AIBU to expect to sit next to my child on a 10 hour flight

[soimpressed]

This year I have booked my first ever package holiday. I booked with what I thought was a good company and the holiday cost a lot of money. I was told I could check in 7 days before the flight and tried to do so but the system wouldn't let me check in. I tried several times with no success. It took 3 emails before the company finally sorted the problem out. When I finally got to check in online I found that I wasn't sitting next to my child. Everyone else has obviously been able to check in and there are no seats left together. My only option is to pay £150 each seat to upgrade. My DS is in tears about having to sit next to strangers. The company are refusing point blank to help. AIBU or do I just need to shell out the £300?

But the point is, ProudAS the situation shouldn't occur. You should be able to book your seat when you book for no extra, like on a train. Or have it allocated on check-in. Or check-in online for free. It's not rocket science to organise it without anyone feeling put out.

ProudAS, if you are going to take the time to CnP my post, do it in the right order. You cannot rearrange the words in someone's post to make them say something different.

What I actually said was:

"ProudAS, please don't use my argument on one topic and pick it apart for not holding water on another, completely unrelated topic.

That's just odd.

Young children on their own are vulnerable. Whether they are quiet, loud, chatty, quiet, have SEN or not. They are vulnerable.

I cannot contemplate thinking that a scared and crying five, six, or nine year old should suck it up because their parents would not or could not pay extra money.

ALL passengers should complain to the airlines about this policy."

What I said was odd was that you had extrapolated my views on airline seating policy to those covering wheelchairs on buses. I have expressed no views on that topic at all.

Cote, you haven't paid for a seat "next to your child". You've paid for "A" seat.

Look at the T&Cs next time you book a holiday - all the airline has to do is take you to the place you've booked to go to. They don't even have to fly you all the way there - they could fly you to another airport and bus you the rest

As long as they get you there on the day you paid for (so no compensation for being up to 23 hours late) then they have done what they are contracted to do.

Allocated seating is an optional extra - It shouldn't be - but is IS. The airlines have found a way to make more money and they won't give that up in a hurry.

"There was a thread on here about a passenger with severe anxiety who carefully chose and pre-booked a specific seat where she would feel as calm as possible. She then got booted out of for a woman who hadn't pre-booked and 'needed to sit with her children'. I find it disgusting that a vulnerable person could be treated like this and was shocked that some MNers sided with the mother. Children may be vulnerable but treating another vulnerable person like this in order to accommodate them is not the answer."

Nowhere have I suggested that it is

The answer is for airlines to be responsible for allocating seats, ensuring that all vulnerable children and adults are sat with a carer.

I guess we use different airlines.

As I said before, I have never had this problem. Most of the time, I just check-in and reserve the seat I want for free 24 hours before the flight. When flying with EasyJet, we were either given seats together or it was arranged by the stewardess on the plane.

Nobody told us to go sit somewhere away from the DC. If they did, that would be the last time they had our business.

I'm amazed that some people seem to think this is ok, when airlines themselves know that it is not.

Sorry, Cote but if you buy two plane tickets, you are buying two seats somewhere on that plane - not two specific seats. You have only bought two specific seats if you have paid extra to pre-book specific seats, or unless the ticket price specifically includes pre-bookable seating and you have taken advantage of that, and chosen specific seats.

I have to say that I think airlines could and should do more. If I book online, I have to put in the ages of any children travelling with me - and it is not beyond the wit of mortal man to design software that will allocate each child on that booking a seat next to an adult - and to ensure that 'next to' means a seat in the same row, not separated by the aisle.

And I agree with the people who believe that airlines aren't doing this because they think people will pay extra to ensure they do sit with their children, and that this is a nasty policy on their behalf.

But I also know that, whether I like it or not, if I choose to fly, I have a choice - I can either pay extra to pick my seat, or I can pay for a pricier ticket that allows me to go into online check in and select my seat, or I can take a chance that I won't get a seat that fits my particular requirements or likes and dislikes - so I choose to play within the rules, and pay the extra. That is my choice.

But if someone else chooses not to pay the extra, and would rather take the risk of sitting apart from their child, why is it then my responsibility to rescue them from the negative consequences of their choice?

I'm amazed that airlines leave themselves open to potential legal challenges in this way.

They cannot ensure that children are not sitting next to a dangerous adult, and should the worse, albeit unlikely, inappropriate behaviour happen, I'd be interested to know where they stand legally if they have seated the child next to that adult.

Cote,

I remember a few of these threads (probably because of my fear of flying I always end up on them). I remember the one ProudAS refers to, I saw some people kick off myself on a previous holiday as well. I remember a thread entitled something like "To thank Thomas Cook for confirming the Seated Together rules" where someone was kicked off a flight.

Maybe it's more a 'package holiday' thing than a 'budget airline' thing. I would think that package holidays are more a families with kids thing, rather than singlies or couples - certainly before DD I wouldn't use FC/Thomson/TC etc.

