Pre booked flight seats for 2 & 3 y/o's?

[doghelp123]

Not really AIBU, posting for traffic. Apologies for long post.

We are due to go on holiday in 7 weeks time and we have not paid for pre booked seats, the reason i have not paid is because our DCs are 2 & 3 y/o and the travel agent has advised its a £25 fee per seat, so looking at £100 all in for me, DH and DC's to be together - we have saved a long time to get this holiday and if I'm being honest it seems like a very large amount to be shelling out for seats. Me and DH are not fussed about being seated together obviously, but we would need the DCs to be next to either one of us so we did ask the travel agent if me and DH booked our two seats for the £50 would kids be guaranteed to be next to us but we were told me would need to pay the £25 for each of them as well, I then called jet 2 and they have advised that they would not split young children up from parents even if we had not paid for the seats but I have now been seeing things online stating that the DCs wouldn't necessarily be in the same row as either of us, but they could be put in the row in front or behind.

Can anyone who has flew before with Jet2 advise us? I would really rather not be paying the £100 for seats as IMO it is to much and it seems silly to be paying the money for kids that age if the airlines aren't actually allowed to split us?

So any frequent jet2 flyers, it would be much appreciated if anyone in similar circumstances could advise

So if you are a CF who thinks paying for seats is a rip off but expects people who have paid to move to accommodate you, what happens when your child is hungry? Do you think the prices are a rip off so you'll get someone who has paid for a meal to donate it to your child? Didn't think so but it's the same logic.

Don’t be daft. It’s not a tax on small children it a cost that people who don’t mind where they sit and can opt out of.

Yes, exactly - so it is a tax on having small children, because parents can’t opt out of sitting next to their children (especially, as seen here, there are plenty of arseholes who’d have no concern about an adjacent child having no oxygen in an emergency!).

I could choose whether to pay extra to sit with my husband but I couldn’t choose whether to pay to sit next to my children who are disabled and toddlers.

M4J4 I think you have some comprehension/logic issues.

Someone else may want to or need to sit next to the person they PAID to sit next to.
If you want to sit next to someone, and that’s an optional luxury you can pay for, great.

If you NEED to sit next to someone (e.g. you are disabled and need to be seated next to your carer for assistance, or you have a two year old who cannot be sat separately because it would be unsafe) that’s a necessity, not an optional extra / luxury.

You can’t just stick a two year old in a random seat away from their parents during a flight, for their own sake and the sake of other passengers. Not having clear guidelines means some parents will assume booking a seat is a necessity, others will assume they don’t need to book them as it won’t occur to them that the airline would separate them.

Then you need to pay for them to sit next you. This is not other passengers' problem.
No, it’s not other passenger’s problem, I never said it was. It’s the airline’s problem as they need to safely accommodate all of their passengers and you cannot safely separate parents from very young children, disabled people from their carers and so on.

*If anything it’s a £100 penalty for having reproduced if you pay their ridiculous fee because those who haven’t reproduced can choose to sit together or save the cash.

WTF?! How can you be so ridiculously entitled? Pay your way like everyone else!*

Someone stated that this is like having a tax on being childless. I pointed out that it’s quite the opposite, more like a tax on having children because parents under this system would have to book seats, and those without children / additional needs could choose not to. That’s not entitled, it’s a fact.
And I’m not entitled in the least - I’ve never even taken my twins on a plane mainly because of the type of arsehole filling this thread with crap

*It should be mandatory that kids under a certain age get a seat immediately adjacent to their parent. Or at the very least, if you book a specific seat as an adult, you should get to reserve the adjacent seat for a child for free.

No, pay your way. Don't expect other people to sub you.*

Who am I expecting to sub? I’m saying that if you are a wheelchair user who needs to sit next to your carer, it shouldn’t cost you money to reserve the seat next to you for your carer. If you are flying with a two year old, it’s essential that the child sits next to you, so at the least you should only have to pay for one reservation and the seat next to you should be included, since it’s essential.

This is really not that controversial.

