@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.