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

leylandsunaddict

Despite what some people have said, Ryanair seem to be very good at seating people together, where seats are available. Plenty of people on TA saying how they didn't pay for seats but they were all sat together. If there aren't seats together then they can't, which is why it's just part of a parents responsibility to make sure they can care for their children. The CAA guidelines are just that, but as far as Ryanair are concerned they mean diddly squat because they're not a UK airline. The same goes for UK H&S.

I'm fed up of the outrage from parents who don't 'care' enough for their kids to make sure they're sat next to them, despite complaining loudly that it's not safe for them to sit next to a stranger. So everyone, bar them, is a peadophile? And when they're sat next to a child on a plane do they view themselves as such? :rotfl:

Rant over - for now

NFH

leylandsunaddict wrote: »

The CAA guidelines are just that, but as far as Ryanair are concerned they mean diddly squat because they're not a UK airline. The same goes for UK H&S.

I think you'll find that UK legislation and CAA guidelines do apply to flights sold in the UK and departing from the UK. An example of this is Article 21 of Directive 2011/83/EU on Consumer Rights, from which airlines are exempt, but the UK's enactment under Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) Regulations 2013 removes airlines' exemption. Consequently Ryanair publishes a basic rate customer services telephone number for the UK but not for most other countries.

tain

leylandsunaddict wrote: »

The CAA guidelines are just that, but as far as Ryanair are concerned they mean diddly squat because they're not a UK airline. The same goes for UK H&S.

Eek.

I hope you don't just live by British laws when you visit other countries.

tain

leylandsunaddict wrote: »

I'm fed up of the outrage from parents who don't 'care' enough for their kids to make sure they're sat next to them, despite complaining loudly that it's not safe for them to sit next to a stranger. So everyone, bar them, is a peadophile? And when they're sat next to a child on a plane do they view themselves as such? :rotfl:

Rant over - for now

I don't think that there has been any parents who haven't cared about their kids sitting next to them. Every single one of them has cared.

Similarly, I don't think there is any instances of parents not paying for their kids to sit next to them. They've either paid up, or complained so much that they didn't have to pay. From my understanding, in all instances the child has sat next to them on the flight to some degree.

This discussion is based around the ethics of if they should have had to pay in the first place, or even if it was ever legal for them to have been charged for this.

Pollycat

tain wrote: »

Kind of embarrassed for you here mate. Can't even read the longest and most obvious post in this entire thread.

Don't be embarrassed for me, mate.

Have you actually read the original story?

Airlines aren't technically breaking rules set out by the regulator, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). Its guidelines state they should "aim to sit parents close to children", or if this isn't possible, they should not be separated by more than one aisle and one seat row, but we believe the airlines are using sneaky tactics and not serving families well.
A CAA spokesman says: "Check-in staff and cabin crew can assist parents who have seating concerns, so parents should not have to pay to avoid a situation where their child is seated in a different part of the aircraft, and we are actively working with airlines on this matter.
"The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) is due to publish updated guidance on seating policies for all European airlines later this year. We will be working to make sure UK airlines follow this guidance and will continue to push for greater transparency to help consumers make informed choices about their flight bookings."

Do you understand what 'technically not breaking the rules' means? :rotfl:

leylandsunaddict

tain wrote: »

I don't think that there has been any parents who haven't cared about their kids sitting next to them. Every single one of them has cared.

Similarly, I don't think there is any instances of parents not paying for their kids to sit next to them. They've either paid up, or complained so much that they didn't have to pay. From my understanding, in all instances the child has sat next to them on the flight to some degree.

This discussion is based around the ethics of if they should have had to pay in the first place, or even if it was ever legal for them to have been charged for this.

There are plenty of instances of parents not paying to sit next to their kids. They board, they kick off and it ends up with people who have paid being moved which is totally unfair because they would have had their own genuine reasons for paying to sit together. Also forum posts from people who didn't actually manage to get seated next to their kids, but within guidelines, so could be separated by a row or across the aisle by a number of seats.

Re ethics - yes if the airlines charges they should have to pay just like anyone else that needs/wants to sit next to someone else. It's not always just kids that need to be seated next to someone. The alternative is they increase the ticket price to all, including those that don't mind where they sit, to subsidise people with kids that just don't want to pay for seats. Ironically, when you ask people that complain about having to pay to prebook seats, they would have paid the extra willingly had it been written into the cost in the first place! Er - common sense. Add optional extras in (including seats, luggage, meals etc etc) when comparing prices.

Young kids under 5 maybe should be exempt, but when people complain about their 9/10 yr old being sat separately - seriously?

tain

Pollycat wrote: »

Don't be embarrassed for me, mate.

Have you actually read the original story?

Do you understand what 'technically not breaking the rules' means? :rotfl:

:rotfl: Lol do you know what the difference between CAA rules and UK laws are?

tain

leylandsunaddict wrote: »

There are plenty of instances of parents not paying to sit next to their kids. They board, they kick off and it ends up with people who have paid being moved which is totally unfair because they would have had their own genuine reasons for paying to sit together. Also forum posts from people who didn't actually manage to get seated next to their kids, but within guidelines, so could be separated by a row or across the aisle by a number of seats.

Re ethics - yes if the airlines charges they should have to pay just like anyone else that needs/wants to sit next to someone else. It's not always just kids that need to be seated next to someone. The alternative is they increase the ticket price to all, including those that don't mind where they sit, to subsidise people with kids that just don't want to pay for seats. Ironically, when you ask people that complain about having to pay to prebook seats, they would have paid the extra willingly had it been written into the cost in the first place! Er - common sense. Add optional extras in (including seats, luggage, meals etc etc) when comparing prices.

Young kids under 5 maybe should be exempt, but when people complain about their 9/10 yr old being sat separately - seriously?

I've said already a few pages back - if the airline has no way of seating people together, that's an entirely different kettle of fish. I'm stating that the choice to seat people differently, which is quickly resolved on paying a fee, is not acceptable.

I think you're putting a price on something that doesn't have a price in this next bit. It costs the airlines nothing to seat people next to each other. I could write the algorithm to do it if I needed - and that includes working out the technical side of balancing the plane et al. There is no additional cost to build into everyone else's ticket price, it's simply an extra avenue for them to earn a profit on.

I think you're making a mistake when you discuss 'anyone' and 'everyone' then mention anyone under the age of 16/18. Children are NOT anyone and everyone - and should never be treated as such. The law is pretty clear on this. Can you leave a 10 year old at home looking after a 3 year old on their own? The law doesn't explicitly say no, but you'd be hauled over hot coals and thrown in jail if you did.

Pollycat

tain wrote: »

:rotfl: Lol do you know what the difference between CAA rules and UK laws are?

You've been banging on about 'Health & Safety' for the last 4 pages and you don't even understand the original discussion. :rotfl:

peachyprice

tain wrote: »

The law is pretty clear on this. Can you leave a 10 year old at home looking after a 3 year old on their own? The law doesn't explicitly say no, but you'd be hauled over hot coals and thrown in jail if you did.

Actually it isn't. And yes you can. Unless it is proved that the children were left in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health you wouldn't be hauled anywhere.