Airlines forced to seat children with parents

[ibeentothetop]

Thanks Burnham, now it’ll be more expensive for child free people like me to pick a seat. I can’t believe that things like this even need to be legislated for.

If you travel outside school holidays you have all the toddlers. I think it's probably better to travel in the holidays (although families of school-aged kids can obviously have toddlers too ;) )

“I always wonder about people who refuse to move seats in order to let a parent sit with a child”

That rather depends on where you are being expected to move - if I have paid for an aisle seat, I certainly wouldn’t move to an non-aisle seat to accommodate anyone.

And at that time, flights were a lot more expensive because all of that came included. The budget airlines came along and marketed themselves as much cheaper, because all of those things were an optional extra, and not everyone actually wanted them, so wouldn't it be nice if you could pay half the price for your flight and only pay the same full price if you actually want all the extras.

The problem now is that people seem to have forgotten about that, and are now angry at having to pay 'extra' seperately - even though they're still paying the same overall total as they always would have done for the a flight that just came with all the extras (with inflation/price increases obviously).

I fly ryanair a lot and you have to pay to sit with your child, you can't book the ticket without paying for the seats, but they do give a discount.

The second your child turns 12 you don't get that discount anymore and they don't make you book seats together. However its such short flight its not really a big deal, usually we board one of the last and sit in empty seats.

Aer lingus will seat you together usually.

If businesses act in a stupid way, they need to be regulated

or... customers can stop using the businesses that act in a stupid/unhelpful/nasty manner...

But reality is in the nineties if not before in the airline world passengers almost couldn't get away from the carriers that held onto the traditional fare model quickly enough.

Child/adult seating aside I'll stand by something I mentioned upthread, it's hypocritical to clamour for deregulation and then scream at the law makers to "do something" when deregulated businesses start reacting to market forces.

Yes, she has had a free ride.

Parents/carers sitting next to charges in the event of an emergency is necessary for everyone's safety. That includes OPs. It is an essential. She should not have been able to opt out of it thus far, any more than she should've been able to opt out of her equal share of any other safety costs that all passengers need and benefit from. It was a free ride, and it's an unequivocally good thing that she will now have to pay her equal share.

Fwiw I don't have to pay for seat allocation as one of the party we travel with has additional needs, so it's actually moot to me.

At least you can’t smoke on planes now.

I always wonder about parents who refuse to book seats in advance to make sure they will be seated with their children.

I personally think it is utterly astonishing that airplane companies have ever been allowed to separate parents and children. It is the safety aspect for me - if the plane came down and people had to go to the emergency access, you would have children and parents desperately moving against the flow of people (understandably), causing delays and no doubt additional physical harm during the evacuation process. I think of that plane in Japan a couple of years back that went up in flames, yet no-one was hurt because everyone promptly and safely followed the evacuation process - it was deemed a miracle and down to Japanese culture. Imagine that happens here, and Tommy is sitting diagonally behind his mum, cannot work his seatbelt and people are pushing past in the opposite direction ...

Exactly. This thread doesn’t reflect the actual move in consumer demand.

I'd honestly be quite happy if we moved back to a full-service only model of air travel and everyone flew an awful lot less.

Air travel is extremely expensive to run. It's a high-end luxury. It's shocking for the environment at the levels we run it at.

With a full service model people would pay the true cost of their flights and be able to pick seats, choose their food in advance, get a blanket and a pillow, and so on.

Of course, the prices would go through the roof, but I'm sure people wouldn't bitch and whine en masse because they can't afford to go to Torremolinos three times a year. Right?

I wouldn't bracket things like blankets and food alongside something with the safety implications of seat location.

Imagine you go to a website to book your tickets and it must show you available seats for you to choose, every sold tickets comes with a seat, no exceptions.
How would airlines overbook! Wouldn't you be pissed off if you hold some shares of an airline?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/take-off-for-passengers-as-government-scraps-extra-charges-when-flying

I think tackling everyday rip-offs is a laudable aim for government. We need to create a culture where companies can't get away with it or don't even try it in the first place.

It all depends on what you offer for the swap — if it’s a window or aisle seat, that is fine. If it’s a middle-seat — jog on.

It's ridiculous that government is getting involved with private businesses delivering non essential services.

1. People actually pay for their seat and then they are asked to swap.
2. Not being able to visit if your circumstances don't allow is part of living far away from 'aged relatives'. I assume you or your relatives chose so. There are lots of people who for whatever reason can't afford visit even dying relatives.

Saying that I would most likely swap because I don't want sit next to other's children. I would probably say something, quietly, calmly and only after take-off) what would make you never, ever getting on a flight without booked tickets.

They may be annoyed that their specially selected paid extra for window or aisle seat has been grabbed by someone who could have booked it but chose not to, and forced into a cramped middle seat in a less desirable area of the plane. I bet they don’t get their money back either.

They can justify the seating policy decision as being based on the safety case (AFAIK up until now all the UK had was CAA guidlines).

Anything else not so much.

In any event at the airlines the possible loss of revenue will be calculated and adjustments made to the price of base fares and/or charges for other purchases.

No airline is going to just going to sit back and absorb any loss these changes might cause, especially with where fuel prices are ATM.

Agree. The intervention is justified for safety reasons, this isn't a silly nanny state situation, and airlines will just pass on the costs across the whole customer base.

Airlines should have never been allowed to separate booking from allocating seats in the first place. I don’t have kids and I find it annoying. Of course people who book together should sit together, especially families.

They shouldn't be allowed to book unless booking seats - if with children they need to sit with. If they couldn't afford it, tough shit. Oh well, here we are the UK no responsibility no money no job - you'll fit right in, the tax payer and people who can pay, will cover you.

Almost certainly not. A flight attendant once asked me to move to allow other people to sit together and I asked if I would be reimbursed for the seat I had chosen (and
specifically paid for) — answer came there none. They walked off to try to get someone else to move.

What on earth would you say?

And presumably you'd have to come back over to say it, having already swapped seats?

I'm aware of this, thank you, and like you would assume that base price of all seats would be increased to compensate.
The OP said it would be more expensive for them to "pick a seat". I was asking them why they felt sure that this would be a consequence.