Seating small children - Ryanair

[25F]

Mrs 25F took the smalls (aged 4 & 5) off to see the in-laws a few weeks back.

Ryanair, as we probably all know, do not prioritise boarding for families with small children, despite it being in everyone's best interests that they can get on first and get a row near the back and near the toilets - and allow subsequent boarders the option of avoiding them, if possible.

On this trip, Mrs 25F ended up in an aisle seat (D), with the kids across the aisle (B & C). I am amazed that the occupant of seat A did not offer to swap; but I am also amazed that the crew did not arrange it such that the 25Fs had a row, so that Mrs 25F could sit between the two smalls.

Surely, for safety reasons, the adult should be allowed, or encouraged, or enforced, to sit between the two small children, so as to make sure that seatbelts are fastened, etc.?

[oncemorealoft]

Just read this in a blurry eyed, early morning state but wasn't really surprised by what I saw as "selling small children - Ryanair"!

[Wannabe Flyer]

Did Mrs 25F ask occupant or crew to swap?

Mind reading not really a speciality of most people.

[ExXB]

I'd guess the the inconsiderate lout wanted a window seat, not an aisle. Must have been a PPRuNer or an Airliners(dot)net nut.

No, I don't think it's the crew's responsibility to ask passengers to give up their chosen seat. With Cryanair you 'pays your money, and you take your chances'.

[25F]

No, I don't expect the cabin crew, particularly on Ryanair, to help make people comfortable, even if it would be in everybody's interests to have the accompanying adult sit between the two children and so be able to deal with any squabbles, spillages or tantrums.

But surely from a *safety* point of view, and god knows we get reminded often enough on pprune that the cabin crew's primary job is safety, if you've got a child who is not necessarily old enough to be able to follow cabin crew instruction, they should have an accompanying adult sat next to them?

[PAXboy]

25F Sorry you had to learn the hard way on your first RYR trip but this is not the thread you are looking for ... :p

This is: http://www.pprune.org/airlines-airports-routes/496656-ryanair-9-a-44.html :ok:

[DaveReidUK]

On this trip, Mrs 25F ended up in an aisle seat (D), with the kids across the aisle (B & C). I am amazed that the occupant of seat A did not offer to swap; but I am also amazed that the crew did not arrange it such that the 25Fs had a row, so that Mrs 25F could sit between the two smalls.

If it's not a silly question, why then didn't Mrs 25F swap with the child in the aisle seat (C), then at least she would have been between the two children, albeit still with the aisle separating her from one of them ?

[25F]

@DaveReidUK - I haven't got a clue why she didn't sit between them in the way you suggest.

@PAXboy - no wish to wade through 45 pages, I just want clarification on what I think is a safety matter - which does not appear to be airline specific.

[Torque Tonight]

If the Mrs felt she should have priority boarding, then why did she not buy priority boarding tickets at the gate? Bit of a take it or leave it deal with Ryanair. If you don't choose to buy it, you don't get it, even if you feel you deserve it.

[PAXboy]

Sorry 25F I didn't expect you to read through - but that thread is populated with those who know all (good and bad!) about FR. :)

[Hartington]

Many years ago I worked for a subsidiary of BA. That meant we were alowed to use their "Staff Travel" facilities. One year we decide to go to San Francisco standby (there were other options available to us but they were more expensive).

We got on the first flight we went for (which was, in itself, a bit of a miracle). There were 4 of us; 2 adults and 2 children aged about 8 and 10. My mother in law was also on the flight.

The seats we had been allocated were spread all over the plane. We were standing in line debating who was going to sit where when a "normal" passenger offered to swap for the seat upstairs (wasn't Club in those days).

As it happened one of our seats was behind my mother in law so younger son went in that seat. The rest of us just took our seats as allocated. We were lucky that our older boy was always pretty sensible and you could plug him into a book and he'd be happy for hours.

OK, so Staff Travel isn't the same as being a real passenger but sometimes you have to deal with stuff and make do.

[Union Jack]

I haven't got a clue why she didn't sit between them in the way you suggest.

Perhaps you should have asked her, possibly even before you posted ....:)

[Mr A Tis]

With RYR it is pretty simple. If you want something, you pay for it. Priority boarding would have resolved the matter - you just have to buy it.
If you don't buy it, it is assumed you don't care & accept whatever. It's your choice really- that is how Ryanair works.

[Hotel Tango]

I agree that young children should be seated next to their parent(s) in the interest of SAFETY. Nevertleless I also agree that if you choose to fly an airline which offers little for it's passengers without extra charges than you either accept that option or you travel with another more customer friendly airline. If (like me btw) you don't like their product don't fly with them!