(Although the where flight I ended up in London instead of Manchester was BA or B Mids IIRC)

The analogy would be having to pay extra for a seat with a seatbelt! If something is a safety essential, you should NOT have to pay extra for it. I won't pay extra to ensure I stay next to my child just like I won't pay extra to fly on a flight with a qualified pilot rather than a trainee. Some things come under the heading of essential elements of a service, and sitting small children next to their parents on a flight is most definitely one of them.

cote and tehers, Katnip, so nice to see some people talking sense on here - as I keep repeating, it is perfectly possible to charge for people to choose their seats (or let your loyalty customers have first crack) whilst making sure that ANY vulnerable people on the plane (children, elderly, disclosed ill or disabled) are sat with their carers. the booking software, if its good enough, takes care of it.

and the people saying kids are a lifestyle choice, punish them by scaring the crap out of them and distressing them if their parents can't or won't pay - jeez, this place never ceases to amaze ....

and by the way, the budget airlines that do this are sailing very close to the wind with regards the CAA, Juliet you should contact them.

LtEve - I don't have any experience of package holidays, you may be right.

In all these years of flying I have done, I have never seen any child sitting anywhere but next to his parents.

Which agree with us:

conversation.which.co.uk/transport-travel/family-flight-holiday-charged-extra-to-sit-with-children/

As do the CAA

www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2207&pageid=12706

due to safety concerns in the event of an emergency evacuation. So anyone that is happy to see young children dotted about a plane away from their parents so that the parents did not get away with being "entitled" and they aren't paying a couple of quid more for parent's "lifestyle choices" should probably give that some consideration. Your evacuation route could quite possibly be blocked by hysterical parents trying to reach their kids.

Same concerns raised here:

www.reducedmobility.eu/20120601164/Blog/families-seated-together-which-uk-airline-is-most-helpful.html

I think SDTG has it about right. Airlines are using this as a money making exercise and of course it's always much better for all if children and parents are seated together. However I'd agree with her that if parents won't prebook for whatever reason sorting out a solution is the responsibility of the airline, not the responsibility of the other passengers.

What Thomson have to say on the matter: www.thomson.co.uk/editorial/extras/select-your-seat.html
They only have to make an 'effort' to seat parents and children together, and seated together includes across an aisle or in front/behind.

I'm surprised OP didn't phone Thomson about the website issues, the number seems to be on every page.

I'm also surprised at Juliettes experience - whenever we have paid for allocated seating you get a map like this www.seatguru.com/airlines/Thomson_Airways/Thomson_Airways_Boeing_737-800.php and click on the seats you want, so it would have been pretty obvious that they were separated by an aisle and that the seats were staggered. They must have changed her booking, surely?

It's really not on to wait until you are on the aircraft and hope that 'some random' moves. If I had booked a particular seat, be it the window or the aisle, I wouldn't appreciate being guilt tripped into moving because you didn't organise your seats prior to boarding.

The kind of entitled attitude that some of the posters on this thread have is pretty galling, "just wait til you’re on the plane and someone will move, no one wants to sit next to a random kid". Why should 'someone' move? They may be perfectly comfortable and happy with their seat and whoever they are sat next to.

Ah, there we go, entitled - it's not about the parents it's about the children!

And as people have persistently tried to point out - no one thinks its other passengers responsibility to sort it out - it's the airline's responsibility! i.e configure the booking software to automatically seat children with parents and don't treat them as another cash cow, blackmailing them into paying for optional extras which aren't really extra.

The only option for those that can see how ridiculous this is, vote with your feet - don't use Thomson, Thomas Cook etc. We'd see a remarkable change in policy, I am quite sure.

But it doesn't matter how many times you say it is the airline's responsibility to sort it out, Forago - when push comes to shove, it still ends up with someone having to move - and to my mind, that means you've made it that person's responsibility, when you decided not to pay to prebook your seats.

Forago, sweetheart, lots of parents upthread have used the word entitled.... Poogate just forgot herself for a moment.

You are perfectly right, vote with your feet.

You, and others, are also perfectly right. Parents are absolutely entitled to have their kids sat next to them - not dotted around the plane etc. And they currently have the means with which to do so.... pay for a specific seat, like the rest of us do!

People, with or without kids ARE CASH COWS. Optional extras are how the airlines keep the low ticket prices to lure in the credulous. We, the consumers, are to blame, we keep on wanting stuff cheap, cheap cheap.

Real life wake up call: stuff costs and it doesn't matter if you are a parent or a single white female.... you get what you pay for. Tis the way of the world, consumerism rules.

yes you're quite right, I meant there we go again, I have been on this thread since it began so have seen the minority of posters trotting out the old MN entitled special.

We flew with TC long haul last summer (utterly grim & never to be repeated). My DSs are older, they were 15 & 16 & I refused to pay extra as they're perfectly capable of sitting alone.
I was surprised when we checked in that we'd all been put in the same row as was told it's company policy.
I felt cross for all the parents that had forked out to book seats.

I just read me back, forago. I was going to apologise for the 'sweetheart', as I know it often causes massive offense as it is read as being patronising, said in 'that' voice. But you either hadn't noticed it or understood I didn't mean it that way. I just wrote as I speak and forgot to proof read myself to be MN safe !

yes I understood, don't worry, it just sounded conversational.

I still don't agree that people should just accept paying to sit with their children though - it is only "the way" because we let it be.

But you're right, I used to work for an airline and it does not cost £19 to fly to Europe.

Ignore snarky people on here, write to the CEO of the company, explain website problems at their end prevented you from organising things properly for yourself and leave it in their hands. I bet they will be able to resolve it.

I think it is the bemoaning and refusing to accept the way it is that is irritating.

Now if someone had said lets all boycott, write a letter, start a petition, start a pressure group, get Which/Martin Lewis etc on the case I would have been in like Flynn.

But that would have been for everyone, not just one section of the community. Wonder if any of that could work.....?