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

When people say "guaranteed seats", do they mean "specific seats" (eg row 8) or "a group of seats that are near to each other anywhere on the plane"? There is a big difference. It seems to me to be not unreasonable to expect people on the same booking to be near to each other, given that this can almost always be accommodated. It is clearly unreasonable for everyone to expect to be in an exit row seat with extra legroom or near the front so you can get off 15 minutes before the people at the back (and substitute the 15 minute wait on the plane for people to get off with a 15 minute wait on the bus for people to get on.

There seems to be a consensus that providing proximate seating where this is possible is the decent thing to do given that there is no actual cost in doing so. That people feel entitled to having their fares subsided by other people needing to pay extra just for a company to do the decent thing is depressing, but inevitable in the shitty world we live in today.

If I holiday as a single traveller I've already paid a single supplement, often fot the privilege of sleeping in a tiny room which costs nearly as much as a much more spacious room for two people. I don't, therefore, have much sympathy for people being asked to pay a supplement to ensure that they sit next to their children. If they didn't have to pay a supplement the airline would get their money in other ways, probably by increasing the base fare, and that would mean all childless people would have to subsidise those with families. That hardly seems fair to me.

Unlike a very young child who is not going to be able to negotiate for the things they need,

No, they have parents whose job it is to negotiate the things they need for them. That includes the need to be say next to a carer on an airplane.

Being a parent is a normal part of life where you have to make normal adjustments for a while.

and that would mean all childless people would have to subsidise those with families. That hardly seems fair to me.

Parents pay vastly more for travel during key periods anyway, purely because its the school holidays. But you would also like them to pay more, and subsidise your travel, (because thats what it is) even though it costs nothing to seat vulnerable people near their carers, and even though it flies in the face of CAA safety guidance, because then that means you get to pay less. Righty ho

Parents pay vastly more for travel during key periods anyway, purely because its the school holidays. But you would also like them to pay more, and subsidise your travel, (because thats what it is) even though it costs nothing to seat vulnerable people near their carers, and even though it flies in the face of CAA safety guidance, because then that means you get to pay less. Righty ho

I travelled as an adult during school holidays due to my work. Parents of toddlers can travel outside peak periods and quite a few parents take term time holidays. Whether or not it costs airlines to seat children next to parents, if they cease to make a charge for that the base fares will rise for everyone. The guidelines (which are not law) don't specify a child sitting directly next to a parent, I believe.

I'm not after "paying less". I don't see why I should pay more to subsidise families when I pay a single supplement already. I don't think it's unreasonable for parents to pay for guaranteed seats next to children on budget airlines.

I find your attitude insulting
Well I'm sorry you feel that way Primrose, but there it is.

If you require two rooms in the hotel, you have to pay for two rooms.
If you require two seats on the plane, then you should pay for two seats.
Simples.

Airlines are choosing to jepordise safety and play on peoples fear by issuing this charge. If it wasn't that it would be something else that maybe wouldn't make you so happy. It just suits you at this moment in time. And, I don't believe you pay a single supplement on a flight anyway, do you! And you are being subsidised by the people that buy in to this, obviously. Although its a moot point anyway for me, because I don't pay extra and I do sit with my children. Because the airline staff don't want to take responsibility for my children, which they will be doing if they sit them miles away, next to someone like you

Once again not everyone flying on the same Ryanair or EasyJet flight are paying a cheap 50 quid ticket. So how are you getting what you pay for. You might be paying 50 quid but the person sitting next to you might be paying hundreds more. If they are paying more, do their righs and wants trump yours? Budget airlines doesn't necessarily mean cheap fares.

I never said I paid a single supplement for the flight but I do for the holiday as a whole. I'm also not able to take advantage of subsidised / special offer deals as someone travelling alone.

I'm glad you manage to sit next to your children without paying extra: it's therefore a non issue for you.

I think you make assumptions about "what suits me at this moment in time" - I don't have the option of doing things any differently in trms of being disadvantaged as a single traveller. I am, however, delighted to discover that airline staff would have to take responsibility for any child I ended up next to.

I don't quite understand what else it might be that "would not make me so happy" but I don't see how the airlines are "jeopardising safety" by levying a supplement on a discounted fare. If parents choose not to pay it and end up separated from their children that is a choice they make.

