...to NOT pay extra to book pre-assigned plane seats with Monarch

[parakeet]

We are family of four, with our two children, six and eight. It's a 3.5 hour flight each way and we need at least one parent with each child (or one parent with the both of them would also be fine). It would cost us £64 to book assigned seating for all four of us, each way and it seems a bit much. Am I being mad (or selfish somehow) to think "they can't let the children sit by themselves" and let Monarch sort it out somehow once we've boarded, if we have difficulties getting each child with a parent?

I've seen threads on here where people are criticised for not booking their seats beforehand. But to me it seems like this is a problem of the airline's making when they could easily assign seats at check-in, like in the "olden days".

If you booked and paid for the seats, MrsF, why on Earth did you not call the attendant to get someone sat in them out?

All these people saying it's a rip-off, it's a discount, low-budget airline. What did you expect?

I do wonder why some presume to ask others to give up their seats and if they dont want to to ask why. Why on earth would anyone want to start discussing their reasons in front of a plane load of passengers.

All these people saying they were sobbing and upset at not being able to sit next to their children - its not the end of the world and acutally if that's important to you then pay for a pre booked seat. Dont expect others to move because you are too mean and entitled to fund it.

would probably make me point out that the child would be the last person wearing an oxygen mask if it came down to it

you're lovely aren't you.

I've found most carriers seem to offer allocated seating now at no extra cost as it causes much less hassle for them. Easyjet's system is really good - those travelling with under fives get priority. It's simple. It works.

I hate this underhand means of generating even more money from customers and families in particular. Airlines exploit exactly what you are worried about - parents fearing they will be split up from their kids. Last year when flying to US with BA, we were due to be stung an extra £250 or so for pre-booking 4 of us each way - didn't pay it and all ended up together without other people having to move (I do agree it's unfair to expect people who have paid to move seats).
Coming back from Barcelona last month (again with BA), we didn't pre-book and when we went to check in online had 2 emergency exit seats and 2 other random seats allocated to us. They knew we had 2 x 8 year olds so why give us emergency seats which a) the kids can't sit in and b)someone else willing to pay would presumably have loved them for the extra leg-room. (I was quite tempted to take one of the emergency seats and let the other 3 fend for themselves!)

If everyone refused to pay, they'd have to abandon the whole practice (never going to happen of course)

you're lovely aren't you

Yes I am. Unlike the person using passive aggression, sneering and grief to cover for the fact that they were too tight to pay for pre-booked seats to ensure the safety of their own precious children.

I'd be ensuring that my own child had oxygen, before a strangers child - wouldn't everyone?

Passive aggressive comments, sneers or handing of sick bags would probably make me point out that the child would be the last person wearing an oxygen mask if it came down to it

Hahahahahaha. I have enjoyed your comments on this thread LtEveDallas.

would probably make me point out that the child would be the last person wearing an oxygen mask if it came down to it

I think this is probably the most passive-aggressive comment on the entire thread actually

and you would never say it in RL

Ubik would you seriously help another person's child before your own if they were both struggling for air?

I'd be ensuring that my own child had oxygen, before a strangers child - wouldn't everyone?

Yep and anyone claiming anything different is lying.

I'd also imagine that a parent would help their own child before helping themselves. An adult alone in the plane would probably help themselves before helping a child - natural instinct, innit?

I think this is probably the most passive-aggressive comment on the entire thread actually

Absolutely, and it was supposed to be . If a fellow passenger used PA on me, I'd take great delight in using it back. I wouldn't if they didn't. People shouldn't dish out what they cannot take back.

Still like the idea that you actually opt out of pre booking a seat and get a small refund when booking. That way when its queried their is no arguement.

There would be no way I would move (or DH) for someone who hadnt paid to allocate their seats. We always do because DH is 6 foot 5 and needs the legroom and I suffer with anxiety and can get very nervous on flights (I had a really bad experience when I was younger), but being with DH calms me, I find it reassuring and I can travel a lot more calmly. Which, when we travel with 3 year old ds is what I need.

"I'd also imagine that a parent would help their own child before helping themselves" - just to note, in case of oxygen masks, you should always first help yourself, even over your own child. You will be no use to your child if you both pass out.

Hazle Yes I know you're meant to do that but I wonder if in reality, a parent would help their child first because of instinct and not rationality. That said, hopefully none of us will ever have to find out!

