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

richardw

mouthyman wrote: »

Actually this ought to be the overriding Health & Safety matter that the HSE wades in with.

If a nasty scenario like that unfolds (and I hope it never will)...

There was http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8937000/8937316.stm

jdbigguy

How many horror stories do people have to hear or read about Ryanair, before they stop booking with them. If despite the knowledge you have that they are a terrible company to fly with, you book with them then tough luck.

quickiemart

Did no one actually read the short story?

"the airline's system had seated parents Chris and Kim Parr, both 33 from Lancashire, and their three-year-old, Lily, in three seats spread out around the plane. Their five-month-old, Harry, was sitting on his mother's lap, as planned"

The seats were spread around the plane, so the father couldn't swap with the child to get her next to the mother.
And 3 seats would have worked for this family of 4 as the baby was sat on the mothers lap.

Pollycat

jrdunn wrote: »

How many horror stories do people have to hear or read about Ryanair, before they stop booking with them. If despite the knowledge you have that they are a terrible company to fly with, you book with them then tough luck.

But for everyone with a horror story - that are usually trumpeted from the rooftops, mis-reported by the Daily Mail and plastered all over social media websites - there are hundreds of satisfied customers who get off rhe plane and quietly go about their business, thinking 'I'll book with them again'.

This doesn't just apply to Ryanair but to most airlines.
If people took notice of the people who post on the Air Travel board on Tripadvisor advising 'don't fly with xx airline', nobody would fly anywhere.

Pollycat

quickiemart wrote: »

Did no one actually read the short story?
"the airline's system had seated parents Chris and Kim Parr, both 33 from Lancashire, and their three-year-old, Lily, in three seats spread out around the plane. Their five-month-old, Harry, was sitting on his mother's lap, as planned"

The seats were spread around the plane, so the father couldn't swap with the child to get her next to the mother.
And 3 seats would have worked for this family of 4 as the baby was sat on the mothers lap.

I'm sure lots of people read the story (I did).
However, it's been amended since it was first posted - see here:

MSE_Paloma wrote: »

Hi there, thanks for your comments. The parents couldn't have swapped with the child as they were also allocated seats in different rows. I've amended the story to make this clearer:

Ryanair's system had seated himself, his three-year-old daughter, Lily, and his solicitor wife in three different areas of the plane. Their six month-old, Harry wasn't allocated a seat as he was going to sit on the lap of one of his parent's

Many thanks, Paloma

MSE_Paloma wrote: »

Hi there, thanks for your comments. The parents couldn't have swapped with the child as they were also allocated seats in different rows. I've amended the story to make this clearer:

Ryanair's system had seated himself, his three-year-old daughter, Lily, and his solicitor wife in three different areas of the plane. Their six month-old, Harry wasn't allocated a seat as he was going to sit on the lap of one of his parent's

Many thanks, Paloma

I assume the title of your post (Get your facts straight) applies to the MSE member who first posted the story (before amendment).

shaun_from_Africa

richardw wrote: »

There was http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/manchester/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8937000/8937316.stm

The majority of people who died on that aircraft died due to smoke inhalation whilst still on board and irrespective of a child sitting next to their parents or a few rows away, it is highly likely that the outcome would have been the same.
The main cause of the fatalities was smoke inhalation because the evacuation was delayed due to a jammed emergency exit and it was a combination of things that all lined up to create the problem.
With the changes in procedures since then it's unlikely that a similar incident will happen again in the UK. (but I realise that unlikely doesn't mean never).

hazelmurf

You know the rules when you book with a budget airline so don't expect people not travelling with children to subsidise your flight and allow you to book seats at no cost.

Lewie

Pollycat wrote: »

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

Compulsory, forced, want.
What is an example of a levy that is compulsory?
If there is a charge it means you are using/doing something that incurs such a levy (except maybe an injustice).
I can't think of anything that you are forced to do against your will that you are then forced to pay for.
You go to work and pay tax because you want to earn money, you are not forced to.
You drive and pay a charge because you want to drive, you are not forced to.
Non are compulsory unless you choose to do them putting the 'choose your seat charge' on a par with all other charges.

springsteenrocks

jdbigguy wrote: »

How many horror stories do people have to hear or read about Ryanair, before they stop booking with them. If despite the knowledge you have that they are a terrible company to fly with, you book with them then tough luck.

Have you flown Ryanair recently? We've done six return flights to Alicante over the past eight months and found a vast difference in their customer service and their whole operation.

Extra bag allowed in the cabin (found one to fit their dimensions) and we now carry on over 15kg each. We abide by their booking conditions and choose to pre-book specific seats.

Too many people believe what they read in the Daily Mail and treat it as gospel.

The true story that started this thread should have been about two thick people who believed the world owed them a right, tried to penny pinch on their flights.

Pollycat

Lewie wrote: »

Compulsory, forced, want.
What is an example of a levy that is compulsory?
If there is a charge it means you are using/doing something that incurs such a levy (except maybe an injustice).
I can't think of anything that you are forced to do against your will that you are then forced to pay for.
You go to work and pay tax because you want to earn money, you are not forced to.
You drive and pay a charge because you want to drive, you are not forced to.
Non are compulsory unless you choose to do them putting the 'choose your seat charge' on a par with all other charges.

An example of a levy that is compulsory would be if when booking your flight for £xxx.xx, the system will not let you continue until you add a further £xx.xx to choose to sit together or choose a specific seat.

None of the airlines - as far as I am aware - make you do this so it's not compulsory.
It's a choice.