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

NFH

peachyprice wrote: »

It's you who doesn't seem to have read the CAA guidelines.

There is no must or will.

Silly comment. You think that deliberately scattering families around the aircraft fulfils the airline's onus that they should seat children with an accompanying adult?

goggle

tain wrote: »

Are the air crew trained in how to respond should the child choke? Or have an allergic reaction to some of the food?

Oh yes, probably more so than 98% of parents!

peachyprice

NFH wrote: »

Silly comment. You think that deliberately scattering families around the aircraft fulfils the airline's onus that they should seat children with an accompanying adult?

Oh, this thread is full of silly comments, you don't have to look further than the title for the silliest of all calling it a 'family tax'

Anyhow, the guidelines don't say should though do they, they say should ideally and should aim No absolute should at all, and certainly not a hint of a must.

How do you enforce a should ideally and a should aim when it's not an absolute? The airline only has to say 'we aimed'/ 'it was not ideal' to seat those passengers together and they've adhered to the guidelines.

tain

peachyprice wrote: »

There things can only happen to children? Really? Or should all adults also be accompanied at all times in case they choke, have an allergic reaction or an episode that makes them behave irrationally?

Air crew are trained to deal with these types of incidents, it doesn't make a difference whether it's a child or adult choking/having a medical emergency/misbehaving, the procedure is the same. Or do you think if they see an adult choking/fitting/fighting/getting out of their seat at inappropriate times they just shrug their shoulders and walk away?

Err not overly a smart comment here. Are you seriously saying that childcare and adult care are the same? Seriously?

I've heard of adults being run over and killed when crossing the road - should we also insist on holding their hands to be sure just in case? No - because we're not idiots and know the difference between an infant who can't make their own choices, and an adult that can.

And don't make comments like 'Air crew are trained to deal with these types of incidents'. You are guessing. Minor first aid training on infants certainly doesn't count as training in my opinion.

NFH

peachyprice wrote: »

Anyhow, the guidelines don't say should though do they, they say should ideally and should aim No absolute should at all, and certainly not a hint of a must.

You're splitting hairs. What you're saying is not in the spirit of the guidelines' intention.

tain

How would people feel if teachers were only DBS checked if they paid an annual fee to the school? Is that still bad parenting if they don't or can't afford to pay it?

Maybe we should install a 50p meter at every pelican crossing? £5 paid in advance for every ambulance or fire engine that needs to be dispatched?

peachyprice

NFH wrote: »

You're splitting hairs. What you're saying is not in the spirit of the guidelines' intention.

Clearly I am not the only one 'splitting hairs'. If the CAA want enforceable guidelines they need to word them better, being 'in the spirit' is a far cry from legally enforceable. Which will be the stance Ryan Air, Thomsons and other airlines will take, not matter how much you dislike it.

tain

I really really really don't understand this idea that a parent is to blame for the airline's decision to seat them separately.

Is it just me that thinks keeping a parent and child together is a given? That there is never a scenario where it is acceptable to separate them against their wishes?

I see it as entirely inherent in the booking process. In exactly the same way you would expect a seat when buying a cinema ticket, or for the bus you've just boarded to go where it says it is.

tain

peachyprice wrote: »

Clearly I am not the only one 'splitting hairs'. If the CAA want enforceable guidelines they need to word them better, being 'in the spirit' is a far cry from legally enforceable. Which will be the stance Ryan Air, Thomsons and other airlines will take, not matter how much you dislike it.

It doesn't need to - the airlines are also liable to British laws, which in this case go much further and place a duty of care entirely on the airline to their customers.

What's the point in rehashing all of that when the law supercedes it anyway? If they're going down that route, they might as well include guidance on not killing people, and how to not steal passenger's belongings from their baggage.

Pollycat

tain wrote: »

I really really really don't understand this idea that a parent is to blame for the airline's decision to seat them separately.

Is it just me that thinks keeping a parent and child together is a given? That there is never a scenario where it is acceptable to separate them against their wishes?

I see it as entirely inherent in the booking process. In exactly the same way you would expect a seat when buying a cinema ticket, or for the bus you've just boarded to go where it says it is.

But that clearly is not how airlines see it.

When booking a flight you do get a seat.
It just might not be the seat next to your child if you don't opt to pay to be seated together.

Lots of claims on this thread that airlines deliberately split families up.
That's not my experience.