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

Moto2

tain wrote: »

Also, your calculations are ridiculous.

Feel free to come up with something a bit more accurate than 'not many' and 30 million+

And we'll see just how ridiculous they are, I said I didn't know them so feel free to correct them and me.
You'll - of course - noticed I was estimating the risks to the airline and not the safety of passengers.

George_Michael

tain wrote: »

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.

Yes, something might happen, but that is the whole basis of Health and safety assessments. The likelihood of harm if something happened factored against the actual likelihood of it happening. I could get hit in the eye by a toy thrown by a child having a tantrum on an aircraft. Does this mean that all toys should be banned?
Of course not. I may well have that happen to me but the chances of it actually happening are extremely remote, just as the chances of an aircraft having an accident or incident that requires all of the passengers to be evacuated in an emergency.
Don't forget that the chances of there being a serious incident that requires evacuation of the passengers is somewhere in the 1 in 4 to 5 million area.
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.
On come on. "forcibly removed". You are making it sound like the children are snatched away from their parents.
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.
But it was you yourself who stated "Therefore either the airline employees or the people sitting next to them on the plane are now responsible for them" and how many parents are trained childcare professionals?

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.
But they are not forcing are they? They are giving parents (or anyone else who wants, the option to sit together provided that they pay if required)

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?
A car comes with at least the minimum required safety features installed and you can opt to pay for any extras. Until it's deemed otherwise, the law allows airlines to seat children away from parents and again, you can opt to pay more if you want something extra.

All this talk about it being illegal and a breach of health and safety is meaningless.
It only becomes illegal if there is a specific law that states it is illegal or a court case sets a precedence.

George_Michael

tain wrote: »

Also, your calculations are ridiculous.

They are not ridiculous in the least and are actually an underestimation.
In 2013 there were approximately 36 million commercial aircraft departures worldwide.

shaun_from_Africa

tain wrote: »

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.

So you must know that when a risk assessment is carried out, the likelihood of something that can cause harm happening is one of the major factors in that assessment.
If "'everyone has been fine so far" then it can safely be assumed that the risk of harm is fairly low and the resulting risk is acceptable.


I am required to carry out risk assessments on a regular basis and one of the major factors for the final determination is what measures might be needed with regards to cost and work required in order to neutralise any perceived risk.
If the expected risk is low (and risks involved with airline travel are extremely low) then it is not reasonable to spend a lot of time or money to make measures to protect people from these low risk scenarios.

Lewie

Pollycat wrote: »

But it's clearly not the policy of a lot of airlines so passengers who have paid to sit together or paid for specific seats should refuse requests to move.

I didn't say it was, I said it should be.
You can of course refuse to move with the risk of being taken off the aircraft.
No point telling people to refuse to move when they can be forced to.

marktdd

On how wide is a 737 aisle? I estimate about 3 foot. You end up about 4 feet apart. You can hold hands across the aisle but that is not possible a lot of time as people are passing. Too far though to reach over and help when fasten seat belts is on. When everyone is boarding it's a big issue as you lose sight of your child as people are in the way. This is also the most distressing time for the child. I did not believe easyjet would split us up in the first place. When they did, I thought others would help, they did not. Now I always pay but I don't think it's right and am surprised many appear to support the airlines in this money making scheme.

Lewie

Pollycat wrote: »

No, it's not.

If you want to drive and do so without paying 'the tax', you are breaking the law.
Hardly the same as wanting to sit together on a plane.

At least we agree it's not a tax.
And not compulsory - in the true sense of the word.

Yes, it is (there we go disagreeing again )
Nothing to do with the law, just things that are compulsory to pay if you want to do that 'thing'.
Once upon a time you could be first in the queue at the check in desk and have many seats to choose from.
Now, in theory, if you don't pay the extra you can be first to the desk and have several single seats dotted around the aircraft to choose from.
They haven't introduced the charge to help the passenger as their 'clever' wording suggests.
As for the tax issue, it cannot be a tax as it isn't a charge levied by government (or so we are led to believe!!) that we must agree on.

duchy

Gosh I wonder what happens when there aren't two seats together of the bus with some parents ?

Speaking as a parent I've never heard such nonsense. Children - especially those old enough to attend nursery or school are perfectly capable of sitting across an aisle for a parent without the need for meltdowns ( on the part of the parents)

Moto2

Lewie wrote: »

Once upon a time you could be first in the queue at the check in desk and have many seats to choose from.
Now, in theory, if you don't pay the extra you can be first to the desk and have several single seats dotted around the aircraft to choose from.

You can still have at least some choice with some carriers without paying a surcharge to select your seats.
Certainly with Jet2 and TC you can abandon the check-in process before committing to the seats you've been allocated, if you go straight back in, the seats will be different, I just keep going until I think I have the best I'm likely to get.
One thing else I've noticed is that they randomly show a selection of seats available to pay for, not all of them and the selection seems to change every time you go back in even only seconds apart whether it's an attempt to panic people into paying or something far less conspiratorial, I've really no idea.

Pollycat

Lewie wrote: »

Yes, it is (there we go disagreeing again )
Nothing to do with the law, just things that are compulsory to pay if you want to do that 'thing'.

No it isn't.
If you want to do something - as opposed to being forced to do someithing - it's not compulsory.

Lewie wrote: »

Once upon a time you could be first in the queue at the check in desk and have many seats to choose from.
Now, in theory, if you don't pay the extra you can be first to the desk and have several single seats dotted around the aircraft to choose from.
They haven't introduced the charge to help the passenger as their 'clever' wording suggests.

Once upon a time, you got meals included on your flight, once up on a time you didn't have to pay for luggage.
Times have changed.
Whether you like it or not, it suits some prople.
The people who are happy picking up a meal deal at the airport, the people who only want to take hand luggage, the people who don't mind if they are separated from their travelling partner for a couple or 3 hours.

Lewie wrote: »

Now, in theory, if you don't pay the extra you can be first to the desk and have several single seats dotted around the aircraft to choose from.
They haven't introduced the charge to help the passenger as their 'clever' wording suggests.

Then pay the optional extra if it matters that much to you.
Or don't pay it if it doesn't.
After all, it's not compulsory.

Lewie wrote: »

As for the tax issue, it cannot be a tax as it isn't a charge levied by government (or so we are led to believe!!) that we must agree on.

Do try telling MSE that it's not a tax.
They are the ones referring to it as a 'family tax' - as I pointed out earlier in this thread:

Pollycat wrote: »

Why does MSE insist in calling it a 'family tax'?
It's nothing of the sort.

It's a chargeable optional extra that anybody - whether they have children or not - can choose or not choose to pay.

At least they've toned it down a bit since starting this thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5228452

In that thread, they were 'demanding' now they are 'renewing calls'.