MSE News: 'Family tax': Dad's outrage as Ryanair tries to seat 3yo away from family

mouthyman

tain wrote: »

Has it been mentioned that companies doing this could be breaching the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999? (reg.3 and reg.19)

These regs state that all vulnerable people that are affected by their business have to be risk assessed, and seating a 2 year old away from their parent is a clear breach of this assessment.

There are also a lot of safeguarding issues coming from this as well as I'm guessing the airlines aren't doing DBS checks for the people sitting around the toddlers.

Oh excellent thoughts, but is the Irish Regulatory body impotent / unwilling to enforce this prior to a life altering incident?

BeeHockley

I know Ryanair is a cheap airline and thus I don't expect frills when using them - even perhaps having to pre-book seats together if needed. However, I can't fault them at all when I travelled with my aging parents 2 years ago and asked for assistance. My dad was offered a wheelchair and we were all taken rapidly together via security and to the boarding gate where we boarded last (via the luggage lift) to seats together which had been kept for us. No extra charges. Helpful and friendly throughout. Thumbs up Ryanair!!

shaun_from_Africa

tain wrote: »

Has it been mentioned that companies doing this could be breaching the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999? (reg.3 and reg.19)

These regs state that all vulnerable people that are affected by their business have to be risk assessed, and seating a 2 year old away from their parent is a clear breach of this assessment.

There are also a lot of safeguarding issues coming from this as well as I'm guessing the airlines aren't doing DBS checks for the people sitting around the toddlers.

A few points.


Maybe the airlines have done the assessments and have decided that there is little or no risk.


Reg 19 has nothing to do with passengers and their children as it specifically relates to company employees and not to customers or their children.


There is no requirements for DBS checks to be carried out on any passengers. These checks are only required for people who are seeking employment or voluntary positions in certain sectors.
Taking it your extreme, surely everyone who uses a public toilet should be DBS checked just in case there are unaccompanied children in there.

tain

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

A few points.


Maybe the airlines have done the assessments and have decided that there is little or no risk.


Reg 19 has nothing to do with passengers and their children as it specifically relates to company employees and not to customers or their children.


There is no requirements for DBS checks to be carried out on any passengers. These checks are only required for people who are seeking employment or voluntary positions in certain sectors.
Taking it your extreme, surely everyone who uses a public toilet should be DBS checked just in case there are unaccompanied children in there.

What risk assessments are you carrying out whereby a 2 year old is safe in the company of a stranger? That would never stand up in court in a million years.

I make you right on the second point - I noticed that after I'd posted it. My NEBOSH materials weren't clear. Vulnerable people do need to form part of every risk assessment though, and as stated above - separating even a 15 year old from their parents would be considered a breach of the law.

If the parent has been sat in another section of the plane they cannot be considered responsible for the child. Therefore either the airline employees or the people sitting next to them on the plane are now responsible for them. So yes, I would entirely expect the person responsible for my child to have been DBS checked. The airline have no rights to remove my protection over that child, then still expect the law to protect them with regards to safeguarding.

Moto2

How many airlines have been prosecuted for this?
How many flights are there every year?

I don't know the exact numbers but I would hazard a guess at not many, and somewhere north of 30 million

The risk to airlines is almost non-existent

marktdd

I am not sure the information eayjet is providing is accurate. After my bad experience being split across the aisle from my 5yo daughter last summer, I recently flew back from Gran Canaria with them. The cheapest seats to sit together cost £12.50 per seat so £37.50 in total - for my wife, daughter and I.

Of course I understand some people on this thread think it is fine to be split from a 5 yo daughter across an aisle and have a random man next to help her do up her buckle, comfort her during take off, etc. Personally I think it is a big child protection issue and the airlines are playing with fire particularly those being even more extreme putting young kids on different rows.

Clearly no parent would want to be split even across an aisle so then all parents have to pay so it is a tax. Adults sitting next to each other is a nice to have but not totally necessary.

My understanding of what easyjet are doing from what they have said to me is that if you check in early you are likely to be forced to sit across aisles while they try to sell the window and middle seats together. Sitting a young child across an aisle from a parent for them is a non-issue. To sit together on easyjet you may well be best not checking in early but a little later after they have hopefully failed to sell quite a lot of seats and have now got lots of non paying groups set up across aisles.