Well quite. When my mum flew she had to have someone push her through the airport in a wheelchair, and then have a lift thingy that took her up to plane level. This must have cost easyJet a fair bit extra but she wasn’t charged extra for it. We live in a society that (usually) tries to protect the more vulnerable. This includes small children as well as the elderly and disabled. I’m not up for throwing any of them under the bus.

Flew easyjet yesterday. Pre-booked a set of three seats (flying with two young children, but not preschool age). One of the last people onto the plane as younger DD was half asleep and I can't carry her for long now. Despite the plane still boarding (and full!) people had decided to move around so they could sit together (adults... Less than 10kids on the plane). Our seats had people in who weren't happy about moving but When I booked the flight 3 weeks ago there were only a few sets of 3 seats left.

That was only some of the crazy behaviour I observed at the airport.

Sorry kid, your mum didn’t it couldn’t book a seat next to you, so I won’t be helping you with your oxygen mask

That's not what's being said though. It's more a "don't expect me to engage with your child. I'm not going to chat to them. Pacify them. Sing songs to them. Respond when they ask me inane questions about Fireman Sam. Acknowledge their presence in any way whatsoever unless there's a life threatening emergency going on."

I don't think that's unreasonable, to be honest. My kids are older. We usually choose not to pay extra to reserve seats as they are happy wherever we seat. As there are 5 of us, we are usually split 3 and 2, but last flight home we were split 2, 2 and 1 person a few rows away.

After hearing some of the totally selfish and entitled attitudes from some tightwads on here who demand to be seated right next to their precious pickles but who won't shell out to guarantee it, i'll be buggered if i I move from a seat for them. Ever.

Tunnockswafer provided your mum flew in the EU it did not cost easyJet anything. Assistance is provided by the airport.

The number of people drawing comparisons between disabled people and children is astounding. As is mentioned on the frequent parking threads that come up, having children is a choice, being disabled is not.

You choosing to take your children on holiday is your issue and you should have to pay the costs that come with that rather than seemingly expecting everyone else to accommodate your needs because you decided to have children and then take them on a plane.

Pay your way like everyone else

Fine then, if my child is in distress and you won’t move, prepare to be sat on.

Prepare to be told to fuck off. The world does not revolve around you and your child. Why should someone move from a seat they have paid for because you think you are so damn special for having a child.

Fine then, if my child is in distress and you won’t move, prepare to be sat on 🤣🤣
As if!!
God these threads are so predictable.
We should hzve played MN bingo at the start as the same comments come up everytime!!
It always goes bat shit bonkers!!

because you decided to have children and then take them on a plane
🙄

Not everyone who has children decided to have children, for a start, but this is just the bog standard argument of the child-hating lot. Not everyone chooses to take their children on a plane either - sometimes it’s their only option so that they can travel something crucial.

Regardless, I have no issue conflating a child’s needs, being someone who is a) disabled and b) has two children who are also disabled. Because my two are disabled, they’d absolutely need to be next to a parent, but other children of a similar age would also need to be sat next to a parent, not only for their safety but because young children will need assistance and supervision throughout the flight. This is why the comparison is being made. Both groups (some disabled people and pre-school children) need to be sat next to their carer / parent.

But then if this is your attitude, I suppose parents of disabled children don’t deserve any assistance because they chose to have children, and should have anticipated the possibility of having a disabled child? For those who end up disabled after doing something stupid, do they not deserve help because they decided to break the speed limit or go skydiving?

Every single person on that plane is choosing to take themselves on a plane, probably on holiday but possibly for work, family reasons, health reasons etc. I’m not sure what point you think you’re making there.

And again, I should point out that I’ve never taken my children on a plane, and would pay to reserve seats if I had to. However, I maintain that reserving a seat next to you is not an “optional extra” if you’re travelling with a very young or disabled child - if that’s the only way to ensure that your child is sitting next to you then it’s an unavoidable additional cost that others can choose to avoid.

As for this:
After hearing some of the totally selfish and entitled attitudes from some tightwads on here who demand to be seated right next to their precious pickles

Yikes.

