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

shaun_from_Africa

tain wrote: »

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

No, I can't say for certain but as I interact with CAA surveyors on a regular basis and often get to hear the local gossip about what is happening, which airline is being prosecuted, safety related issues etc, and as I have to keep very up to date with the current ANO and H&S requirements, I think that an educated guess is correct.

The CAA also release a regular feedback "magazine" that covers many of the incidents and reports that have happened in the recent past and I have yet to read in there of a single incidence of the CAA taking action or even considering taking action over child seating arrangments. (Do a google search for CHIRP and CAA)

tain wrote: »

An absence of evidence does not prove the negative. It just doesn't prove anything either.

So post some evidence to show that what Ryanair are doing is illegal then.
Not speculation or guesswork which is all that you have posted so far, actual evidence. Of course, if no such evidence actually exists, that won't be easy to do will it?
I have posted evidence showing that the CAA do not think it is illegal (otherwise why have guidelines and not rules or laws).

Do you honestly expect people to believe that with all the "cash for accident" lawyers, "cash for discrimination" lawyers and plenty of others willing to accept various cases for little of no fee upfront, at least one of them wouldn't have agreed to take on Ryanair or other airlines if they thought that families were being discriminated against by being forced to pay to ensure that their children were not placed in extra danger by being seated away from their parents?

Pollycat

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

No, I can't say for certain but as I interact with CAA surveyors on a regular basis and often get to hear the local gossip about what is happening, which airline is being prosecuted, safety related issues etc, and as I have to keep very up to date with the current ANO and H&S requirements, I think that an educated guess is correct.

The CAA also release a regular feedback "magazine" that covers many of the incidents and reports that have happened in the recent past and I have yet to read in there of a single incidence of the CAA taking action or even considering taking action over child seating arrangments. (Do a google search for CHIRP and CAA)


So post some evidence to show that what Ryanair are doing is illegal then.
Not speculation or guesswork which is all that you have posted so far, actual evidence. Of course, if no such evidence actually exists, that won't be easy to do will it?
I have posted evidence showing that the CAA do not think it is illegal (otherwise why have guidelines and not rules or laws).

Do you honestly expect people to believe that with all the "cash for accident" lawyers, "cash for discrimination" lawyers and plenty of others willing to accept various cases for little of no fee upfront, at least one of them wouldn't have agreed to take on Ryanair or other airlines if they thought that families were being discriminated against by being forced to pay to ensure that their children were not placed in extra danger by being seated away from their parents?

I said quite a lot of the above and was accused of trolling.

I think I'll take shaun from Africa's experience over tain's H&S any day.
But of course, that is just my opinion.

tain

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

No, I can't say for certain but as I interact with CAA surveyors on a regular basis and often get to hear the local gossip about what is happening, which airline is being prosecuted, safety related issues etc, and as I have to keep very up to date with the current ANO and H&S requirements, I think that an educated guess is correct.

The CAA also release a regular feedback "magazine" that covers many of the incidents and reports that have happened in the recent past and I have yet to read in there of a single incidence of the CAA taking action or even considering taking action over child seating arrangments. (Do a google search for CHIRP and CAA)


So post some evidence to show that what Ryanair are doing is illegal then.
Not speculation or guesswork which is all that you have posted so far, actual evidence. Of course, if no such evidence actually exists, that won't be easy to do will it?
I have posted evidence showing that the CAA do not think it is illegal (otherwise why have guidelines and not rules or laws).

Do you honestly expect people to believe that with all the "cash for accident" lawyers, "cash for discrimination" lawyers and plenty of others willing to accept various cases for little of no fee upfront, at least one of them wouldn't have agreed to take on Ryanair or other airlines if they thought that families were being discriminated against by being forced to pay to ensure that their children were not placed in extra danger by being seated away from their parents?

I have though. I've presented very clearly in a couple of detailed long posts what is happening, what the foreseeable risks are, and why it breaches the law. I couldn't have been clearer. I've done exactly what most people keep choosing to ignore.

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I have posted evidence showing that the CAA do not think it is illegal (otherwise why have guidelines and not rules or laws).

No you haven't. Again - you're presenting speculation as fact. You can't make a jump in assumption and expect it to be true.