[oldbalboy]

CAA which doesn't apply to RYR is min of aisle or 1 row between parent and small child, really surprise 25A didn't offer to swap!

[25F]

@Torque Tonight - other airlines allow small children (and their parents) on first. Not so that we can nab the best seats - but so that we can get the worst ones, at the back, near the toilets. And we'll be the last off the aircraft. In addition if we get seated first it allows any child-phobic passengers the best chance of not having to sit near us. Really, it's in everyone's interests - and even with RYR I've found other passengers are quite happy to let you jump up the queue a bit. And finally, if we are last on it *will* inconvenience other people because small children *must* have an accompanying adult sat next to them, and if seats are not available somebody *will* have to move. It's a safety issue.

@Hartington - different deal. At that age kids can be relied upon to follow cabin crew instruction, adjust the seat belt themselves etc. It's a safety issue.

@Union Jack - it's not really relevant. However she arranged things she'd be an aisle away from one of the kids and therefore not in a position to adjust the seat belt. It's a safety issue.

@Mr A Tis - it's a safety issue.

[lapp]

Wife and I took almost full flight from Mallorca couple of weeks ago.

We were last to board and while getting on I noticed the crew had used tape to prevent pax from sitting in the first 3 or 4 rows. There were no seats to stay together so I walked down to find one for myself while my wife tried to accomodate herself closer to the taped rows.

Just as seating was completed, one kind steward removed the tape from the fron rows, evidently to acommodate divided groups. My wife called over and we sat together for short duration of the fligth.

Well done Ryanair.

[Hotel Tango]

Well done Ryanair

No! Well done the CC, or more likely the head of cabin services who took the initiative.

[lapp]

No! Well done the CC, or more likely the head of cabin services who took the initiative.


Sure. But I don't think they can do like that without the company approving (or even directing to), so ....

[25F]

@lapp - it's to do with balancing the aircraft.
http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/331892-ryanair-empty-front-seats.html
RYR are not going to "acommodate divided groups" without charging for it!

@Hotel Tango - I personally avoid Ryanair when possible, and if I must then I accept the consequences. And if we are all four of us travelling then this may well involve not all being able to sit as a single group.

@oldbalboy - thanks for the hint, I found the relevant CAA page here:
Seating Allocation | On Board the Aircraft | Passengers (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2207&pageid=12706)

[lapp]

@lapp - it's to do with balancing the aircraft.
http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...ont-seats.html
RYR are not going to "acommodate divided groups" without charging for it!


I see your point, but in our case,
1 - as mentioned, flight was almost full. Not below the counts mentioned inthread linked above.

2 - Rows were freed to seat on before taxing out, and we did.

[25F]

In the thread I linked to somebody (tu_ki) said "Less than 177 pax block off rows 3 and 4". From other posts on pprune, tu_ki appears to be cabin crew.

According to seatguru.com, Ryanair's 738s accomodate 189. So that's only 23 empty seats before you have to do the row-blocking. That's going to feel like a full plane, particularly if 12 of those empty seats are in the blocked rows. at least 19 of the remaining 30 rows will be completely full.

It's also quite possible that once they'd shut the doors they realised that they had exceeded the magic number - I don't think the airline knows if someone (who has booked in online with no luggage) has turned up until they present themselves at the gate.

(Rows are numbered 1-33; there is no row 13 and row 1 only has 3 seats).

[Torque Tonight]

If you feel it's a safety issue as opposed to a convenience issue then write to the Irish Aviation Authority with your concerns. I suspect they have already decided that it's the latter not the former. Children may not sit in emergency exit rows but elsewhere there are no such restrictions.

Your Mrs had the option to buy priority boarding or pay to reserve certain seats. If she choose to do neither then she cannot really complain about being subject to the luck of the draw seating that all the other passengers experence. Comparison to other airlines is beside the point. They were not on other airlines in this case.

As I said earlier, with Ryanair take it or leave it. Use the low cost model to your advantage or if their level of service doesn't meet your expectations, go with a different airline that does.

Also sitting in the rearmost rows does not mean last off. Ryanair mostly use steps at the rear of the aircraft, and many pax aim for the back end for a quick getaway.

[PAXboy]

Ths morning I was on FR from STN to FUE - not my choice of carrier - but my friends had good reason to choose. flight was fine and on time.

