to put the children in economy while DH and I fly business class?

[OfCourseIveNameChangedForThis]

Testing name change.

No hazle you were not

Maryz, you forgot that someone else was forced to take care of poor DH

I don't flatter myself that I am Queen, nor did I set out to be. So that's two more things on which we differ, apart from our approbation/ disapprobation of the OP and her DH.

Are you going to explain 'chip' or let it go?

You'd be hard pushed to get a child UNDER 14yo taken onto a plane as an UM if they are under 14yo, as I found out recently. DD cannot fly to visit her father until after March as we couldn't find an airline prepared to accept an UM under 14yo.

HTH.

unless your dh is 10 years old it's not much of an analogy is it?

ah but here's the thing, I still have not understood why someone has to take care of those 10 and 13 year old either. as others have said, they don't need nappy changes or feeding and surely OP instructed the DC to ask the cabin crew if they need a drink or can't figure out the entertainment system?

HuntyCat that sounds a bit odd, as the airlines I have checked offer UM services to children UNDER 12. what airlines have refused to accept under 14?

Mine used to fly regularly as UMs when they were under 12, though they haven't done for a while so it could have changed. They only went short haul too, perhaps that makes a difference?

Thing is if we stumped up for two BC seats the bleddy (using LeQueen language) kids would end up in them and us in economy. They still haven't got over the fact we have to go cattle class now we are poor (or rather husbands company no longer there to stump up for the fare). They traipse through business to the back looking longly at the seats, their pudgy hands caressing the armrests on the way by. No way would they let us away with slumming them while we lived it up.

Um - this crap about the adults getting different stuff to the dc - are people really like that?

My two older DS's have the 'master' bedroom - when I gave it to them, my reasoning was that they PLAY in their bedroom, I just sleep in mine, so as long as my room is large enough to fit my bed in, it's fine.

My DD has a 'better' phone than me. She has a Samsung Galaxy that she got for Christmas. I have a secondand phone that I was given. She makes use of all the 'extras' on her phone, I wouldn't.

I am no martyr though. We ALL get our clothes from the supermarket. I just think about things sensibly.

Why would I have the largest room, which would leave my 9yo and 8yo with NO room to play, while I swan about the big bedroom?

It's like the food thing - I can't afford steak for everyone, so NONE of us have steak - we all eat the same meals, so if I buy something nicer for dinner, I buy it for EVERYONE. Wouldn't you feel AWFUL sitting there eating steak while your dc had chicken nuggets? The only justification I ever get for that from people is that the dc "wouldn't appreciate it". Which is CRAP. If they are brought up from babies eating everything that YOU eat, then they WILL have an appreciation of fine food!

I would feel like I was telling my dc that they aren't as important as me - which I feel is not right. They ARE as important as me.

these arn't UM though are they.

nor are they adults at different ends of a plane.

Having been stuck next to a chatty 6 yr old for 2 hours on a short haul flight where the only sign of the mother was when she said "be nice" as the child was deposited by my side.

It was a feckin nightmare, of polite child gabble.

All of them refuse to fly a UM under 14yo to Inverness or Glasgow's airports. It's a moot point NOW, as DD will be 14yo next month, and is going up in the Easter hols, but it was frustrating back in October!

when I was younger, my mum used Chanel cosmetics as well, hence the post I made about them several pages ago. I used Garnier and similar. Interestingly I though that this was quite reasonable. It never occurred to me to demand that I should get the same as mum, as otherwise it would mean that I'm worth less than her. Was she a bad mum?

I use Chanel too and my make-up aged DDs don't but that fact is wholly irrelevant to whether or not I'd feel an obligation to both my children and other passengers to take proper care of 10 and 13 year old children on a long haul flight.

WRT the whole unaccompanied minor thing, British airways state "On British Airways operated flights, children under the age of 12 years must be accompanied by a person of 16 years of age or above."

There is also a charge which covers the extra care an unaccompanied minor requires on a flight so you are paying someone to look after your child's needs.

Completely different to simply leaving your children to fend for themselves.

Yellow ok that's your argument. Others have said that they would not put DC in economy as this would mean they consider DC less valuable members of the family. My argument is relevant there.

Soup

unless I am wrong (and I know that the thread has developed) this isn't about UM, its about parents who sit away from their children.

These parents haven't paid any extra for additional care and they are not respecting the other passengers on the plane.

Well I think that makes op's decision for her then really, a victory for common sense IMO

I was referring to soups info from BA

SoupDragon, according to BA website, in-flight escort is provided only occasionally and if there are a large number of UM on board. Otherwise the cabin crew will take care of the UM and I don't think the cabin crew gets paid extra for that.