George_Michael

A few of my opinions.

tain wrote: »

What risk assessments are you carrying out whereby a 2 year old is safe in the company of a stranger? That would never stand up in court in a million years.
So why hasn't it ever been to court then?
The body that oversees how airlines operate in the UK (The CAA) don't appear to have a problem with what is happening so why do you that a court would find it illegal?
I make you right on the second point - I noticed that after I'd posted it. My NEBOSH materials weren't clear. Vulnerable people do need to form part of every risk assessment though, and as stated above - separating even a 15 year old from their parents would be considered a breach of the law.
Are you honestly saying that if a 15 year old sits next to a stranger on a bus, train, in a Mcdonalds etc, it is a breach of UK law?
If the parent has been sat in another section of the plane they cannot be considered responsible for the child. Therefore either the airline employees or the people sitting next to them on the plane are now responsible for them.
Yes, the cabin crew are responsible for the safety of all passengers, not only children.
So yes, I would entirely expect the person responsible for my child to have been DBS checked.
And the cabin crew (the one's responsible for the overall safety of your child will have been DBS checked.
What about when your children are out on their own when older. Will you expect every member of the public to also be DBS checked just in case they sit next to your child in Mcdonalds or on a bus or train?
The airline have no rights to remove my protection over that child, then still expect the law to protect them with regards to safeguarding.
Surely by not paying to sit with your child, you are the one enabling the airline to move the child away from you, and until a court decides otherwise, they are acting within the law when they do this.

tain

Moto2 wrote: »

How many airlines have been prosecuted for this?
How many flights are there every year?

I don't know the exact numbers but I would hazard a guess at not many, and somewhere north of 30 million

The risk to airlines is almost non-existent

Ah I'm glad health and safety law in this country is decided on an 'everyone has been fine so far so shut up' attitude. That's precisely what I was taught to analyse when I carry out a risk assessment.

Also, your calculations are ridiculous.

Moto2

marktdd wrote: »

Of course I understand some people on this thread think it is fine to be split from a 5 yo daughter across an aisle and have a random man next to help her do up her buckle, comfort her during take off, etc. Personally I think it is a big child protection issue and the airlines are playing with fire particularly those being even more extreme putting young kids on different rows.

Just how wide are the aisles on your typical 737?

When we went on hols, I was pretty much always sat across the aisle from the kids, when there's one adult and 3 kids, there's not much you can do about it but I'm sure some would still complain.

tain

George_Michael wrote: »

A few of my opinions.

What risk assessments are you carrying out whereby a 2 year old is safe in the company of a stranger? That would never stand up in court in a million years.
So why hasn't it ever been to court then?
The body that oversees how airlines operate in the UK (The CAA) don't appear to have a problem with what is happening so why do you that a court would find it illegal?
I make you right on the second point - I noticed that after I'd posted it. My NEBOSH materials weren't clear. Vulnerable people do need to form part of every risk assessment though, and as stated above - separating even a 15 year old from their parents would be considered a breach of the law.
Are you honestly saying that if a 15 year old sits next to a stranger on a bus, train, in a Mcdonalds etc, it is a breach of UK law?
If the parent has been sat in another section of the plane they cannot be considered responsible for the child. Therefore either the airline employees or the people sitting next to them on the plane are now responsible for them.
Yes, the cabin crew are responsible for the safety of all passengers, not only children.
So yes, I would entirely expect the person responsible for my child to have been DBS checked.
And the cabin crew (the one's responsible for the overall safety of your child will have been DBS checked.
What about when your children are out on their own when older. Will you expect every member of the public to also be DBS checked just in case they sit next to your child in Mcdonalds or on a bus or train?
The airline have no rights to remove my protection over that child, then still expect the law to protect them with regards to safeguarding.
Surely by not paying to sit with your child, you are the one enabling the airline to move the child away from you, and until a court decides otherwise, they are acting within the law when they do this.

It hasn't been to court because something serious hasn't happened... yet. It's foolish to think that something serious won't happen either.

Your point about someone in McDonald's is moot as that's not what I'm discussing. I'm talking about a scenario where a child has been forcibly removed from the protection of the parent. I don't really see that happening in McDonald's - if the child is there on their own, their parent has clearly deemed it acceptable.

Airline employees are responsible for airline safety. They are not responsible for looking after infants on long flights. Are they childcare professionals? No. Then they have no right on forcing my child into the care of an untrained person.

Again a moot point on this as you're struggling to compare similar things. If I knew my 15 year old daughter had severe behavioural problems, I wouldn't let her sit next to a stranger in McDonalds on her own. The airline are forcing this situation though. Very different.

The duty of care is with the airline, not with me. It's my right in law not to have to pay for health and safety considerations. Could a car manufacturer say it was my fault the car didn't come with proper breaks because I didn't pay extra for them?