My friends chose Priority Boarding to make it easierto get seating with their 2 childredn. but, at the gate there was only 1 staffer - so the queue of those who had not paid the extra merged easily with those who had not! They did get seats together but it was a scum.

[Hotel Tango]

there was only 1 staffer - so the queue of those who had not paid the extra merged easily with those who had not!

And that is so typical at a number of their stations. They can't even provide their customers the service they charge extra for. Absolutely scandalous!

[25F]

@TT - I expect the IAA has a similar policy to the CAA's which appears to be "Young children and infants who are accompanied by adults, should ideally be seated in the same seat row as the adult." I would take seat row to mean the actual row of three. But then they say "Children and accompanying adults should not be separated by more than one aisle" so maybe they mean the row of six. I am surprised that sitting across the aisle seems to be deemed "close enough" by the authorities. As I've said, a very young child cannot be relied upon to follow crew instruction or adjust their seatbelt properly. They need, for safety reasons, an accompanying adult in the seat next to them.

Other low-cost airlines (e.g. EZY before they switched to allocated seating) seem to recognise that it's in everybody's interests to allow the under-fives on first. It's not about convenience for families with small children, it's about convenience for everybody else. Because if they board last, somebody's going to have to get up and move, so that the children can sit near their parents. For safety reasons.

There's nothing intrinsic to the low-cost model that *everybody* should be inconvenienced by making under-fives undergo the "luck of the draw".

I'll always go with a different airline to RYR if I possibly can.

And we allow other people off first regardless of where we are sitting. Because I'm doing my damnedest to inconvenience other passengers as little as possible. A bit of co-operation from the airline in this regard would be appreciated.

[SloppyJoe]

Why do you keep saying that letting pax with small kids on first is not for the benefit of those pax but actually for the benefit of everyone else? I have a small kid and it is great to be able to get on and get settled without having to wait in the aisle for everyone else to sort out their bags. I also travel a lot without the little one and it is absolutely no benefit to me when the pax with small kids board first.

Bottom line is that this is your fault for not paying for the service you wanted or being the first in the queue with everyone else. It is in option you have, if you decide to not take that option then you should expect not to have it.

[WHBM]

Ryanair does have Priority Boarding on all flights. It's charged for (I believe 5 Euro each), but if it's an important issue for you, why was this not paid ?

Quite possibly the passenger in the A seat had already paid for this facility themselves. Quite why they should then, at a late stage in boarding, have to give it up for the sake of those who couldn't be bothered to pay the priority boarding fee eludes me.

[25F]

@SloppyJoe: If you have to move so that a parent and child can sit together - for safety reasons - then you will have been inconvenienced by this airline's policy of not letting the under-fives on first. And if you were one of those who paid for PB you're going to be pretty annoyed.

If it's only of benefit to the passengers with small children then why do *other* low-cos allow small children on first?

I am all in favour of other people paying extra so they can choose a good seat. I don't want a "good seat", when travelling with the kids. I'll take a "bad one" nearest the toilets at the back, so that when the inevitable toilet trip takes place, it is less likely to inconvenience crew doing a trolley run.

One of my definitions of a "good seat" is "not next to a two year old". They have a tendency to cry whilst the cabin pressure changes. It's not their fault.

@WHBM:If I were a passenger who'd paid for PB, in order to get a "good seat", and then found myself next to a crying toddler, I'd be pretty annoyed by the airline's policy.

If the airline allows small children on first, then people who have paid extra for the privilege of choice of seats can choose to avoid sitting next to small children. If it's Ryanair, then the people who have paid extra can find a small child foisted on to them anyway.

But then it often seems that one of MOL's marketing strategies is to make the whole experience as unpleasant as possible, quite unnecessarily, so as to reinforce the "cheap and nasty" message - it's nasty, therefore it must be cheap.


To return to my initial point: I am still amazed that the airlines and the authorities seem to think that a parent can *safely* supervise a small child from across the aisle.

[Torque Tonight]

The Daily Mail has an annual recurrent story that gets rehashed so often you can almost set your watch by it. They do a comparison of airlines and by effectively rigging the sample they set out to prove that British Airways is cheaper than the locos. Last time the example given was something preposterous like a family of two adults and four kids each with 40kg of hold luggage, who want allocated seats, a three course meal and are very forgetful when it comes to boarding passes.

In reality the vast majority of pax use the airline as it is designed and benefit as a result. You may hear many moans but most of those complainers will be repeat customers, so it can't be that bad.

