that airlines charge you extra to sit together!?!?

[Dollygirl2008]

I mean, after a totally shitty year, I have scraped the money together to take my DC away for a weeks holiday to Menorca- possible the last foreign holiday we will have for a long time. And now, the sodding, well reputable tour operator want more money for us to sit together!?!? I mean, do pepper early do this!? Are they really going to split us up (DC is 7)??

Interested in others views or experience, thanks

But airlines aren't greedy. Their margins are tight. Their prices are less than 20 years ago. They have enabled people to take advantage of air travel when years ago they just couldn't afford it. I don't see what's dishonest about it at all.

What's dishonest is advertising tickets at a falsely low price that may result in dangerous seating arrangements, with very small children separated from parents. This should not be possible or legal.

I'm not against airlines selling some premium seats eg those with extra legroom. Or charging to put a bag in the hold. Or to get on the plane first. Those are optional services, you can fly safely without them.

But airlines should not charge for services (like seating very young children with a responsible adult) that are necessary in order to ensure the safety of all passengers. I don't have young kids, but if the worst happens to a flight I am on, and a parent delays an evacuation in order to reach his/her terrified 4 year old, then it affects my safety too.

You can't even get through the booking process of EasyJet without deliberately turning down choosing your seat for £3 and tick a box saying "No, I don't want to choose a seat" or words to that effect. I don't understand what is dishonest about that. It couldn't be clearer.

All companies advertise "From £24.99 one way" or whatever. No different to any other business. However, when you come to book your flight it very carefully takes you through every single process where you choose or turn down options. Extra Legroom, speedy boarding, insurance, luggage etc. You have to make a choice on all of this.

And why should parents with children have a free pass to the seats they want but the cases I quoted in my previous post don't?

Mistigri, I think many airlines define 'sitting together' to include across the aisle/one row behind. So the safety concern you outlined goes away - you are still close enough to your child, but not sitting next to them.

Are you happy with this? If so you probably don't need to book seats. If not, then it's down to your personal preference, for which you might want to pay if you want it guaranteed.

Surely airlines should be required to offer a safe service and that means safe for small children too? To be safe, small children require a responsible adult to be sat with them. If an airline chose to do this by providing a nanny rather than parents having to sit next to them then I am sure most parents would be delighted. It doesn't matter what the parents think/want/feel entitled to/pay for, the airline also has an obligation to the children directly.

Families are not their target market, though. Business travellers are.

Roussette is spot on.

"You can't even get through the booking process of EasyJet without deliberately turning down choosing your seat for £3 and tick a box saying "No, I don't want to choose a seat" or words to that effect. I don't understand what is dishonest about that. It couldn't be clearer."

As to Blaeberry, if your small child needs a responsible adult near it, it's on you to purchase the necessary accommodations, not on the airline to molly-coddle you. The notion that somehow now the airline needs to step in where the parent fails is just absurd and beyond entitled.

Basic fares are just that - the bare minimum that will get an individual on an aircraft. It has been well-known for years now that consumers must tailor their personal selections to their needs, whether that is extra legroom, wifi, a meal, luggage in the hold or other services. If you need adjoining seats to keep your kid safe, plan on buying that service.

No airline on the planet is going to tailor its array of services to entice families aboard. Get real! Given their special needs, mess-making and low budgets they are probably the least profitable clientele there is for air carriers.

'the airline also has an obligation to the children directly.'

No, they don't. You do. As a parent it is your obligation to keep your child safe on whatever mode of transport you chose to use - be it a car, a train, boat, what have you.

Their obligation is to get all passengers to the destination.

'What's dishonest is advertising tickets at a falsely low price that may result in dangerous seating arrangements, with very small children separated from parents. This should not be possible or legal. '

And they don't! Their advertising is entirely legal. The low price is printed as a figure and then or and * next to it. Fine print in the ad then tells you that add-on services may apply and usually gives T&C or directs people to their website or other form of contact if you have questions.

When you buy the ticket online, you agree to all the T&C. You have to in order to complete the purchase.

If you don't read the fine print, that's your lookout.

I have children, too, if any fucker tries to obstruct my getting off the plane for their own idiocy or acting ghetto, I can promise you, I'll punch their lights out step over them.

Your safety and that of your children on any form of transport is YOUR responsibility, as is the safety of your valuables, etc.

Do you feel annoyed that your ticket price includes a contribution to the cost of a wheelchair lift for those who need it? Or that your taxes go towards paying for schools? There are members of society who are more vulnerable and need protection and it is sad when this is not recognised

But blaeberry we're talking about flying for a holiday. Not accessibility for those wit mobility difficulties, or schools for educating children. A holiday - Not an essential part of life. Neither the flying nor the holiday, frankly. People need to cut their coat according to their cloth.

Spot on expat. You can't absolve your parental duties and pass them on to the airline when you have the option to be responsible for your children by making sure they are safe and next to you (if needs be) on an aeroplane.

The wheelchair lift comparison is ridiculous as is the school taxes one. There is a societal benefit to educating children. There is no societal benefit to forcing some passengers to unfairly subsidize others inside the same aircraft. Each should pay the same for the same set of services.

No one is charged for walking down the jetway onto the plane and equally convenient access should be available for those with mobility issues. That has zero whatsoever to do with the airfare for an individual.

It doesn't matter if the child is flying for a holiday or to address the United Nations General Assembly or to donate a kidney, either. The family still should have to pay the same fares and costs as any other passengers. Claiming special privileges because you are young and childed is obnoxious.

Perhaps today's young parents don't realize that not so long ago it was nearly unheard of for young families, except the very rich or perhaps military/corporate families moving overseas, to travel by air. Traveling by air for leisure or for visiting far-flung relatives was the exception, not the rule. Because of the cost

And part of the problem is that a lot of these new travellers don't know how to behave on a flight.

