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

N1AK

hazelmurf wrote: »

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.

Knowing the rules and not expecting others to subsidise your family are unfortunately not things some of the most selfish parents seem to get.

Ryanair should just force parties including Children to include allocated seating. You'll still get parents who think the world revolves around them complaining about the 'tax' but at least it'll stop everyone else being inconvenienced when the selfish beggars kick up a fuss on the plane about the entirely avoidable seating issue they caused.

tain

IMO this all comes down to a single question: Is it safe for a two year old child to sit on their own on a flight?

I believe it is fundamentally unsafe for a two year old to not have a parent/guardian with them on a flight. In the UK it is illegal to make someone pay for safety, and being safe is part of our human rights. So in my opinion, an airline is breaching the law when they levy a charge that would inadvertently create an unsafe situation.

Could Ryanair charge you an extra fiver to ensure your flight didn't have people smoking cigarettes on it?

tain

Naturally, if you think a two year old is perfectly safe on a flight on their tod, then it makes any airline charges perfectly acceptable. If the child is safe, then it's simply a question of convenience and peace-of-mind, which is totally acceptable to charge for.

tain

George_Michael wrote: »

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.

I think you'll find the UK health and safety laws are not reactionary and prescriptive. The simple act of them being unsafe will make it illegal. You only need to have been able to foresee the danger, and to then ignore that, for it to breach the law. Ask any environmental health officer or HSE inspector - their jobs aren't to sit and wait for a hazard to take effect before they can raise improvement or prohibition notices, or take someone to court.

shaun_from_Africa

tain wrote: »

In the UK it is illegal to make someone pay for safety,

And the specific law that cover this is?

tain wrote: »

The simple act of them being unsafe will make it illegal. You only need to have been able to foresee the danger, and to then ignore that, for it to breach the law.

Simply being unsafe does not make an act illegal.
There are thousands of people killed or injured on the roads every year so driving or cycling must be unsafe so is it illegal
Rockclimbing, parachuting, swimming etc can all be unsafe so should they all be made illegal?


Your last sentence sums it up. "You only need to have been able to foresee the danger, and to then ignore that, for it to breach the law"
Ryanair and other airlines that seat children away from their parents are not ignoring the safety aspect.
They have cabin crew on board who are responsible for the safety of all passengers so they have taken steps to mitigate any possible safety issues.

NFH

MKC wrote: »

Why do parents think they have a right not to pay for seats when all other passengers who want to sit together have to do so?

Other passengers wish to sit together for social reasons. Children need a responsible adult with them for safety and welfare reasons. Fundamentally different.

NFH

zagfles wrote: »

It's a safety issue. You don't have to pay for basic safety. What next, charging for lifevests?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idd32nyf1pc

zagfles

NFH wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Idd32nyf1pc

:rotfl:brilliant!

tain

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

And the specific law that cover this is?




Simply being unsafe does not make an act illegal.
There are thousands of people killed or injured on the roads every year so driving or cycling must be unsafe so is it illegal
Rockclimbing, parachuting, swimming etc can all be unsafe so should they all be made illegal?


Your last sentence sums it up. "You only need to have been able to foresee the danger, and to then ignore that, for it to breach the law"
Ryanair and other airlines that seat children away from their parents are not ignoring the safety aspect.
They have cabin crew on board who are responsible for the safety of all passengers so they have taken steps to mitigate any possible safety issues.

You're not comparing apples with apples here. You're talking about a risk whereby someone willingly engages in an activity where the dangers are accepted by the very notion that someone has done the act. It is the same for a football player who gets injured - they can't sue their club because the very act of playing football involves the acceptance of the risk that you might get injured.

However if the club give that same player little option but to play when they knew he was carrying an injury already, then he would have grounds to take further action. He doesn't even need to have sustained the injury - the fact he could foresee it because their physio said so is enough to warrant further action.

Therefore if I refused to board the plain due to health and safety concerns of my infant child being seated separately from me, I'd expect a full refund of my airfares.

But as I said before - it's all about if you think there is a safety concern. Your last point shows that you don't, so your point is valid that it wouldn't stand up in court. I disagree though - I think it is a foreseeable risk, as airline crew aren't trained in childcare.

Are the air crew trained in how to respond should the child choke? Or have an allergic reaction to some of the food? Do they know how to control the child should they start misbehaving? What if they refused to obey the safety notices and took their seatbelt off and started running around? Are the flight crew trained or even allowed to restrain the child? What if they injured the child in trying to restrain them? What if the child injured someone else? The parent can't be held responsible as they're the other side of the plane - so are the cabin crew to blame?

tain

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

And the specific law that cover this is?




Simply being unsafe does not make an act illegal.
There are thousands of people killed or injured on the roads every year so driving or cycling must be unsafe so is it illegal
Rockclimbing, parachuting, swimming etc can all be unsafe so should they all be made illegal?

Risk assessments must also consider all those who might be
affected by the undertaking, whether they are workers or others
such as members of the public. For example, the risk assessment
produced by a railway company will inter alia, have to consider the
hazards and risks which arise from the operation and maintenance
of rail vehicles and train services and which might adversely affect
workers (their own employees and others), passengers and any
member of the public who could foreseeably be affected (eg level
crossing users).

http://www.hseni.gov.uk/l21_management_of_health_and_safety_at_work.pdf

So, if I can foresee a hazard (just like the airlines can), and I deem the potential risk to be sufficiently high, then no matter how unlikely it is to happen - it is still breaching the law if I choose to ignore it.

The hazard doesn't need to have happened for it to be illegal. If a child was to have an allergic reaction to something the airline steward gave them and they died, then the airline will get a massive fine for failing in their duty of care. The fine isn't saying 'this is now illegal and we've set a precedent', it's saying it was always illegal and they failed in their duties.