If you really object to the service model, and that is your prerogative, then vote with your wallet and take you business elsewhere. I find it hard to comprehend the attitude of refusing to buy priority boarding but expecting priority anyway. A no-cost way of achieving the same result would be simply to get to the gate early enough to be near the front of the queue.

In my experience the cabin crew will normally do their best to enable families with kids to sit together, but groups who turn up last and then expect to get seats together really don't help themselves. You know the drill with Ryanair; it's not complicated and if you really don't like it, choose an airline that you do like.

[dash_ca3]

With regards to your view that it is not safe to allow a parent to supervise a child across an aisle, what about 2+2 seating arrangements? Would that mean a single mother not able to travel on the aircraft with 2 children if the authorities agreed with you?

[Dryce]

But then it often seems that one of MOL's marketing strategies is to make the whole experience as unpleasant as possible, quite unnecessarily, so as to reinforce the "cheap and nasty" message - it's nasty, therefore it must be cheap.


So don't use them.

However the children with parents/superviors issue simply shouldn't be an issue. The carrier should know before hand how many are travelling in total (all pasengers with children + children) via the booking system and simply block off the required number of seats at some location in the aircraft (front, middle, rear, between the middle and the front, ot between the middle and the rear .... whatever) so they can all get seated together. Don't charge extra. Just do it automatically as long as the parents fill in the right booking info.

As for kids being supervised? The definition of seems to vary. Parents are no more consistent than carriers. I was on a flight a few days ago where a small girl completely ignored by her mother and father was clambering about and moving up and down the aisle. On another occasion I woke up in a window seat to discover that parents in the middle block of four had moved their kids into the seats next to me to make more space for themselves.

[ExXB]

Dryce,

Don't think that's true for LCCs that don't offer a children's discount/fare. In theory APIS data could be linked but many flights don't require APIS and I doubt the DCS could access that data.

Can't see any reason why children need to boarded early. My money is just as good as theirs. If they want to pay the charge for early boarding that's their choice.

[25F]

@dash_ca3: good point. It depends on the age, but if you had twins in their terrible twos, it could prove very difficult to keep them both strapped in.

@ others: I am starting to repeat myself. I have put forward my arguments; does anybody have a good counter-argument?

@TT: last year I priced up a trip and ended up going with BA. It was about ten quid more which was taken care of by availing myself of a G'n'T. We had one suitcase, IIRC. (I've just checked my usual route and BA is currently cheaper than EZY out of LGW with no suitcase!)

So, once more: there is nothing in the loco service model that says they can't get small children safely seated before the majority of passengers board. Other locos do it.

@ExXB: children do not "need" to be boarded early. But they do need to be sat by their parents. The best way of accomplishing this with the minimum of inconvenience to others is to get them on early. Or have designated rows. Or even assigned seating.

As I've said, people who have paid for PB should *welcome* this - it gives them a chance to avoid the small children.

[TightSlot]

@ others: I am starting to repeat myself. I have put forward my arguments; does anybody have a good counter-argument?
Quite correct - you are starting to repeat yourself: The counter-arguments run as follows.

If FR have a legal obligation that they have failed, in your view, to comply with, then you should pursue the matter with the appropriate regulatory authorities.
If you choose to fly with FR again under these circumstances, you then have a choice as to whether to purchase PB or not. If you choose not to purchase it, you should not expect to receive the benefits of it later.
If the FR business model is such that they choose not to offer customers the seating options that you require, then you have a very straightforward choice to make as to whether you choose to fly with them or not.

All of this has been explained: Continuing to ask the same question because you do not like the answers given is not a sensible use of PPRuNe members reading time.

A majority of FR customers have a punctual, safe and acceptable journey that they perceive to be value for money from what is currently the most successful European airline: It is however, widely renowned for a hard-nosed attitude to customer service and complaint. My personal and non-negotiable choice is that I will not fly with them under any circumstances for a variety of reasons: I would opt for surface transportation if no other flight option was available, or decline to make a trip - but that is just me, exercising my choice, and clearly Mr. O'Leary does not lie awake at nights worrying about my travel choices: Or, for that matter, yours.

[Gulf Julliet Papa]

25F, as tight slot has said you are repeating yourself. There are now 2 pages of people giving you a good a reasoned argument, and suggestions on how to avoid it. There were 3 options open to you and your family of which no one decided to take that option before the flight (even though you were given the option)

1) Priority Boarding (as mentioned already). Does not guarantee seats together however increases your chances massively

2) Allocated Seating, rows 2, 5, 15, 32 and 33 are available for you to pre-book these seats with children (1,16,17 if traveling with no children). This way your family would of had the piece of mind of sitting together

3) Queue. This is the cheapest option! If your family are at the family at a reasonable time (and don't get lost in duty free as most do), 2 hours before for example, you can usually be within the first 30 people on the aircraft just by been near the front of the non-priority queue.