I have paid extra for the seat I wanted on my next flight. I would move to accommodate a disabled person and their carer who were separated but not to allow a parent and child to sit together because the parent thought they should be accommodated for free.

It is really quite simple. Airlines keep the prices low and you pay for extras. If you really want to be together then pay to book, if it doesn't matter you can save money. You may not like it but the solution is there. You don't say with other things 'I want it - but I want it free of charge'.

I can give a Thomas Cook example of where we paid to sit together but the plane was switched to a different model and the seating arrangement went out the window. We ended up split up across the plane and a 3 year old sitting next to strangers the first time they flew. This was despite paying for group sitting and not being the only group to suffer. No amount of discussion with the crew or ground staff could resolve this.

Read the small print as we couldn't get our money back due to "unforeseen circumstance"

The safety issue comes into it ilovesooty because if something goes wrong, parents will be barging up the plane to get to their child, jepordising the safety of others and impeding a possible safe evacuation from the plane. Everything the CAA wants to avoid. Hence the guidelines of children being sat near their parents in the first place. Safer for everyone.

We got a free drink when this happened to us, slalomsuki.

The only time we flew without pre booked seats my 3 yo was given a seat apart from me.

I kindly handed the stranger next to her a sick bag, baby wipes and her comfort blanket and said he'd definitely be needing them.

He immediately offered to swap seats with me for some reason....

I have swapped with someone before so they could have a child with them. I really don't understand why that would be so difficult for others to do and it's surprising that more adults don't do it.

Because it is in the airlines interests to create this dog eat dog situation with the passengers bickering amongst themselves rather than directing it at the airlines.

The only time i have had a problem travelling with 3 DCs and DH. We had seat allocations that could not be changed as there was an infant in the party, they had put me in an aisle seat with DC3 on my lap, with DS (6) and DD1 (4) in the window and centre seats, whilst DH was much to his delight sat two rows away on his own. It was with Iberia, I called their customer services and had a really good chat with the agent, I asked her to move DS to sit with DH so I only had to manage the girls, she also volunteered to put DH (and now DS) across the aisle as it would make toilet trips etc. easier for me.

I asked if she could put all the kids with DH (as he thought it was funny that I had been given them all ) but apparently as I was the lead party I had to keep DD2.

On a subsequent flight I managed to have just DD2 whilst DH had to deal with the other 2!

We fly regularly but usually use scheduled airlines (Ryanair will never get another penny from me as a result of their usual client service), as we travel in school holidays I find there is usually very little difference in the overall cost between BA/Iberia/Easyjet. I don't mind connecting flights if it means we get closer to our destination, or I can fly from a closer airport , or if the price makes it worthwhile.

Charlie If I'd paid for a particular seat, I'd hand them straight back to you, suggesting you pass them on to a flight attendant.

I expect you would have had a great time with the child crying in your ear and vomiting over you then iloveashandy. . We all make our choices I guess.

I kindly handed the stranger next to her a sick bag, baby wipes and her comfort blanket and said he'd definitely be needing them.

Why would you just politely ask them if they would mind swapping seats with you instead of the cuntish, patronising, exchange you claim you had?

Earphones are a godsend! .

Like the PP, I often travel alone and pay a single person supplement in hotels. I accept it as a part of the cost of the holiday. I am tall, with long legs so I pay a premium for specific seats. Like parents should if they want to sit with their children. I won't swap seats with someone who hasn't bothered to pay. Really don't see why I should.

I'm sure earphones are the absolute best barrier against vomit for sure.

Never ever seen anyone throw up on a flight in many many years of flying. Sure it happens but not in my personal experience. I'll keep on taking the 'risk'.

I kindly handed the stranger next to her a sick bag, baby wipes and her comfort blanket and said he'd definitely be needing them.

and I would have said - it is your child - if you want to sit next to them, then you can pay me my £22 booking fee and I will swap - otherwise, you can hand your sick bag et al to the flight attendant. If you choose in this instance not to reimburse me and your child is sick on me, you will be billed for dry cleaning.

If someone explained the problem politely and asked me if I could change then I expect that I would. If they were to hand me baby wipes etc I would just bury my head in a book and tell them to give them to the flight attendant. I said earlier those who are polite and friendly get much further.

I have to say that if I had paid to choose my seat and was being asked to swap because someone else hadn't bothered, I would only do it if my booking fee was refunded.