Sky cot to Lanzarote?

trippy

Hi, We have booked flights to Lanzarote for 2 adults, 1 child (4) and an infant (20m). Many moons ago I travelled to Lanzarote with friends who had a 22mo who slept in a sky cot. I haven't seen these around since I had my children and wondered if they're still available. We have booked with Thomas Cook Airlines. Anyone know?

sloppychops

I would give them a ring and ask,as i am sure if they do have them they will have to be pre-booked

trippy

For the purposes of the thread, in case anyone else is looking for the answer, it appears I am years out of date! I phone Thomas Cook airlines and was told they haven't done Sky Cots for ages as they're a safety issue. I thought as much, I was just hanging onto a glimmer of hope that might make the flight slightly more bearable!

sloppychops

I personally had never heard of them.Oh well at least you know now.

davidlizard

How can sky cots be a safety issue ?

Last time we flew (BA, just before Xmas) we were offered a sky cot (but turned it down as it was a bit pointless for a 2 hour flight), and last summer we did use a sky cot (again BA) and the only safety issue was that we had to remove the baby when the seat belt signs came on for turbulence. The only other way I can see it being a safety issue is that the locations designed for such cots block the emergency exits.

I would suggest its probably more of a "cost" issue in that Thomas Crook can flog the seats with the space necessary for a sky cot (which usually have several inches more legroom) for an extra £50 or so instead.

Dave

rlc22

I'm pretty sure that airlines are only allowed to sell a limited amount of seats as extra legroom (something like 6?), so taking away the sky cots is less likely to be about gaining extra legroom sales, but perhaps about minimising the cost of the sky cots in the first place.

Rachael

bylromarha

I don't know if sky cots are the same as bassinet seats, but we had one flying to and from New Zealand last year. Couldn't have managed without it!

Yes, they were the extra legroom seats, so methinks Thomas Cook should be claiming cost, not safety.