Everyone is aware of Ryanair policies, it is clearly stated on the website, and many forums, you also agree to the T&Cs by searching for a flight, let alone booking the flight.

As far as I am aware there is no requirement under the IAA (note not CAA...Irish flag on the aircraft). However I may be wrong. That been said if you speak nicely to the crew then they are likely to help you out, if not why not just ask the passenger sat by the window if they wouldn't mind moving. A lot of passengers won't take there own initiative once on board an aircraft.

Your argument about letting families on first is invalid. I can tell you, in particular to summer sun routes, if families get on first they sit down near the front and block the aisle for other passengers. They do not want to sit near the back. A lot of business passengers (the high paying ones!) would rather sit down first than let families on first...thats just the way things are! Also once again, why, if your family wanted to get on the aircraft first, why did they not pay for priority boarding/allocated seating or simply queue?

I think your family were quite lucky to be sat in B,C,D. I don't see much of a difference between sitting ABC and BCD...other than the distance of 60cm? As pointed out Mrs 25F could of quite easily sat in C, and juniors in B + D. If your junior is considered out of reach by a distance of 60cm why was Mrs 25F traveling alone? You should only travel within your ability. Thats just like bringing a 30kg bag on board, and asking for help from the crew to lift it? It's irresponsible. The cabin crews job is for the safety of all on board, you cannot expect them to baby sit for one passenger out of 189. They will of course try they're best to accommodate but you have to realize there's a limit of what they can do (in any airline).

So in conclusion...there were 3 options available, none of which were taken for whatever reason. Then you want to complain that it is the companies fault despite you agreeing to the terms and conditions, or failing to avail of any of the 3 options.

IF there was a true safety breach it should be reported to the company, and the relevant authority (IRISH aviation authority) however I would suggest that there was no such breach. If you do not report it then the company/authority know of no problem, then nothing changes. But once again I see to breach, nor do a lot on this forum.

Lastly passengers should take their own responsibility around airports, I don't see why they feel it is so different between getting on plane to a bus or a train? If you were going on a family trip to London on the train you would make sure you were on the platform in good time to make the train that you planned, yet the number of families that for some reason can't make it to an aircraft gate (ie. plane platform) in good time is amazing! Some get on at the back of the queue, having got to the gate last minute, and they are surprised that no seats have been saved for them?

Ignorance is not an excuse

[Torque Tonight]

people who have paid for PB should *welcome* this - it gives them a chance to avoid the small children.

People who have paid for priority boarding should welcome other people who have not, being given priority over them? I can assure you that very few people will accept that logic. You repeatedly suggest that by you being allowed on first (at no cost), you would be doing everyone else a favour and they should be grateful. Not many people wold agree with that.

[25F]

Well it's been an interesting exchange of views. Clearly I am going to have to agree to disagree and I hope no bad feeling has been generated.

Some people seem to think I want "something for nothing": I do not think that I do.

I want *small* children to be allowed on early - not before PB, but at least early - so as to allow responsible parents to cause as little inconvenience as possible to other passengers, and crew.

And at least one other airline agrees - EZY did this before switching to allocated seating.

@GJP: excuse my pedantry, but I was the first to point out that I was repeating myself!

And to repeat myself further - I personally would rather a long ground trip to LGW or SEN than a short one to STN, to avoid Ryanair. Mrs 25F does not feel the same way, and it was her trip. And she was not particularly put out by this: I'm the one who feels that in the interests of safety, small children should be adjacent to their parents, if at all possible. Even if that involves asking other passengers to move.

@TightSlot: I would like to question the IAA. Would the issue be appropriate for their "Hazard or Safety Concern" report system, or should I contact the "Manager Airline Airworthiness" directly? Neither seems appropriate. Suggestions welcome.

@GJP: it's difficult queueing with small children, particularly when the queue is sparked by somebody who decides to get up long before the aircraft has arrived on stand. And then there are the times when the gate is announced at the last moment and due simply to the fact that everyone else can move faster than you... 120 people are there before you, despite your best efforts. And there are also some times when, particularly with the very smalls, you get held up by a nappy change or something. I myself (according to family folklore) managed to fall into a water-logged flower bed somewhere in an African airport, and become *completely* covered in wet mud, just moments before boarding, aged about two.