Anyway, I am going to test the RyanAir waters - I was thinking of this thread today as I made some bookings for a work trip to Scandinavia in the summer. RyanAir flights without all the added extras were extraordinarily cheap and at times that I wanted. So I went the whole hog and bought their "Business" ticket - looking at the difference between the two gives you some idea of how the business model for pricing works.

The flight itself with no added extras was £17 each way (obscenely cheap). But to add hold baggage, and choose an allocated seat, was £30 and £6 respectively. The "business" seat (well, I'm under no illusions it's actual Business Class) was £44 each way. So about the same as the basic + extras.

I have a window seat at the front of the plane: last on, first off - perfect. And I do not intend to move from it.

Take me back to the days when you got a boiled sweet, flew in a 707 and had a blue passport

Oh yes, we flew long haul like that a lot when I was a child. They gave you sweeties at take-off and landing. And they gave you an aircraft shoulder bag with puzzles & things, and a magazine for a children's flying Club! I belonged to the BOAC club I think. . Do you remember those bags? I had a BOAC one, and a Qantas one, and a Pan-Am one.

London to Tokyo stopped in Abu Dhabi, Bombay and sometimes again in Hon Kong or Bangkok

Try London to Sydney - 36 hours or so the first time I did it as a child. Refuelling in: Athens, New Delhi, somewhere in SE Asia, Darwin, and then Sydney.

It's the airline's duty to ensure that seating arrangements on their planes are safe. And they do know that it's unsafe and inappropriate for children to travel unsupervised - in fact most budget airlines won't even carry young teenagers travelling alone, let alone small children.

Actually, even if you have paid for seat allocation, the pilot or his representative (ie the cabin crew) can insist that you move if there are safety or medical or other good reasons for this. If you refuse you can be removed from the plane.

Getting passengers to move used to be much less problematic, back in the days when you didn't to choose a seat but it was allocated by the airline. People minded moving less when they hadn't paid extra to choose where they sit.

Note that I have no issue with airlines charging for some seats eg the ones with extra legroom or near the front.

I think many airlines define 'sitting together' to include across the aisle/one row behind. So the safety concern you outlined goes away - you are still close enough to your child, but not sitting next to them.

If it's safe, then I would have absolutely no issue with it. Across the aisle is fine. A row behind or in front - depends on the child's age. I was on a flight recently where a child of maybe 2 or 3 had a complete meltdown due to severe ear pain - his poor mum was barely able to keep him in his seat for the landing. If she'd been sat in the seat behind, unable to restrain him, it would plainly have been dangerous for the child.

There does seem to be this curious mentality on mumsnet, not just about this but in other areas of life too, that you should follow a rule because there is one, and if you don't then you're being grabby/entitled etc. No-one seems to think they're being grabby/entitled by insisting that they stay in THEIR SEAT that THEY HAVE PAID FOR (err, so has everyone else on the flight paid for their seat) and it doesn't matter two hoots that all the seats are the same BECAUSE IT'S MY SEAT and there is a rule about it and you should do as you're told regardless of common sense etc. I blame too much reading of Enid Blyton.

The thing is that half the time they don't even know the rules - which, on a plane, are that the pilot is the boss (and that he can delegate his authority to the cabin crew) and that ultimately they can make you change seat if they need to. They'd rather ask nicely (because they want you to book with them next time) but they can make you move if they have to.

I was once on a flight where six disgruntled Parisiens got booted out of their seats because the airline had accidentally allowed them to sit in the area equipped for medical transport, which was needed for my seriously injured son. They got the choice of changing seats or changing flights.

expat why do you think airlines only have a responsibility keep passengers safe once they reach a certain age? In taxis the taxi driver certainly has a legal responsibility to ensure all children are wearing seat belts - not the child's parents.

Aside from the fact you would send a two year old flying if they were to obstruct your exit, an unrestrained two year old (they undo or climb out of seat belts) thrown around a plane during turbulence or in landing could do both themselves and others considerable harm.

speedy boarding

What is the point of this, now you have allocated seats, whether ones you've paid for or ones they did for you? You'll get priority boarding if you need assistance of have children under 5 anyway.

Actually, cruickshank - everyone on the plane has paid for a seat, but only some people have paid extra to choose a particular seat - that's the difference. If I have paid to select my seat, and you haven't but, for whatever reason, you think you need/deserve my seat, who is being entitled - me for saying I want the particular seat I have paid to choose, ofpr you who want to choose the seat without paying to do so and without compensating me?

Would you go into a restaurant, deliberately choose a main course that doesn't come with potatoes and veg, and then insist I was being entitled if I had chosen to pay for potatoes and veg, and refused to share them with you?

Your safety and that of your children on any form of transport is YOUR responsibility

Not true. For example, the driver of a car is legally responsible for ensuring the safety of passengers under 14, I believe, not the parent.

I don't know the legality of it, but I would think the captain/crew are ultimately responsible for the safety of their passengers.

I don't get the problem. You book together. You sit together. This is how it was for decades. It was impossible to not sit together for Christ's sake!

People choosing their own seats makes it more difficult to fit.

The point is you get what you pay for. The entitled ones on this thread think that just because they say "It should be free!" that they can ignore the present-day reality and economics of being an airline passenger. Their opinion doesn't count for a bag of peanuts.

The fact is that choosing one's seat most often is NOT free and trying to scam yourself a freebie at the expense of others is despicable, whether you are reaching to someone else's table at a restaurant to grab a goodie you've been eyeing, or whether you try to bully your way into a more desirable seat on an aircraft. You're an entitled mooch either way.