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

NFH

fifeken wrote: »

This cost is avoidable.

How is the cost avoidable for a child? For example, if two parents are travelling with 2yo and 3yo children, can they reasonably avoid paying this surcharge? I remind you of your own comment:

fifeken wrote: »

So the airlines allow parents to sit with their kids, but some parents choose not as it costs. Seems like the parents are the ones putting the kids in danger, if indeed there is any danger.

zagfles

NFH wrote: »

How is the cost avoidable for a child? For example, if two parents are travelling with 2yo and 3yo children, can they reasonably avoid paying this surcharge?

You either contact them beforehand to get it sorted, as Ryanair suggest, or you turn up and get the cabin crew to sort it out once aboard, as happened in the story this thread is discussing.

Or you fly Easyjet who have a "marketing policy" that they don't tell anyone about :rotfl:(except MSE) that guarantees families sit together.

No need to pay.

George_Michael

NFH wrote: »

Thanks for pointing that out. The "European Law", as you put it, is Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008, which states:

"The final price to be paid shall at all times be indicated and shall include the applicable air fare or air rate as well as all applicable taxes, and charges, surcharges and fees which are unavoidable and foreseeable at the time of publication."

If the seating surcharge is unavoidable for children, then it must be included in the headline fare.

"If the seating surcharge is unavoidable".
But it is unavoidable, Parents are not forced into this surcharge as they have the option as to whether to pay or not.
Agreed, most parents wouldn't like the idea of not sitting next to their children but as they have the option to do this, the paid for seat option can be avoided, therefore it doesn't have to be shown in the headline price.

On this and other similar threads, there have been posts from parents who have stated that they would be willing to let their kids be seated away from them knowing that those kids would be getting in the way and annoying the other passengers.
Although this appears to be extremely poor parenting (IMO), it shows that should someone not wish to pay the surcharge, they are not forced into doing so.

NFH

George_Michael wrote: »

Parents are not forced into this surcharge as they have the option as to whether to pay or not.

It is unavoidable for if the children are very young, for example 2 years old. If you're suggesting otherwise, then please explain logistically how this would work.

zagfles

NFH wrote: »

It is unavoidable for if the children are very young, for example 2 years old. If you're suggesting otherwise, then please explain logistically how this would work.

Err...I just did.

As quite rightly stated above, "aviation is amongst the most heavily regulated industries when it comes to HSE rules, regulations and enforcement.". So passengers can be confident airlines won't put passengers in danger, and that includes 2 year olds. If I was travelling with a 2-year old, I wouldn't pay. As I trust the airlines and their regulators to ensure we're safe.

NFH

zagfles wrote: »

You either contact them beforehand to get it sorted, as Ryanair suggest, or you turn up and get the cabin crew to sort it out once aboard, as happened in the story this thread is discussing.

The problem is that it doesn't always go as smoothly as you suggest, which gave rise to this story. Parents should have more certainty (not total certainty but more certainty) that their children will be seated with them, particularly if they check in early. Otherwise the seating surcharges are unavoidable in respect of families with children.

We still don't know the point at which the family checked in online. For example, did they leave it until very late when most seats had been allocated? That crucial fact is missing.

zagfles

NFH wrote: »

The problem is that it doesn't always go as smoothly as you suggest, which gave rise to this story. Parents should have more certainty (not total certainty but more certainty) that their children will be seated with them, particularly if they check in early. Otherwise the seating surcharges are unavoidable in respect of families with children.

We still don't know the point at which the family checked in online. For example, did they leave it until very late when most seats had been allocated? That crucial fact is missing.

The fact that is crystal clear from the story is that in all 5 cases mentioned, it was all sorted. No toddler, or even 10-year old, was left sitting alone.

The airlines are playing the exact same game as banks used to with card protection plans etc. Convince the gullible they need to pay for something they get free anyway - like fraud protection.

See http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/CPP-card-protection

Make them worry, make them pay to put their minds at rest. Just like the "Martin Lewis punches you in the face insurance":

Now you've thought that, it starts to create a doubt. "Maybe you should get it, after all it's not that expensive, and peace of mind against being lamped on the nose is important."

:rotfl:

NFH

zagfles wrote: »

The fact that is crystal clear from the story is that in all 5 cases mentioned, it was all sorted. No toddler, or even 10-year old, was left sitting alone.

Yes, eventually after a lot of time and effort by the parents persuading the airline to seat the children with the accompanying parents. One of the points of this story is that the parents should not have been subjected to all this hassle. But as I said, we don't know the point at which the family checked in online.

tain

zagfles wrote: »

Err...I just did.

As quite rightly stated above, "aviation is amongst the most heavily regulated industries when it comes to HSE rules, regulations and enforcement.". So passengers can be confident airlines won't put passengers in danger, and that includes 2 year olds. If I was travelling with a 2-year old, I wouldn't pay. As I trust the airlines and their regulators to ensure we're safe.

Saying they're heavily regulated proves nothing though. You've made a jump of assumption there.

And let's be very clear - when it comes to airline safety, this topic comes very very very low down on their list of priorities. Terrorism, flight malfunctions, and keeping the tin can in the air rightly take up most of their time.

tain

The fact that so many people are outraged at the thought that someone might accept that their 2 year old is going to be seated away from them as they're not willing to pay the extra pretty much shows we all agree that there is a risk here.

If we've established that fact, the rest is purely academic as the laws are pretty clear.