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

NFH

Pollycat wrote: »

The 2 highlighted words do not go together.

CAA guidelines do not say that children must not be seated alone away from parents.

You're splitting hairs without presenting any new argument. Not impressed. The CAA guidelines state:

The seating of children close by their parents or guardians should be the aim of airline seat allocation procedures for family groups and large parties of children.

Young children and infants who are accompanied by adults, should ideally be seated in the same seat row as the adult. Children and accompanying adults should not be separated by more than one aisle. Where this is not possible, children should be separated by no more than one seat row from accompanying adults. This is because the speed of an emergency evacuation may be affected by adults trying to reach their children.

Whenever a number of infants and children are travelling together the airline should make every effort to ensure that they can be readily supervised by the responsible accompanying adults.

The aim of Thomson Airways' seat allocation procedures appears to be to separate families in order to solicit a surcharge. The airline is not making every effort to seat children with their parents. Thomson is putting the generation of additional revenue through drip pricing ahead of the safety and welfare of children, which flouts CAA guidelines. That is disgraceful.

Pollycat

NFH wrote: »

You're splitting hairs without presenting any new argument. Not impressed. The CAA guidelines state:

The seating of children close by their parents or guardians should be the aim of airline seat allocation procedures for family groups and large parties of children.

Young children and infants who are accompanied by adults, should ideally be seated in the same seat row as the adult. Children and accompanying adults should not be separated by more than one aisle. Where this is not possible, children should be separated by no more than one seat row from accompanying adults. This is because the speed of an emergency evacuation may be affected by adults trying to reach their children.

Whenever a number of infants and children are travelling together the airline should make every effort to ensure that they can be readily supervised by the responsible accompanying adults.

The aim of Thomson Airways' seat allocation procedures appears to be to separate families in order to solicit a surcharge. The airline is not making every effort to seat children with their parents. Thomson is putting the generation of additional revenue through drip pricing ahead of the safety and welfare of children, which flouts CAA guidelines. That is disgraceful.

I didn't intend to present any new argument.

"should be the aim" is not the same as "must".

If you - or anyone else - has incontrovertible proof that Thomson - or any other airline - are not following CAA guidelines then take it up with them - or the CAA.

You say "Thomson Airways' seat allocation procedures appears to be to separate families in order to solicit a surcharge".

"appears to be" is not the same as "definitely is".

NFH

Pollycat wrote: »

"should be the aim" is not the same as "must".

"appears to be" is not the same as "definitely is".

Please stop splitting hairs; it's not helpful. This resembles trolling.

leylandsunaddict

leylandsunaddict wrote: »

Adults, whether they have a baby or not have no reason to be seated together, other than through their own choice. If they wanted to be sure of being together they would need to prebook, like other people do.

Not true. There has been plenty of discussion above as to why children must not be seated alone away from their parents, for example for safety and welfare reasons. CAA guidelines support this approach.

Where did I mention children being seated alone?

Pollycat

NFH wrote: »

Please stop splitting hairs; it's not helpful. This resembles trolling.

You cannot change the meaning of words in the English language to suit what you believe should happen.

Insisting on trying to convince people what the CAA says is 'must' instead of what the guidelines actually say is not helpful.
If anything, this resembles trolling rather than my pointing out that you are not correct.

tomtontom

NFH wrote: »

Please stop splitting hairs; it's not helpful. This resembles trolling.

^^ This resembles someone that can't admit they are wrong.

PolishBigSpender

NFH wrote: »

Children should not be surcharged to sit with their parents. There are important reasons of safety and welfare that cannot be ignored.

Why? In the case above, one of the adults could move and the child would be sat next to one parent. Problem solved.

jpsartre

NFH wrote: »

It's not about being a "cheapskate" as you inappropriately put it, but about a point of principle.

"It's not about the money it's about the principle" is the motto of every cheapskate. If you can afford to go on holiday you can afford to pay for seats together. In any case, the child was not seated away from his/her parent in this case so nothing to get all worked up about.

As others have pointed out the CAA guidelines do not state that children must be seated with their parents.

NFH

jpsartre wrote: »

"It's not about the money it's about the principle" is the motto of every cheapskate. If you can afford to go on holiday you can afford to pay for seats together.

You are confusing two concepts:

1. The consumer can't afford to pay
2. The consumer shouldn't have to pay

A cheapskate is scenario 1. Someone with principles is scenario 2. The two are entirely separate.

For example, a consumer might give a £1000 donation to charity. But the same consumer might challenge a £50 penalty for parking on private land with no warning signs. Is this consumer a cheapskate for refusing to enrich the private parking company by £50?

jpsartre

NFH wrote: »

You are confusing two concepts:

1. The consumer can't afford to pay
2. The consumer shouldn't have to pay

A cheapskate is scenario 1.

Eh, it's clearly not. I can't afford a yacht, that doesn't make me a cheapskate. A cheapskate is someone who CAN pay but chooses not to because they don't want to spend the money. Nothing wrong with that but don't whine about it when things don't work out the way you wanted later.

I see no compelling argument for the claim that seat selection should be included in the price for everyone. Let people make up their own mind about whether they want that product rather than forcing it on the masses, many of whom may not care about it.