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

Pollycat

tain wrote: »

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.

So are you saying that airlines who seat children away from their parent are breaking the law?

peachyprice

tain wrote: »

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.

Presumably this 'law breaking' applies to buses and trains too? I would like to see that being enforced on a London tube train!

NFH

Pollycat wrote: »

So are you saying that airlines who seat children away from their parent are breaking the law?

Yes, specifically Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which states:

"It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety."

The CAA guidelines explain why the seating of children close to their parents is a health and safety matter.

NFH

peachyprice wrote: »

Presumably this 'law breaking' applies to buses and trains too? I would like to see that being enforced on a London tube train!

That's not a like-for-like comparison. On buses, trains and the Tube, there is no allocated seating. Passengers are free to move around and do not have to remain in their seat with a seatbelt. You're clutching at straws here in your defence of Ryanair's unreasonable practice.

tain

Pollycat wrote: »

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.

Why would a seat at the cinema be any different to being with your child on a plane? Neither are explicit in the ticket purchase, but both would be assumed based on moral logic (or so you'd think). I do understand that this is entirely my personal view, but I struggle to see it another way.

By it's very nature, it is deliberate. The fact that a charge can be paid and the problem is remedied shows that it is a deliberate act - if it wasn't deliberate, then they wouldn't be able to remedy it so quickly and easily upon paying a charge.

To put it differently - if we were sitting here saying Ryanair said 'look we've totally sold out and the only spaces are separate across the plane, with no amount of money changing that' then there wouldn't be anything to discuss.

tain

Pollycat wrote: »

So are you saying that airlines who seat children away from their parent are breaking the law?

Might be worth reading the rest of the thread first.

Pollycat

NFH wrote: »

Yes, specifically Section 3(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which states:

"It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety."

The CAA guidelines explain why the seating of children close to their parents is a health and safety matter.

In that case why has nobody advised the family in the article to take the airline/check-in staff/cabin crew to court for exposing them to 'risks to their health or safety'?

It's OK, I think I know the answer. :rotfl:

Pollycat

tain wrote: »

Might be worth reading the rest of the thread first.

What makes you think I haven't?

You seem to think that these airlines are breaking the law.
My comment in post #328 applies.

Pollycat

tain wrote: »

Why would a seat at the cinema be any different to being with your child on a plane? Neither are explicit in the ticket purchase, but both would be assumed based on moral logic (or so you'd think). I do understand that this is entirely my personal view, but I struggle to see it another way.

You're making incorrect assumptions.
I don't assume that buying a flight entitles me to anything other than a seat on the plane.
No luggage, no meals, no entitlement to sit with anyone else.

tain

Let me try and summarise my views:

- Seating an infant away from their parents, against the wishes of the parent, could very feasibly be a risk to the health and/or safety of the child. This is an entirely foreseeable situation.

- The airline is bound by UK law, specifically Section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. This basically says that any business must do everything that is reasonably practicable (not excessively expensive or time consuming) to make sure everyone their business affects is free from danger to their health and safety.

- The airlines are deliberately splitting families up. This is known to be deliberate as the remedy is both fast and possible. If it wasn't deliberate, then a remedy wouldn't be possible or would involve having to change other passengers around in order to accommodate.

- This deliberate act is therefore certainly not 'as far as reasonably practicable', and breaches the HSAWA.

- The Management of Health and Safety at Work Act 1999 states that all risks to safety must be assessed (by a risk assessment). The airline must then assess the risks to the child when it separates them from the parent.

- If it is accepted that it is safer for the child to be seated next to their parents, then this risk assessment process has also failed. By it's very nature - if they're refusing to do everything that is reasonably practicable unless a charge is paid, then their risk assessment must be showing this.