Seating small children - Ryanair
Join Date: May 2013
Location: home
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@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!
http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...ont-seats.html
RYR are not going to "acommodate divided groups" without charging for it!
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.
Thread Starter
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).
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).
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Paxing All Over The World
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: world
Posts: 3,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there was only 1 staffer - so the queue of those who had not paid the extra merged easily with those who had not!
Thread Starter
@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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Age: 47
Posts: 1,007
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
@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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: belfast
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
across the aisle
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?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Dryce; 28th May 2013 at 12:41.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 69
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by ExXB; 28th May 2013 at 14:09.
Thread Starter
@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.
@ 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.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 3,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ others: I am starting to repeat myself. I have put forward my arguments; does anybody have a good counter-argument?
- 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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
people who have paid for PB should *welcome* this - it gives them a chance to avoid the small children.
Thread Starter
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Missing thread?
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.co...-children.html
or:
TinyURL.com - shorten that long URL into a tiny URL
And no, it was not me mucking about. "BKS Air Transport" has been a site member since 2007.
And now it has disappeared. Anyone know why?
It's available on google's cache:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...-children.html
or:
TinyURL.com - shorten that long URL into a tiny URL
And no, it was not me mucking about. "BKS Air Transport" has been a site member since 2007.