[25F]

There was a post yesterday which was interesting, from someone who said he or she had paid extra for an allocated seat on BA, and then found himself or herself sitting next to two under-fives!

And now it has disappeared. Anyone know why?

It's available on google's cache:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/516108-sitting-next-unrelated-children.html
or:
TinyURL.com - shorten that long URL into a tiny URL (http://preview.tinyurl.com/lsrbpsk)

And no, it was not me mucking about. "BKS Air Transport" has been a site member since 2007.

[TightSlot]

The post and thread, in this forum, was deleted by the OP in person - sorry, I can't reinstate it without permission from the OP.

[25F]

TightSlot, thanks for the clarification. As it was deleted by the OP perhaps I should remove the link to the cached version?

[VS-LHRCSA]

When you think about it, separating a parent from a child with a single aisle must be permitted otherwise families would not be able to travel on aircraft such as the Metro, Brasilia, etc or in First Class with 1-1,1-1 configurations.

[Gulf Julliet Papa]

@25F - Maybe as you won't take responsibility or listen to anyone else on this forum send an email to the IAA and please let us know what they say. If you are not sure who to send it to why not send it to both?

[Businesstraveller]

Some time ago I was boarding an Easyjet flight (when they didn't allocate seats), pretty much at the head of the queue after loading those with kids or reduced mobility was completed. I was heading for the over wing exit row for the extra leg room (I'm comfortably over 6ft tall), when I noticed a mum with kids (all short) heading for that row. However, my dismay turned to relief when the steward refused to let them sit in this row - ostensibly because they patently wouldn't be able to operate the emergency door. However, I like to think there was an element of the steward thinking 'you're all 5'4" or less, what on earth makes you think you need extra leg room seats?' - but I don't imagine that was uppermost in her mind.

[BKS Air Transport]

@ Tightslot

Sorry, please feel free to reinstate my thread (or tag the content onto this one). I wanted to make a small change, but was distracted and clicked the wrong box :O

[25F]

@GJP
A - I very much *do* want to take responsibility.
B - I *am* listening.
C - I don't think it's worth cluttering up the IAA's safety notification system, nor am I sure that the "Manager Airline Airworthiness" is the right person to write to.

@VS-LHRCSA - this is true, but I do feel that for safety reasons, children should be adjacent to their parents if at all possible.

[TightSlot]

Thread now undeleted and available HERE (http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf-self-loading-freight/516108-sitting-next-unrelated-children-undeleted-user-rq.html)

[Sierra tango]

25F I'm very interested to read this thread having just got back last night on a Jet2 flight and had a similar experience to your wife. Although Jet2 allocate seating they also give no consideration families with small children. My husband and I made the mistake of assuming that our daughter (21 months, who we'd specifically booked a seat for) would be automatically seated next to one of us. We were allocated C and D seats in one row and she was allocated D seat in the next row. Despite speaking to the CC their response was there was nothing they could do. CC suggested that my daughter sat across the aisle from me and didn't seem to understand the safety implication of my daughter not being properly supervised. -that she might undo her seat belt, -that she might stand on her seat and remove items from the top of the drinks/food trolley while out of my reach and -that I may not be in a position to fit an oxygen mask should there be need
While I appreciate the comments that you can prebook priority boarding or allocated seats, you should not be forced to pay extra to ensure the safety of your children, their safety should be included in the price of the ticket.
Incidentally we resolved our situation by my daughter sitting on my husband's lap for the duration of the flight. Four and a half hours with two+ stone on his lap, while her seat remained empty. Oh and paid £200 extra for it.

[WHBM]

The above appears a breach of the CAA regulations on a UK-registered aircraft :

"Additionally, children and infants should be seated where they can be adequately supervised by an accompanying adult in the event of turbulence or a decompression in the cabin."

Seating: Allocation | Europe | About the CAA (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx/docs/80/airport_data/200402/docs/148/default.aspx?catid=952&pagetype=90&pageid=9855)

and therefore

speaking to the CC their response was there was nothing they could do. is incorrect as they should bring this to the attention of the CSD, or if unresolved the aircraft commander.

[ExXB]

Sierra Tango,
You have a special need that could have been solved easily by paying for the seat selection that suits that special need. Tall people have special needs, large people have special needs and they have to pay to ensure their needs are met.

I don't think my taxes should be used to educate your children, but life isn't fair, is it.

[flydive1]

Sierra Tango, why did you not switch your seat with your daughter?

[Rwy in Sight]

flydive1,

I had exactly the same question and really looking forward to the answer.

