thinking I should have been seated next to my three-year-old on this flight?

[nappyrat]

Cheap (orange) airline. Normally v good when travelling with kids - speedy boarding, say they'll sit you with kid/s etc.

Flew out recently & they said a 'technical error' had mistakenly sat me in a different row(!!) to my 3 year old. They fixed it on board (after much grumbling by several passengers about not moving from seats they've paid extra to book to sit together (fair enough!)). But fixed, fairly stress free.

Return flight today, I was sat across the aisle from DS. Their handling agent told me that this is considered 'sat together'?! Erm...really?! Anyway, handling agent refused to seat us together. Cue quite a bit of 'discussing' with them why this was not on IMO. No budging. Decided to leave it & ask the flight crew when we boarded. Who eventually sorted it - v kind older couple agreed to move seats.

Before I let loose with said orange airline's customer services, AIBU to think that sorting across the aisle from a 3 yr old is not appropriate?! DS was wailing, I had to bend across aisle to comfort, there were good chunks of time during boarding when I couldn't see DS because ppl stood in between us in aisle. Just bloody stressful quite frankly. And not what I'd expect from this - or to be bloody honest - any - airline.

Opinions please mumsnet!

Zoe I am no more "pointlessly hyperbolic" than the person who excitedly points out that their 3 year old will vomit copiously and throw food. The fact that a parent is too tight to pay for a seat does not place whatever poor sod who happens to be sat next to their kid in loco parentis.

If it's a big deal for you, just pay for the bloody seat. If not, take what you're given. But dont expect others to accommodate your choice if it turns out to be wrong!

Re the comments about anger and aggression, grateful someone more objective than me (as OP) pointed this out...was beginning to think this was normal.
I'm happy to take whatever crap ppl want to throw here within reason, but wow are a lot of ppl angry on here!!
Have a & chill out!!

Re the comments about my apparent contradiction. I do not fly that often with my child, and on the few occasions I have done since they were born, seating has not been an issue at all - sat right next to him. Not pre-booked.

I assumed (naively, apparently!) that it was such madness to expect a 3 yr old to fend for themselves on a plane that it we not be an issue. It did not even CROSS MY MIND that a parent we not be seated next to their 3 yr old!

Some of the posts suggest ppl here have forgotten what a 3 yr old is like (likes lots cuddles, needs reassurance, doesn't tend to just entertain themselves for long periods)!
So I assumed it would be no different this time.

I don't think you are being unreasonable
And once again people on AIBU are being unkind

The op read this
f you’re travelling with children it’s important that they are clearly identified when you make a booking so they can be seated with you. Simply add the number of children and infants and their ages when prompted
So she didn't pay the extra to be seated together.
She doesn't think that "across the aisle" is seated together, which is debatable. For the purposes of parenting a child its not very convenient, which is annoying for the parent and possibly other people on board.

dolly, yep you've pretty much summed it up!

dolly I don't see what's unkind about suggesting that if someone wants a guaranteed seat absolutely next to their child they should pay to book it.

I live sooty - nothing unkind about putting it like that, but have a read about the way ppl have put that across! And the tone. Angry!

I think it is basic safety (and in the comfort for ALL passengers) for small children to be seated adjacent to a parent (not across an aisle/behind or in front).

At a basic level, a parent can supervise that seat belts are buckled correctly at takeoff and landing, make sure child is not being annoying/kicking etc, help them with entertainment etc. If the trolley comes down the aisle, parents can be responsible to make sure the child doesn't reach in or do anything unsafe etc, which they can't do from across the aisle, row behind etc.

More importantly, if there was an actual emergency, parent may not be able to reach the oxygen mask for their child from their seat... and presumably seat belts should be kept fastened. Also, if people were panicking and evacuating the flight, parent might be required to go against flow of people to reach their child, or not be able to get to them at all.

I think the airline needs to be more transparent - either it guarantees seats next to small children, or it requires you to pay the extra to do so (parents must pay X amount to be seated next to small children for safety reasons). That way, all nominated seat requests are equal and paid for.

But offering it as a free service and then not delivering is the problem. OP didn't find it acceptable to be across the aisle, and presumably if told this at booking would have decided not to travel or pay the extra.

TheDowagerCuntess
"I can't imagine there's a single traveller who wants to sit next to a random 3/5YO and supervise them through meals and sleeps and loo stops."