How unreasonable of parents to want to be sitting next to their toddler (especially given the venom being spewed by the totally selfish and entitled people who believe children have no right to be on their plane, let alone in an adjacent seat). They must be being overly precious 🙄

Very privileged perspective of everyone assuming all children on flights are taking a swanky holiday. Seeing family, yes it’s a choice but it’s also human to want to see family, moving internationally. As someone who lived internationally , at least 50% of my flights when a small child were to do one of these.

I just think it’s utter bollocks that a child under 10 or 12 travelling solo needs to be carefully handed over to flight staff and have an allocated airline staff to look after them on the plane but if I’m travelling with my child they can according to the guidelines sit me in seat 34A and them two aisles away in 34G and if they actually do this they deserve to have their asses sued off.
What I take from this thread is dont travel jet2 though given I’ve never paid for seats and never had issues with a lot of flights with various airlines. Obviously I check in at a sensible time, but have always found airline staff friendly and helpful regarding travel with children.

Burgerhill you have it arse about face. It’s not the parents who have rights it’s the child. Like disability, being a child makes you have the right to protections related to your vulnerability.

I bet some of the posters on here are also of the ilk who purposely park in parent and child spaces at the supermarket when they have no kids with them because 'they are just a courtesy you know, and loads of people managed without them, and just because you chose to have children doesn't mean you are entitled to these spaces' etc etc.

Woah this thread moved on. I don't understand the venom from people point blank refusing to pay for seats, and expecting people who have paid for seats (me for example) to move for them. If I've prebooked a seat because I want to sit there, will you pay me for move because you didn't want to pay? Or just expect me to swallow the £25 or however much it is because you didn't want to pay it? The entitlement never ceases to amaze me. It's a part of the holiday cost now. Fair or not.

Prepare to be told to fuck off. The world does not revolve around you and your child

House!

Even before I had kids, people who came out with this kind of shite were always far more insufferable than parents.

The post you quoted was talking about what would happen if their child was sat next to someone who refused to help put the child’s o2 mask on if the parent couldn’t reach. It seems reasonable for a parent to think it’s quite important for their child to be able to breathe.

Not everyone who has children decided to have children

Oh, please! No one forces a woman to go through with a pregnancy and then keep the baby. Some men may not have wanted to have a child but those men can also elect to pay maintenance for the child and have nothing to do with it, NO ONE is forced to take small children on a plane and I say that as someone with 3 of them myself, 1 of whom has ASD.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

They don’t? There are no women who find themselves pregnant and can’t choose to terminate?

Are you really that naive?

And what about women who don’t find out they’re pregnant until late pregnancy?

And no one is forced to take small children on a plane? Balls. A friend of mine just had to fly to Australia with her two children because her last surviving parent passed away, and she had to go and deal with their estate. One child was EBF and she couldn’t leave the child at home for weeks, even if she had someone to leave them with.

Where has anyone said that children have no right to be on a plane??? I've followed the thread and not seen that.

As for this...
Not everyone who has children decided to have children, for a start, but this is just the bog standard argument of the child-hating lot. Not everyone chooses to take their children on a plane either - sometimes it’s their only option so that they can travel something crucial

How can you assume - on a parenting website - that those on this thread who think a person should pay for seating to ensure they get what they want, are child hating?

My DCs are adults. We used to pay far far more in airfares and included in those airfares were elements we did not want, but had to pay for. It's now stripped down to cheap and you decide what you want and what you don't. By the way, even though it's just me and DH travelling, I still pay for our seats because I want to sit in a particular area of the plane. There are other reasons apart from children, for paying.

This is just a ridiculous bun fight now where no one is saying anything remotely relevant anymore!!
My phone wont show me, but are we nearly at a 1000 posts so this silliness can end?

Oh, and I don't moan about paying for our seats either. It's part of the airfare AFAIC.

They don’t? There are no women who find themselves pregnant and can’t choose to terminate?

Are you really that naive?

No, a realist. And no, no one has to fly with small children unless they've been hijacked.

But hang on, if I have specifically booked AND PAID FOR an aisle seat next to the toilet because I suffer from IBS and panic attacks, why should I be expected to move for someone who has out of choice not paid for a specific seat or to sit together?

I pay extra for a seat for myself every time I fly as I have a disability.

Why should I move for a cheeky fuck who hasn’t paid?