[DaveReidUK]

Sierra Tango, why did you not switch your seat with your daughter? Or, come to that, offer to swap your aisle seat with whoever was sitting in the centre seat in the next row beside your daughter?

[RevMan2]

I've always found that a very effective way of nudging people in the direction of behaving like normal human beings is to state the situation in a loud voice, suggest a solution and wait for someone to react.
Example: Bus from the aircraft to the gate, young mum comes off the aircraft last (I've carried her hand luggage down the stairs) and doesn't get a seat. Everyone busy finding something very interesting on the floor or out of the window.
Loud voice: "OK, we've got a young mum with a baby here, who's going to get up and offer her their seat"
Works every time.
In this case: Loud voice: "OK, the airline can't arrange for my 21 month old daughter to sit next to me or my wife. Is anyone willing to swap seats?"

[Octopussy2]

But...there's something I'm missing here? Surely the answer, as pointed out above, was for one of the parents to swap seats? Result: parent and child in C and D in one row, other parent in D in the other row. What's difficult about that??

If child is particularly irksome, parents can swap seats half way so each gets a bit of quiet G&T time. I know of what I speak...:E

[RevMan2]

C & D are traditionally aisle seats. Mother and small child separated by an aisle? Not a good idea....

[mad_jock]

Just wait until they shut the doors and insist on a move or your getting off.

They won't want the delay getting the bags off and redoing the loadsheet and will shift people.

Then don't use them again.

[Gulf Julliet Papa]

Is it just me or I don't see the big deal about been separated by the aisle? What happens in a car/train/bus? In all of those modes of transport I regularly see kids separated a greater distance from their parents than a 737s aisle? In a car normally by a whole row (front seat/back seat). Flying is far safer than all those modes of transport, been 40cm away is a problem on the safest... yet in a more dangerous scenario you are happy for children to be further away (and in a car far less accessible).


As a side note this week I had a passenger get into an argument with my crew this week. Their 5yo daughter was asleep accross 2 seats. When the seatbelt sign was turned on the crew politely told the parents that their daughter needs to wear a seatbelt for landing. The parent argued that the crew should use their common sense to allow the child to continue to sleep and allow her to continue without a belt for landing!

[RevMan2]

And how do you - after donning your oxygen mask in the case of pressure loss - "attend to children later " on the other side of the aisle while you're both still buckled in? It makes eminent sense to have children and their carer seated adjacently.
The comparison with car travel is spurious. Your example of idiotic parents defying safety regs is irrelevant to this discussion.

[GrahamO]

While I appreciate the comments that you can prebook priority boarding or allocated seats, you should not be forced to pay extra to ensure the safety of your children, their safety should be included in the price of the ticket.

Or as others might see it, there is no reason why others should give up their booked, paid for and reserved seats because a parent chooses to fly somewhere with their child and expect everyone else to alter their arrangements because you don't want to, which appears to be the case here. Try pre-booking a seat like others do, pay for it like others do and don't try and freeload.

In a 2:1 split of seating, the 1 is an adult and the 2 is an adult and child and its all solved, but if I have interpreted things correctly (but probably not) you would rather sit next to your partner, put your child in a seat on their own and then try the bleeding heart game, rather than sit next to your own child for the journey, not next to your partner. Says a lot doesn't it ?

[25F]

@Sierra tango - it's not just the safety of your children, it's also the safety of everyone else. A small child landing on the back of one's neck could be quite damaging to *both* parties.

@ExXB - "Tall people have special needs [..] and they have to pay to ensure their needs are met " - a friend of mine who is *very* tall once mentioned in passing that he gets upgraded to first class when he presents himself at checkin. Because he simply isn't going to fit safely into an economy seat. But he is exceptionally tall - about seven foot. I've seen someone drop their pint out of surprise, just because he walked into the pub.

@RevMan2 - I like your style.

@GJP - it's quite difficult to reach across and fasten the seatbelt whilst staying strapped in. I don't think that a two year old can be "adequately supervised" from across the aisle.

@GrahamO - I quite agree. Others should not "give up their booked, paid for and reserved seats". The easiest way of ensuring this is to allow under-fives (and their carers) on as soon as possible. "We" (that is, responsible and considerate parents) do not wish to "freeload". I cannot talk for the irresponsible and inconsiderate.

