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

peachyprice

zagfles wrote: »

As a matter of interest, why do you think Easyjet and others guarantee to seat families together? Seems to go against their business model?

And even Ryanair suggest contacting them to get it sorted if a family is split up. Why would they do that? Not Molly's style at all. Surely they should just say "pay up or we'll spread you round the plane".

And why do people who have paid sometimes get moved to accomodate a family who haven't?

At looking at it from another angle, if the CAA guidelines were an absolute that must be adhered to Easyjet wouldn't need to guarantee that families would be sat together, it would be a given on all airlines, which it isn't. It's a marketing point, a one up on Ryan Air/Thomsons, nothing more.

As for why people who have paid get moves, that's pretty obvious isn't it? Time is money, with turnaround times of 45 mins it's cheaper to spending 5 mins asking people who have paid to move (and the first person they ask won't necessarily agree to) than it is to sit on the tarmac while they offload a family. Economics, that's all. Nothing mysterious.

zagfles

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

All 3 examples that you give all come down to two things.
£'s and a trouble free flight.
Easyjet will be using their guarantee of families being sat together as a marketing point to try to get more families flying with them (and more pax means more revenue). This is no different to some airlines making a big point of allowing more hand luggage than their rivals or having superior IFE systems.

If that were the case, surely they'd actually advertise it! No point having a "marketing point" if you don't shout it from the rooftops! When we went with Easyjet in April I didn't know they had this policy, because they don't advertise it. First I heard of this "guarantee" was the MSE article.

Instead of Ryanair asking for families that have been split up on flight to contact them, why not just stop splitting those families up in the first place?

Because it puts an additional hassle barrier in the way that some people CBA with, and they'll just lazily pay. Why do you think it's not something passengers can do online, like with virtually everything else? You have to phone them. Not really Ryanair's style, is it?

Money. They will have estimated that the extra revenue they get from their seating policy outweighs any possible compensation paid to people who complain about the practice.

As to why some people who have paid for seats get asked to move.
This happens occasionally on all airlines for a number of reasons.
If a family complain about having to sit apart, the airline may decide that it causes less trouble to simply move another passenger or two rather than risk the flight being delayed and losing its takeoff slot

Even passengers who have paid for their seats? That would likely cause more problems and delays! Just look at the attitude of some people in these threads towards being asked to move to accomodate a family!! Or perhaps they are in a small minority

Anyway, whatever the reason, the bottom line is clear. Families don't need to pay to be sat together. We never have and never will :cool:

tain

peachyprice wrote: »

Unless you are THE HSE, as in you are the rule maker, the head honcho, the one who has the final say, legislator etc., all those posts are nothing more than your personal opinion, not material facts.

If you are posting as a representative of the HSE, not as a personal individual, and your posts are in fact the irrefutable stance of the HSE I believe you need permission to post here.

Well that's a ridiculous statement if I've ever heard it.

Surely only the police can comment when a crime is committed then? "I didn't call the police when he stole her bag as I'm not a police officer so I can't say if it's a crime or not."

Working directly as a qualified H&S officer is as pretty close as it can come without being the governing body itself. I exist so they don't have to, basically.

And I've said a few thousand times already - you can't refute a claim based entirely on professional merit. You have done nothing to state that my facts regarding the law suggest that they are doing something wrong here. Nothing. Please tell me where my points regarding their duty of care to passengers, and their appropriate risk assessments, will have nothing to do with seating infants apart from parents.

tain

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

One other point that I've not mentioned on this thread.

I work in aviation and have done so for more than 35 years so I know that UK civil aviation is amongst the most heavily regulated industries when it comes to HSE rules, regulations and enforcement.

Do you honestly think that if the practice of seating children away from their parents was illegal, something wouldn't have been done or even mentioned by the relevant bodies before now?
The UK CAA are generally very quick to take action if they think that there has been a possible breach of safety requirements and the fact that they haven't done this speaks for itself.

What did you used to do in aviation? Because your comment is just as presumptuous as any other on this thread. It doesn't appear to be based on any facts, just a guess.

Yes - I honestly do think that if it was illegal, they'd need to spend a lot of time with a legal team to work out if they need to intervene. Tell me when they've been 'quick to act' on something that is fairly low risk. Terrorism I understand is a massive risk so will always need quick action. But this is low risk, hence it takes a long time to come to light and even longer for action to be brought forward, if at all.

tain

N1AK wrote: »

It's a stupid analogy for two reasons:
1/ Parents, and other tax payers, ARE paying for teachers to be DBS checked already.
2/ There is a pretty large difference, in terms of choice, between plane tickets and school.

Besides which students who's parents buy houses near to the best schools will tend to get a better education than parents who can't afford to do that.

It's not stupid, by your own statements.

1/ So the price of a plane ticket should include children being seated with a parent, exactly like you include it with tax for DBS checks. (I should add that there is no cost for this to the airlines. None. Zero.)

2/ When it comes to H&S law, choice doesn't come in to it. Our laws don't say 'be as unsafe as you like, as long as there's a more expensive safe choice elsewhere for people to pick'. Duty of care et al.

tain

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

All 3 examples that you give all come down to two things.
£'s and a trouble free flight.
Easyjet will be using their guarantee of families being sat together as a marketing point to try to get more families flying with them (and more pax means more revenue). This is no different to some airlines making a big point of allowing more hand luggage than their rivals or having superior IFE systems.