Also - guidelines are for a large part an interpretation of often very complex laws. H&S laws are very complex, and therefore interpretation is constantly changing. If you're not aware of them, looking up both Approved Codes of Practice, and official guidelines relating to H&S law. They're not laws in themselves, just guidelines. So why would the HSE produce these when there are perfectly good enough laws in place? They're to make the law easier to understand in a practical way. I'd fully expect that CAA guidelines are exactly this - a specific interpretation of the law relating to airlines in the UK. They probably go above and beyond the law and form best practice as well, to make sure everyone doesn't eek outside the law in extreme circumstances.

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

So post some evidence to show that what Ryanair are doing is illegal then.
Not speculation or guesswork which is all that you have posted so far, actual evidence. Of course, if no such evidence actually exists, that won't be easy to do will it?

Do you honestly expect people to believe that with all the "cash for accident" lawyers, "cash for discrimination" lawyers and plenty of others willing to accept various cases for little of no fee upfront, at least one of them wouldn't have agreed to take on Ryanair or other airlines if they thought that families were being discriminated against by being forced to pay to ensure that their children were not placed in extra danger by being seated away from their parents?

I've addressed all of this a few thousand times already, so don't be obtuse and put your misunderstandings on me as though it's my fault you don't understand how our laws work.

I'll say it again for your sake - our H&S laws don't operate on a punishment basis. They are preventative. It's totally different to someone being caught stealing something, or murdering their cat. Our laws don't say 'you cannot separate parents and children on flights'. Our laws do say 'if this is a likely unsafe situation, you will be breaking the law and will go to prison'.

The 'evidence' that you keep demanding was in the very first post. There isn't a man in this country that can say if it is breaking the law or not - not even Judith Hackitt, the Chair of the HSE. No one can say if it is breaking the rules or not, until it's gone to court. They can, however, say if it is very likely breaking the law.

This is the very nature of our H&S laws. They're meant to be interpreted rather than explicit. It's good for us as a country if they're interpreted.

tain

I do like the 'my mate told me' evidence though.

tain

Shaun from Africa - I've checked back through, and you seem to be cherry-picking which of my posts to ignore, and there is a common theme. Whenever I mention the law and it's application, you haven't seemed to comment. I'd like your thoughts on this please:

tain wrote: »

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.

tain

Oooh just came across this news article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10182869

BA used to have a policy of never seating a man next to a child on their own. Now, they then got done for discrimination, but their initial policy is clearly showing that their risk assessment highlighted a danger of children on their own on a plane.

This isn't proving anything at all btw - but it shows that I'm not talking absolute rubbish either. One of the biggest airlines in the world also thinks there is possible dangers.

tain

Another sort of pertinent bit of info:

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:2061752891:pc=PC_91467

The Aussie CASA clearly state that the child is the parent's responsibility at all times. Does the CAA have the same guidance to parents? If it does, then that's fairly damning. I haven't found this just yet though.

shaun_from_Africa

So people who disagree with you are being obtuse or trolling?
Yes, I agree that you must work in health and safety as just about everyone I've ever met in that line of work has the same attitude as you not willing to accept other people's opinions or listening to their points.

tain wrote: »

Another sort of pertinent bit of info:

http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:2061752891:pc=PC_91467

Does the CAA have the same guidance to parents? If it does, then that's fairly damning. I haven't found this just yet though.

Not pertinent in the least. A foreign government with different laws, and no The CAA don't have anything similar but what the hell, use it to back up your pointless and evidence free argument.


As you are so blinkered, it's pointless continuing the discussion with you.

tain

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

So people who disagree with you are being obtuse or trolling?
Yes, I agree that you must work in health and safety as just about everyone I've ever met in that line of work has the same attitude as you not willing to accept other people's opinions or listening to their points.



Not pertinent in the least. A foreign government with different laws, and no The CAA don't have anything similar but what the hell, use it to back up your pointless and evidence free argument.


As you are so blinkered, it's pointless continuing the discussion with you.

Good job on ignoring my questions again.

tain

When someone politely invites you to engage in purposeful discussion and directs some questions straight at you, it's quite transparent when you then throw your arms in the air and deem that the conversation is pointless.