[racedo]

Some time ago I was boarding an Easyjet flight (when they didn't allocate seats), pretty much at the head of the queue after loading those with kids or reduced mobility was completed. I was heading for the over wing exit row for the extra leg room (I'm comfortably over 6ft tall), when I noticed a mum with kids (all short) heading for that row. However, my dismay turned to relief when the steward refused to let them sit in this row - ostensibly because they patently wouldn't be able to operate the emergency door. However, I like to think there was an element of the steward thinking 'you're all 5'4" or less, what on earth makes you think you need extra leg room seats?' - but I don't imagine that was uppermost in her mind.

Many years ago on an Alitalia flight from LHR there was a mother with 2 small children seated beside her and a babe in arms in exit row.

Flight was delayed for 2 hrs at the gate and only realised it when needed to use bathroom.

Asked purser if Alitalia rules were different from everyone elses where someone sitting in exit row is required to be fit and able to open door.

30 second later they were being moved.

It seems my meal choice wasn't available or so I was told by cc and would I take a different one. As never ordered one and I got what was being served in business class and a thank you grin from purser I reckon it was a fair return.

[25F]

@racedo: you sure they weren't trying to make sure that you wouldn't file a safety issue with the Italian authorities? Or have I missed something?

[racedo]

you sure they weren't trying to make sure that you wouldn't file a safety issue with the Italian authorities? Or have I missed something?

Doubtful but I would always give benefit of doubt to the crew as they didn't allocate the seats. Fact they actioned immediately made me to think just an oversight as who knows who the pax with kids was.

[25F]

Well, once again we are flying Ryanair (Stansted is *so* much closer than all the others and nobody else flies from STN to our destination) but this time thanks to on-line checkin we are allocated seats A to D, so all is good.

Surprisingly, we've also been put in the priority queue - without paying for it. No doubt some here will see this as freeloading but just maybe Ryanair see this the way I do - getting the smalls on sooner rather than later is in everybody's interests.

[fantom]

Children are best in the rear hold (heated).

Fwd hold is not, so they get cold there.

[mad_jock]

I have said to dads as they enter the plane that they can put their kids in the hold for a 5 quid supplement.

About 75% reach for their wallets and the kids go very quiet.

One even offered me 20 quid to put the mother inlaw in the hold.

The joy of working with Scottish Islanders.

[Basil]

mj, Hilarious!
The joy of working with Scottish Islanders.
It really was, back in the seventies when I flew Viscounts around there. Never a complaint about weather delays - they understood the problem.

[mad_jock]

I have done the old posh brief to the pax about being delayed to Benpeculiar due to the wind being gusting over 75kts.

Look of incomprehension on all their faces.

Auld fisherman chirps up "eh loon fit does that mean"

My reply "weather is ****e were no going"

Comprehension was instantaneous and the knitting came out.

Did once have a prisoner transfer up to Stornaway which we loaded first, extremely hungover. Loaded the old dears next, one of them who was 80 odd started battering him with her meaty handbag and apparently using fisherwifes gaelic on him according to the red faced fireman.

Securicor looked at me, I looked at them. They said "your the captain you stop it", I looked at them and said "that will be right". She eventually ran out of steam and the lad just said "its my granny" and reached for the sick bag.

Used to like the black puddings from the regulars at xmas though.

[L'aviateur]

A few years back flying Turkish airlines, scheduled on an A321 and had seats on the back row, whilst boarding in Istanbul when scanning was advised that aircraft changed to A318 (IIRC) and reseated. 4 completely different seats for my wife and I plus 2 and 4 year old children. I thanked them for arranging for other passengers to babysit my kids, and hoped my kids wouldn't get airsick on those fellow pax... They coordinated us all together pretty quickly. :-)

[Davef68]

Reminds me of my worst ever holiday trip, when returning home after a 3 day stay in hospital, flight to GLW was delayed by 10 hours, so much that the pilots were out of time so had to divert to Gatwick. On landing, B767 went u/c (I actually watched the flap 'flapping' in the airstream!), Brittania couldn't fix so had to get another plane in. Another 6 hour delay

We were told to save time to board using our original seats, by seat row - we had been a few rows from the back, but were surprised to find we were now in the back row! yep, different cabin configuration and this one was shorter! And our flight had been full!

After much to-ing and fro-ing, they worked out that enough people had decided 6 hours at Gatwick was worse than 5 hours in the train and had gone home, so we were told to just sit anywhere.

[25F]

Enjoyed the stories.

But back to the topic in hand, on the outbound leg a mother and daughter pair had been allocated seats C and F in the row behind, which meant a c/crew member asking D and E if they wouldn't mind shuffling along.

And FWIW we didn't get in the priority queue, so I have no idea why we did on the outbound.