MSE News: Scrap 'family tax' that pushes parents to pay to sit next to kids

steve1500

This is pure and simple a safety issue. They don't want families split up in case of an emergency.


I know the planes on fire but I need to get my luggage from the over head http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34193767

Don't worry about junior 10 rows back.

Until the CAA enforce their official guidance the Airlines will continue to stick two fingers up to the CAA in the same way, as they do, for the compensation.

As has also been said many times, just because you have paid for a seat doesn't mean you get it as per the T & C's

leylandsunaddict

steve1500 wrote: »

This is pure and simple a safety issue. They don't want families split up in case of an emergency.


I know the planes on fire but I need to get my luggage from the over head http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34193767

Don't worry about junior 10 rows back.

Until the CAA enforce their official guidance the Airlines will continue to stick two fingers up to the CAA in the same way, as they do, for the compensation.

As has also been said many times, just because you have paid for a seat doesn't mean you get it as per the T & C's

They are just guidelines, and Easyjet adhered to them, as most airlines do. Sometimes it's just not possible, especially when people with children think they are entitled to be sat right next to their children and all the family together, without paying to select seats. If people are concerned about where they are sat then they can pay like nervous fliers, people needing extra legroom etc.have to.

duchy

Whilst I think children shouldn't sit alone below a certain age -I'd put that age no higher than 12 and if the parents choose not to pay for seats together then I see nothing wrong with seating one parent with a child and the other parent somewhere else. It isn't about families sitting together -it's about a child not been seated alone. I a child is nervous or has a disability then obviously exceptions should be made but most children of high school age are capable of sitting a few rows from their parents without problem. If the parents still want their teenagers close enough to hold hands - they can pay for it. It's a need not a want situation.

I usually travel with American airlines and one of the reasons I prefer them is I can reserve my seat at no cost when I book ....My next trip is with an airline that doesn't offer this and I can only reserve 22 hours before departure - so I'm keeping an eye on the seat map and if it starts to fill up I'll go ahead and pay to reserve-if it stays looking OK I'll make sure I'm on-line as soon as the seats open at 22 hours.

The simple fact is when I was single life was cheaper as there were plenty of things I didn't need that I needed once I became a parent. I was paid the same salary as a person with a child - by the arguments given on here that parent should be paid more to cover the cost of their childcare/nappies etc. Basically when you have a family things cost more food, needing a bigger car - why should othr people pay for the choices we make. If sitting together is essential then it's part of the holiday cost...in the same way that parents of school age children know that a flight to Majorca will be dearer in August than June -and it's part of the cost of having children. Holidays are a luxury , you pick the luxury you can afford and you either can or can't afford a holiday dependant on the total cost not just bits of it.