to not want to pay £100 to guarantee that our kids can sit next to us on the plane

[mumsnit]

DH wants us to pay £25 each to guarantee that we can all get seats together when we go on holiday next month. Aibu to think it's a ridiculous cost to pay out

But I have heard that one airline refused to seat a family together as they hadn't paid the premium and tried to seat a 3 year old alone on the other side of the plane from the parents. We don't go on holiday very often - especially abroad and I'm already nervous about flying so don't want this added to the stress of travelling.

WWYD/WDYD - do you pay the extra cost?

The right thing to do, to be fair, is pay

I despair. The right thing to do as an independent adult when faced with the prospect of a child being separated from their parent (who hasn't paid as much as you ) for whatever reason is to look out for others more vulnerable than you.
Go on, inconvenience yourself for a few hours.

It's nothing to do with being 'joined at the hip' I actually like my do and enjoy getting excited about our holiday together. I also have serious anxiety about enclosed spaces and have tried to bolt from my seat when they seal that door and lock us all in. I need DP to calm me and am not paying to then move just cos someone think the fruit of their loins entitles them to effectively take something I bought from me. You have kids, you look after them not anyone else.

I really don't think it should be about people who've paid for priority seats giving them up to other people's children . Airlines should have to sit a minor that isn't old enough to travel alone ie under 8 or so, next to a member of their party without having to pay extra for it as if it's a perk not an essential.

To me, that's like me turning up at a theme park and demanding that I go in free because the DC won't be safe without me.

You wouldn't, would you? You'd accept you all need to pay.

For me allocated seating is just part of the cost and I would refuse to move as I'm organised and paid for the privilege.

Completely agree camomile

I used to work for BA. Incidentally, still fly with them regularly and we've always been able to preallocate seats when we've bought flights. Never had a problem and never had to pay extra to sit with the baby and the toddler. We would have moved heaven and earth to sit children with their parents back before I went on maternity leave - to the extent that we'd upgrade people from Economy to World Traveller Plus so they had a bassinet seat.

Re the ascertion made earlier that parents book separate cabins for themselves and their children. Yes, I've seen this ruse many times. Every single parent was invited to downgrade and sit in Economy with their children, or could have paid for business class seats for their children (no First for under 12s). The cabin crew can't and won't just look after unaccompanied children, or children in separate cabins from their parents. It just doesn't happen. Children who fly minus their parents can be looked after by the unaccompanied minors service, but at a fee.

There is so much misinformation on this thread. I'd agree that most decent airlines do their utmost to follow the CAA guidelines re seating. Yes, they're guidelines, but I don't know if I'd want to fly with someone who didn't take the CAA seriously, to be honest! As with most things in life, you get what you pay for. Use a decent carrier and they won't charge you for sitting with your children.

Finally, my top tip is to add the baby to DH's name rather than mine when booking - so they are always together, meaning if we were to be separated, I'd get just the toddler rather than both of them and DH being seated separately.

If you know that not paying to choose your seats means you might not get to sit with your children/together as a family, and you deliberately make the choice not to pay to book seats together, then I don't think you can blame other passengers, who have chosen to pay, if you don't get the seats you want.

People know that's the risk they are taking if they don't pay to choose their seats - but if you choose to take that risk, you have to be prepared to accept that you might not get the seats you want. Why are the other passengers responsible for mitigating the effects for you of the risk you chose to take?

Really, Ruperta I don't think you have the temperament for flying.

I'm not saying people who have paid more shouldn't be annoyed or have a grumble at being asked to move to accommodate a parent and child who hadn't caldezonia. Or that parents shouldn't consider the implications of not paying extra when they book.
Am just gobsmacked at the number of people who stated that they would refuse point blank to move or that they wouldn't try to console someone else's child. 'I've paid more than them so I'm not moving.' Nice folk. Wasn't the values I was brought up with and not values I've instilled in my children.

Talk about looking after no. 1

fluffy if you read my posts properly you'll see that I'm referring to independent, capable adults offering to move. Clearly if you're making a bolt for the door then you're neither of those while flying.

I think that your shock and surprise would be more appropriately aimed at the parents who refuse to pay to sit with their child than the passengers who refuse to move.

I think your probably right midnite

Even independent capable adults may prefer to sit with their partners hence why they pay to do so. I see nothing wrong with that, even if didn't want to run off plane I'd still want to be with dp as I like being with him....he might pay to get away from my babbling though

The point is that someone travelling alone might decide they absolutely have to sit in a certain seat and once they've paid for it it's theirs.

You wouldn't buy something in a shop and then be pressured to give it to a child would you? Or would you?

MintChoc - why is it OK for someone to have to give up something they have paid extra to have, to accommodate someone who made the deliberate choice not to pay for that thing? Who is going to reimburse these people for the money they paid to book the seats? I bet it won't be easy to get that money back from the airline!

mintchoc
Say you had paid £30 quid or similar for something then it was taken away from you and you didn't get your money back. However the item you paid for was given to someone else who hadn't paid for it but feels like they should have it anyway would you be happy?

Same with seats. People pay for theirs for a reason.

Perhaps we should all just give £30 to families with preschool children.

My DD is 14 months. Anyone fancy giving me £30? No?

I've got a more expensive car than my neighbour. Should I give it to them because they have more children than me? My house is bigger too for that matter. Perhaps we should swap?

No, you have a child. Only people without children should have to sacrifice things they have paid for. Because otherwise the child will scream and it will be YOUR fault!

Midnite - I have got more children than my neighbour (she has one, I have three) - perhaps I should give her one of mine! How tempting!

backinthebox owns the thread, in my opinion. They are providing a product. If they do not meet your needs, go elsewhere. They do not owe you anything.

No no no SDTG! Children given as gifts are returned full of red lollies and with a free puppy.

I get that people pay extra for specific seats ( I don't necessarily understand it or Speedy boarding for that matter - but maybe that's just me)

I get that people want to sit with their travelling companion (it's not a deal breaker for me but again maybe just me)

I'm not saying I agree with people deliberately not paying to be seated with their children and relying on the goodwill of others on board. I was genuinely caught out with this and was lucky to get in quickly when online check in opened. I will factor this in next time.

What I am saying is that I'm stunned that people would steadfastly refuse to move for the well being and security of a young child if that situation occurs ( no matter who's in the wrong), as I would do it without a second thought (even if I was secretly grumbling about it) because it would be the right thing to do in the situation. I would have presumed most others would too (before I read this thread).

It's not right to expect people to pay more but give up what they paid for because you don't do the same and rely on other peoples goodwill.