To Thank Thomas Cook for clarifying the matter of paying to sit beside your children

[Groovee]

I flew Thomas Cook today to Florida. I paid extra for seats together and got to choose where we were sitting.

We decided to go on last because we had seats and there were near the cabin door. When I got settled a family were not happy that they had 5 single seats. The cabin crew were quite adamant that they could not ask customers who have paid to choose their seats to move.

So last weeks thread is solved

It's only time when the airlines will be banned from cashing in on their passengers.

It's a business!

You have a choice of paying for 'extras', like choosing seats, or not paying for extras.

If you want everything included in the price, don't use budget airlines/travel companies; use scheduled flights instead.

Just be prepared to pay 5 to 10 times as much for your tickets.

What Shelly said.

FFS, all those outraged people talking about how it's the airline's responsibility to sit families together - no it bloody isn't! You are the parent, therefore it's your responsibility to ensure you can look after your children adequately. If this means paying extra or arriving ridiculously early then you must do so. I really hate this culture of parental entitlement that makes people think the world should bend over backwards for them just because they have children!

I don't think it is because they are parents more that they are paying customers and have paid for every member of their family

Perhaps it should be compulsory to pay for your seat choice when travelling with a child under 6. Then children wouldn't have to sit on their own and people who have paid to reserve seats together won't be expected to move for those who don't.

It is the parent's responsibility to make sure they sit with the child, not the airline's.

Are there any airlines that do not allow passengers to prebook seats? In that case I wouldn't think it s unreasonable to ask others to move.

Thomas Cook managed to book DD and I into a seat with only 1 oxygen mask (old style plane) outbound - they moved all 3 of us. Inbound they booked us in a row with two other infants so again not enough masks - that time we got upgraded. Their booking system seems woeful.

it's

I don't think it is because they are parents more that they are paying customers and have paid for every member of their family

And every member of the family will have a seat, so they've got what they paid for.

How much does it really cost the airline to seat family groups near each other, though?

I reckon that for most combinations of family groups that might book themselves onto a flight it would be possible to apply the caa guidelines. It also wouldn't be that difficult to construct an algorithm for doing it - at most a week of a competent programmer's time in my opinion (I consider myself to be one so might put this to the test!). It would only be costly to the airline in the sense that while people believe an actual expense is incurred by optimising the seating arrangements, they can continue to charge for it.

Thinking back to the pre-budget airline era I can't th

Gah. ... I can't think of any instances where our family group didn't sit together. But we didn't fly much so I can't say for sure. Back then many many more tickets had open validity so there was an addition problem of frequent no-shows which would make advance seat allocation difficult. Now everyone has inflexible tickets and checks in months in advance there's no excuse for it really.

How much does it really cost the airline to seat family groups near each other, though?

It won't cost them anything, but that's it the point.

As a business, they have certain costs to cover before they can make a profit for their shareholders, and like most businesses, they face rising costs. Even more so when they are a business that has to contend with rising fuel/oil prices.

They have identified a way they help to meet those costs, and it's optional, so it's better for the majority than putting up the cost of all seats.

Why should every individual that wants or needs to fly have to bear the rising prices? Surely it's better to give each passenger a choice over paying extra, or possibly being seated away from their travelling companions?

If you don't mind where you sit, you don't have to pay. If you do mind where you sit, then you pay extra. Where's the problem?

Thinking of the pricing in another way makes more sense.

A ticket is £100 but if you're not bothered where the seat is, you get a £15 discount so it's £85.

If you want seats together, you pay the full price and don't get the discount.

Now how unreasonable does it sound for some parents to demand the discounted price for not having allocated seats but still expect to receive the allocated seats, because they're special?

Utterly ridiculous.

Bloody hell times have changed!

I use to work for first choice and know that seats could be previews to garuntee sitting together - however the airline also arranged the seats in advance to check in so families were at least 1 adult with a child.

The no if people asking to change their seats and being told no was high. There is no way nearly every family pre booked - in fact I know it to be true that they didn't!

Nearly every time I have travelled with my DS we have had the 3 seats in our row when the lanes not been at full capacity. This is due to the way the planes are laid out and blocked seating is done. Also added to the fact the no meal clients are placed at the back and I never book a plane meal.

The seating of children close by their parents or guardians should be the aim of airline seat allocation procedures for family groups and large parties of children. Young children and infants who are accompanied by adults, should ideally be seated in the same seat row as the adult. Children and accompanying adults should not be separated by more than one aisle. Where this is not possible, children should be separated by no more than one seat row from accompanying adults. This is because the speed of an emergency evacuation may be affected by adults trying to reach their children.

This is the CAA stance on it. So you don't have to pay more, but you shouldn't be more than one row away. Fwiw I never pay more. If a stranger wants to sit next to my very loud 3 yr old, they can go right ahead. They might regret that decision though. I'll just put my feet up and read my book

This again?

You get what you pay for - a random seat on a plane (basic price) seats together (a little bit more) if you don't pay don't moan or just don't bother with cheap airlines

Nice find there Brian

If only the paying public knew how much money is haemorrhaged for the wrong things in an airline, they'd be rather

If a stranger wants to sit next to my very loud 3 yr old, they can go right ahead. They might regret that decision though. I'll just put my feet up and read my book

Nice attitude.

Why see it as paying more to sit together - surely it is paying less to not sit with specified people - as it is paying less to not take hold luggage etc etc - it is better to be able to taylor your flight and pay for what you need -you need extra luggage, you want to sit as a group (which may leave random single seats - therefore a single traveler who doesn't have a preference can be placed in those spots) you pay for that - you don't want these things then you cost the airline less and they pass on the savings.

If a stranger wants to sit next to my very loud 3 yr old, they can go right ahead. They might regret that decision though. I'll just put my feet up and read my book - And if there is an emergency evacuation? Would you expect that kind stranger to help your 3yo out?

Erm no captain, i'll be barging people out the way to get to my child obviously. Exactly the scenario the CAA want to avoid, hence their stance (as the aircrafts licening authority) to sit people near their children. Why would I pay for that privilage when I don't need to.

Not being next to your child doesn't absolve you of responsibility for their behaviour.

It is easy to see why some people hate flying whist seated near families with small children.

Well, as I dont need to sit separately from my children, and I never have, its not a problem is it.

Except Brian in cases like Air France Flight 296 that was linked on the other thread - sometimes the momentum carries you past the people you are trying to reach.

I like the analogy about people being given a discount not to sit together rather than paying a premium to sit together. If the Airlines worded it like that there wouldn't be so much foot stamping about it.

You'll be barging people out of the way, thereby hindering their evacuation of a burning plane, right after you've left them dealing with the drinks/dropped toys/incessant chatting that has come from your child?

Nice.

According to the guidelines, you could in theory, be seated on a different row, five seats away. That's still classed as being seated with your family.

Surely "peedo" wise a child is safer sitting with strangers than with someone they know as most people are molested by people they know?

As for an emergency situation I am sure a parent would be forcibly prevented from returning to their child and they would have to place their hope in the person with them - the same as any other vulnerable person travelling alone.