Obviously everyone would help their own child first over someone else's if it came down to it, but saying that to someone is just weird. It's not even passive aggressive. It's just aggressive!

But what would you do if someone nearby said "tell you what, I'd much prefer your oxygen mask to my allocated one, can I have yours?"

I don't know a huge amount about budget airline finances but it looks like they run on pretty narrow profit margins, the cost of allocated seating probably isn't a rip-off charge but a way of using a feature that only some people would want to balance the ticket costs.

If the true cost was (as an example) £100 then having around 50% of people paying £105 and getting a choice of seats and 50% getting a discount ticket of £95 but no seat choice balances out the cost while letting everyone gain either the seat or the discount.

Obviously it is more complicated than this but I am sure there is some kind of algorithm with this kind of idea in it.

I'm sorry OddBoots but that kind of post is exactly what this thread doesn't need. How can posters go on and on and on about the sheer unfairness of it all and how can thread warfare be encouraged if thinking gets in the way?

It still amazes me this causes so much grief, but in fairness working in the wider aviation world & travelling I can see both sides (I think ...)

Firstly, there's no legal right to any specific seat. Your contract with the airline is to get you from A to B in line with a whole host of regulations, but seating policy is just that - policy, guidelines. The reference earlier is to CAA policy - and whilst much of it is sensibly followed by many airlines, it is not legislation. Airlines know that the CAA policy makes sense, from a safety perspective and from keeping good order on-board. But it stands to reason it won't always be possible to accommodate everyone with every combination of requirements (especially given the legal requirements which do exist, e.g. In respect of passengers with reduced mobility). The other thing to bear in mind is that many of the airlines (esp holiday flights / charter airlines) will be governed by other authorities (I.e. Not the UK CAA, or at least may have mixed oversight) so may well be governed or guided by other policies.
On the other hand, failure to obey a lawful command by the crew of an aircraft is an offence ......

Secondly, it's a service you choose. Various options are always available - admittedly at various costs. So, price the whole trip based on the options you want or need - you either think that's a fair price and you book it, or you don't. If sitting somewhere specific and / or with (or conversely, without!) someone else is important to you - go with an airline who offers that service; if it's really, really important to you, you might consider paying for it. If you don't think it's worth paying for, either separately or as part of a higher-but-all-inclusive fare, that's fine too ..... But it won't always work to your advantage.

I'm sorry OddBoots but that kind of post is exactly what this thread doesn't need. How can posters go on and on and on about the sheer unfairness of it all and how can thread warfare be encouraged if thinking gets in the way?

Indeed ...... I suspect my point might be too rational for the "unfair" argument too, sorry

I'm not getting all these people moaning about paying for seart preference.

I agree with what other posters are saying, the public wanted cheaper flights, we've got them. You an keep your costs down by being happy to sit anywhere. Sure they make money out of you if you choose or need to sit together but they are a business, not doing you a favour you know!

I couldn't careless if I sit with my kids and DH or not, well I prefer not to tbh and always choose to sit an aisle or so away from them!

I should know better than to stifle impassioned debate, sorry. :)

If I was sat next to a child on a flight I would get my oxygen mask on first and then make sure they had theirs as a priority. I would hope that anyone sitting next to my child would do the same. I am quite shocked anyone would use something as serious as this as some sort of riposte to a parent asking to swap seats. But then I am often shocked at the unpleasant things people on here say. As Ubik1 said though, I doubt anyone would say it in reality because of what it would actually sound like out loud.

Well put Drquin. I think there are people in life who really do want something for nothing.

Airlines are not a charity and are not only for families. In fact they make little profit from Economy passengers. Yet - we want the cheap prices but dont feel inclined to pay for something which some on this thread are saying is REALLY important to them. In fact so important that they dont have any issues demanding that someone who has paid for a seat leaves to allow them to have it for FREE!

I have no idea why - I think its the something for nothing brigade out again.

I was badly delayed last year coming back from Italy. The airline were struggling with the number of people who were demanding that they be flown back on any airline for all sorts of reasons.

They were pushing past an elderly couple from Oz who were extremely worried about missing their connection back to Sydney. I had to literally push my way through all sorts of people screaming and shouting at the airline staff that they were MORE important than everyone else to try and get their case heard.

If you dont want to pay for something then it cannot be that important to you....