What makes you think that the traveller will supervise your children on a flight?

Yes. That's my exact point, Boney.

No-one would want to.

"If it's a big deal for you, just pay for the bloody seat. If not, take what you're given."

Actually it should be a big deal to everybody on the plane. If a 3yo is sat 5 rows behind its parent, do you think that parent will care one tiny bit about stepping on your head (or your child's head), and delaying an entire plane's evacuation, as they make a panicked scramble to get to their child in the event of an emergency? It astounds me that anybody questions the basic need to seat a toddler next to a parent, any more than they'd question the need for seatbelts. I just can't compute it.

This is mumsnet. You will always get flamed for this. The same as if you complain that you couldn't use a p and c parking space or get your buggy on a bus.
For a parenting site it is surprisingly unsupportive of parents

Led - agree, Just so odd....!! I wonder how many ppl here are actually parents given the anger towards others with children.

Even if I disagree with someone on here there is a basic element of respect towards them as a fellow parent...oh, or human being for that matter.

I wouldn't tell someone they're being "f-ing c@@nty" in real life so why would I do it here?!

Some ppl need basic manners, let alone anything else!

But in this instance the child was next to a parent i.e. across the aisle, so the issue did not arise.

The problem is the difference between your definition of 'next to' and the CAA's.

Airlines work to the CAA definition. If you're happy with the CAA definition then don't book seats, you might get lucky at check in and be seated literally next to each other or you might not. You'll be no further away than the CAA definition.

If you want to guarantee being sat side-by-side, you need to book specific seats, usually a paid extra on the budget airlines or included in the price on the premium airlines.

Well put Purple

I've been thinking about that lekdr. I wonder about the political leanings of the people on both sides of this argument. I am wondering if the 'pay or youre an entitled sponger' contingent are more likely to be right wing. It seems to expose a fundamental faultline in thinking about collective vs individual responsibility for safety. The ire of the antis seems to be reserved for parents, whereas in my left wing utopia I'd aim it at the airlines who have monetised a basic safety necessity.

That goes both ways though nappy and it's really unfair expecting non parents to pay to sit where they wish to be seated only to be usurped by parents.

We regularly fly with jet2 for package hols and virgin Atlantic for long haul. Not sure about jet 2 but virgin do say they will seat families together, BUT I prefer to pay to ensure that happens, rather than put it into others hands. With virgin it costs £25 per person each way! So that adds £150 to our flight costs but it's worth it for me to know we are guaranteed to be together with no fuss.

I understand you are supposed to pay to sit together but surely 3 is too young? What if I pay for a seat and I get stuck next to an unattended 3 year old?

TheDowagerCuntess

Apologies I realise that my reply wasn't very clear. (very poorly written on my part)

Its more that some parents seem to have an expectation that whomever ends up seated next to the child will automatically take on the role on parent/nanny/au pair, whether they want to or not.

Its the 'you won't move so will look after my child' posts.

What a terrific fuss about nothing. The width of the isle on a short haul jet is is what? 40cm? Maybe 50cm at a push . You were sat less than half a metre away from your child with them in full view and would have been able to reach them without leaning out of your seat.

Is your child sat within 40cm of you at all times at home op?

I'm had someone in your position on a flight I was on once.

They did not prebook their seats, I had. They then expected me to move so they could sit next to their child and the child could get the window seat.

I am an extremely nervous flyer and always pay extra to ensure that I can get a window seat at the closest to the front as possible beside my travelling partners. This is something that is essential to me when I fly.

I refused to move and the mother and child were sat across the aisle to each other. Child was maybe 7ish. I had to have the entire fight with the person who didn't boo making bitchy comments about me to her child (who was absolutely fine and couldn't have cared less. Sat the entire flight entertaining themselves).

I think it is extremely unfair that I was asked to move when I paid for my seat as it is something that I need. If I had not prebooked and it was open seating/allocated on arrival then that may be different. If you need to sit next to someone or am certain position on the plane then you should book.

ilovesooty- so you think the tone of all those people shouting at the OP- to PAY FOR YOUR SEAT- has been kind?
She explained why she didn't pay for the seat, posters ignored that.

Mm yeah - she made a mistake and I get that, but it was still her mistake. At least on the way back.