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

Pollycat

tain wrote: »

Have you read anything I've said about H&S laws and how they make these 'optional extras' also likely to be breaching the law? Because you seem to be cherry-picking which of my posts to discuss, and it's boring having to repeat myself all the time.

Here you go again with your 'opinion', 'I think' and 'likely'. :rotfl:

Why is it, do you think, that MSE have not concentrated on the H&S angle?
Exactly. :whistle:

Pollycat

tain wrote: »

Your trolling is boring now. At least try to be smart with it so it's entertaining.

General internet etiquette:
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are a troll.
Don't be so rude.

NFH

Pollycat wrote: »

General internet etiquette:
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are a troll.

But you are doing more than simply disagreeing. You are ignoring points that have already been made earlier in the thread during your quest to disagree with some very valid points. Your posts appear to disagree just for the sake of it without any substance or reasoning.

leylandsunaddict

tain wrote: »

Haha yes. Yes they do. Both when they accept payments for flights in their country, and them flights land on that country's soil.

Seriously people - could at least someone have some research in their pocket before posting on here? I know it's just an internet forum and people post on a whim, but if you know zero about laws - please just don't make it up and presume you know what you're talking about.

Do they really? If that is the case why do UK registered aircraft flying out of the UK, into and out of the USA, allows lap infants to be restrained by seat belt extenders, and why do they serve alcohol to under 21s?

Pollycat

NFH wrote: »

But you are doing more than simply disagreeing. You are ignoring points that have already been made earlier in the thread during your quest to disagree with some very valid points. Your posts appear to disagree just for the sake of it without any substance or reasoning.

But the crux is that I don't accept that H&S are valid points - as things stand right now.
I regret that you think my posts are simply disagreeing for the sake of it, obviously I don't see it that way.

I'll ask this question again (that you appear to have ignored - pot & kettle?):

Pollycat wrote: »

Why is it, do you think, that MSE have not concentrated on the H&S angle?

I agree with this:

richardw wrote: »

Re "In the end, I was sat on my own with our six-month old, with my wife sat with our daughter two rows further up" this is all that the CAA suggests that airlines should do, if MSE is not happy about this then MSE needs to direct its campaigning at the government and the CAA.

tain

Pollycat wrote: »

General internet etiquette:
Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are a troll.
Don't be so rude.

General internet rules - if someone purposefully misconstrues everything you say, and ignores one post to the next, then they're a troll. Or a moron.

leylandsunaddict

tain wrote: »

Have you read anything I've said about H&S laws and how they make these 'optional extras' also likely to be breaching the law? Because you seem to be cherry-picking which of my posts to discuss, and it's boring having to repeat myself all the time.

No, because you're boring the pants off me to be honest. As you seem to know everything about H&S, and everything there is to know about law, I'm surprised you even bother to grace internet forums with your presence. It seems a shame to waste your time discussing foreign airlines policies when I'm sure your knowledge would be of far more use out there actually doing something about changing them. Instead your trying to impress people that really don't care about your obvious talents.

Given that charging extra for seats is nothing new if there was this great issue you seem to be convinced about, I'm surprised that this nanny state we live in hasn't done something about it before now.

I'm out. Today I'm sharing my talents where they can actually help to effect a change.

NFH

Pollycat wrote: »

Why is it, do you think, that MSE have not concentrated on the H&S angle?

I did not previously answer this question because it is irrelevant; it is more trolling. It is irrelevant what MSE says. It is more relevant what the CAA says about the safety of children being seated next to their parents, and we have already discussed that.

NFH

Pollycat wrote: »

But the crux is that I don't accept that H&S are valid points - as things stand right now.

If you disagree, then please present constructive reasoning why you disagree. If you can't do that (or you simply say that MSE didn't mention it), then you are trolling.

Pollycat

NFH wrote: »

I did not previously answer this question because it is irrelevant; it is more trolling. It is irrelevant what MSE says. It is more relevant what the CAA says about the safety of children being seated next to their parents, and we have already discussed that.

They are CAA guidelines - we have already discussed that. As peachyprice has pointed out:

peachyprice wrote: »

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.

The link to the CAA website has been posted more than once.