ? We had three children in two years (1 + twins) and did not take holidays involving planes until the twins were 5, by which time they could sit STILL, did not require cots etc., and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. We subsequently travelled the world including long-haul and never once caused any hassle to other travellers, no way would we have allowed this to happen. We were frequently complimented on our childrens' good behaviour. They themselves hated being surrounded by screaming toddlers when eg Thai Air had a policy of seating all children together.

I totally understand that if you have to travel due to work, or family overseas, that is necessary and sympathise with the difficulty involved, but I believe this really is only the minority of cases.

For the majority of passengers of planes, trains etc., their journey is a privilege or hard-earned treat which is likely to be ruined by the toddler-toting minority who do not accept that it is totally unreasonable to suffer a journey, even short-haul, ruined by a young child who finds it uncomfortable, restrictive, frightening and boring to be hauled around the world because the parent has not actually thought about the whole situation from the child's POV.

I am well aware that I will be flamed for this, but having endured a 90-minute back-kicking session from LHR to Berlin this summer, only to be almost physically assaulted by the stressed-out mother of the brat / child behind me who relentlessly assaulted my seat when I asked the child to attempt to sit still, I am in no mood to tolerate the argument that the majority of travellers should be subjected to the uncontrolled behaviour of the few (the child in question was seated next to her useless father who was securely plugged into his IPOD while her brother was kicking hell out of the guy next to me, in front of him).

Yes, I am a grumpy old woman, but I actually love kids and feel that the majority of them would prefer a bucket and spade holiday while they are little, as opposed to being dragged around the world on largely unnecessary journeys.

don't pay it.. see what happens.. people will probably move to accommodate you..

I agree albertcamus-they don't mind the weather and are quite happy on the beach in rainwear and wellies. It is my idea of hell if you don't have to do it to visit family etc.

so parents of young children should just suck it up then? It's nothing to do with the airlines crap policies? I live abriad. I need to travel. Yes, I PAY for priority boardinfg, because I have flown loads and know what it is bloody like. That does not mean that it is right. It is positively insulting to BLAME parents who DARE to fly with small dcs. Why on earth should they not be entitled to go wherever they please?