Instead of Ryanair asking for families that have been split up on flight to contact them, why not just stop splitting those families up in the first place?
Money. They will have estimated that the extra revenue they get from their seating policy outweighs any possible compensation paid to people who complain about the practice.

As to why some people who have paid for seats get asked to move.
This happens occasionally on all airlines for a number of reasons.
If a family complain about having to sit apart, the airline may decide that it causes less trouble to simply move another passenger or two rather than risk the flight being delayed and losing its takeoff slot

Good points, but I think EasyJet's line of reasoning doesn't exclude it from also being a safety consideration. I don't think they will get any (or very very little) extra business from this kind of stance. Personally, I think it's a result of their risk assessments, which then works as a publicity tool on top. If people are booking Ryanair, it's because of their price point. And the same people would rather have the argument with them than pay a lot more for EasyJet.

tain

I've looked into it, and there may be some hazy ground with carriers that are just 'visiting' the UK. For instance, Iberia are based entirely in Spain, so booking a flight with them MIGHT not come under UK law with regards to H&S. I have no idea whatsoever if they do or not. Totally out of my remit.

But anyone with a hub in the UK, like EasyJet, BA, Thomson, Ryanair, etc. - they ARE entirely liable to our laws.

shaun_from_Africa

tain wrote: »

What did you used to do in aviation? Because your comment is just as presumptuous as any other on this thread. It doesn't appear to be based on any facts, just a guess.

I didn't "used to do" anything, I still do it. I'm a CAA licenced aircraft engineer. That is my main job but I am also qualified in other aviation related activities.
Part of the requirement to get licenced means that you must have a very good knowledge of current air law such as the Air navigation order (which includes a lengthy examination) and I also have to undergo yearly training that covers changes in rules laws and procedures.
As mentioned in an earlier post, I also carry out risk assessments on a regular basis so am well aware of what is required for these.
Every civil aviation operation that is under the control of the UK CAA must have regular audits and inspections to ensure that they are complying with the required laws and H&S requirements and these audits are carried out both internally, by the CAA, and by any client that the air operator is working for.

So no, your assumption that my writing about how the industry is regulated being just a guess is about as wrong as it can be and why do you think my comments presumptuous? Could it be because they don't back up your claim?

tain wrote: »

Tell me when they've been 'quick to act' on something that is fairly low risk.

Not allowing passengers to use electronic items during taxi, take off and landing due to the possibility of of them interfering with aircraft systems.
The chances of this actually happening is so remote as to make it virtually impossible (just try to find a verified case of it happening). In fact some airlines now allow pax to use their own devices at any stage of the flight).

Airlines insisting that passengers couldn't take tweezers or nail scissors on the aircraft. This was despite the fact that their bags may have held 1 litre glass bottles full of flammable liquids that could do far more damage than any tweezers yet these were totally ignored.
Virgin Atlantic used to have their own random checks just before boarding and any tweezers or tiny scissors were taken off passengers.

shaun_from_Africa

tain wrote: »

I've looked into it, and there may be some hazy ground with carriers that are just 'visiting' the UK. For instance, Iberia are based entirely in Spain, so booking a flight with them MIGHT not come under UK law with regards to H&S. I have no idea whatsoever if they do or not. Totally out of my remit.

Foreign airlines in the UK will be operating under their own aviation legislation but this will be very similar to the Air Navigation order that we have here.
This is because the ICAO (international civil aviation organisation) lays down a set of minimum standards that must be followed and there is now a Europe wide aviation safety organisation (EASA) who has power over all European airlines and a few from outside Europe have also signed to EASA.

tain

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I didn't "used to do" anything, I still do it. I'm a CAA licenced aircraft engineer. That is my main job but I am also qualified in other aviation related activities.
Part of the requirement to get licenced means that you must have a very good knowledge of current air law such as the Air navigation order (which includes a lengthy examination) and I also have to undergo yearly training that covers changes in rules laws and procedures.
As mentioned in an earlier post, I also carry out risk assessments on a regular basis so am well aware of what is required for these.
Every civil aviation operation that is under the control of the UK CAA must have regular audits and inspections to ensure that they are complying with the required laws and H&S requirements and these audits are carried out both internally, by the CAA, and by any client that the air operator is working for.

So no, your assumption that my writing about how the industry is regulated being just a guess is about as wrong as it can be and why do you think my comments presumptuous? Could it be because they don't back up your claim?



Not allowing passengers to use electronic items during taxi, take off and landing due to the possibility of of them interfering with aircraft systems.
The chances of this actually happening is so remote as to make it virtually impossible (just try to find a verified case of it happening). In fact some airlines now allow pax to use their own devices at any stage of the flight).

Airlines insisting that passengers couldn't take tweezers or nail scissors on the aircraft. This was despite the fact that their bags may have held 1 litre glass bottles full of flammable liquids that could do far more damage than any tweezers yet these were totally ignored.
Virgin Atlantic used to have their own random checks just before boarding and any tweezers or tiny scissors were taken off passengers.

Errrr it is still a guess?

Can you 100% say that the CAA is or is not acting on this already, behind the scenes? Or, like everyone else who is not working for the CAA, you don't have the faintest idea? Sure, your experience might better place you to make that guess. But it's still a guess all the same.

Just to be clear - you're not interpreting the guidelines or acting on experience, which is part of your job. You're purely speculating that they're not doing anything and therefore that means that it is certain no laws are being broken. That is a poor assumption to make based on no evidence. An absence of evidence does not prove the negative. It just doesn't prove anything either.