Travel with Children - OK, so BA sucks to travel with kids

and I didn't even travel with them. :p

If there are BA FAs on here, please confirm or deny what I was just told.

I was just calling to book tickets for my family including an infant in a car seat (so buying an <2 child a seat).

I was already annoyed because they were telling me that because I am buying my infant a seat, we do not qualify for advance seat assignments because my infant is no longer and infant. :confused: After trying to get her to explain the logic of how that makes ANY sense when the web site says" For passengers traveling with infants, seat selection is free from the time of booking." When I asked her how it makes sense that I am paying her company $600 more than I am actually obligated to pay only to receive less service in return. She had no explanation, naturally. Essentially the moral of the story there is that it apparently pays to take something for (next to) nothing.

Then she said that even if I buy my infant a seat and have her ride in a car seat that I still have to hold her in my lap for takeoff, landing, and turbulence. ...as if she is safer in my lap than strapped into her car seat in those circumstances.

At that point I seriously told the agent to stop because I was no longer interested in even doing business with a company that engages in such ridiculousness.

Can anyone confirm or deny this absurdity? They seriously want to take $800 from me for a ticket for my daughter and then still essentially reserve the right to demand I treat my non-lap infant as a lap infant anyway for whatever long portion of the flight they see fit?

I mean then my options are pay $200 for a lap infant and maybe get a toddler seat or pay $800 for an at least partially lap infant - possibly a MOSTLY lap infant with an empty car seat next to me. Awesome choices.

Way to go, BA! :td::td::td:

I don't think the agent was correct. Their webpage states if you purchase your child a seat, they may sit in an approved, forward facing child seat.

I don't know your routing, or class of service, but usually those traveling with infants get advanced seat selection at no charge.

We;d be going BOS-TLV.

Two separate agents told me that we won't get advance seat selection because we are NOT taking her as a lap infant, but we would get it if we did the lap infant thing, which I am not AT ALL open to doing for a flight of this length.

They said that as soon as we buy her a seat, she is effectively a child, so we cannot choose seats for free anymore, even though the web site says "passengers traveling with infants get seat selection free of charge from time of booking" and not "passengers traveling only with NON-PAYING infants get free seat selection..."

So apparently an infant by any other name is not an infant. :rolleyes:

This whole thing sucks, too, because they have a fantastic price right now. However, no amount of money in the world is worth travel stress (because traveling with a 3yo and 1yo is so stress-free already!!) or having to hold my non-lap infant anyway. The other flights are HUNDREDS of dollars more right now. Even though we are far from wealthy by any standards, I will gladly pay more to a different company in order to not be treated like that.

In fact, the entire circus of idiocy began when I called them in the first place.

I would gladly have booked my tickets online except that their web site says "if you wish to purchase a seat for your infant up to 23 months of age, this cannot be done online. You must contact a BA office."

What is the first thing out of the agent's mouth? "No, I will still charge you the $20 per person phone service fee because you can book it online." Oh really? :mad: Dummy

At least for those with BA elite status or high AA elite status, this is one area in which BA has turned out for us to be much better than any US carrier and the other European majors. The lack of advance seat assignments in such situations has always worked to my advantage .... and more so when the situation is one involving lap-child travel.

.... if only the other major US and European airlines could be so helpful for those traveling with top-tier alliance status in such circumstances.

I'm actually not all that sure how this is so helpful to you since any passenger could pay $30 and get the seat assignment right off the bat anyway. In fact, I'd be happy to pay it myself for the security of knowing I am not going to have a circus the day of travel.

While the seat assignment thing was a phenomenal annoyance because of their self-contradiction, the deal killer was the claim that I would have to hold her anyway for at least a fair portion of the flight and possibly more. WTH is that?

just my 2 cents:

It seems that when BA says "infant" it really means lap infant. When an infant has its own seat, it is no longer a lap infant and treated just like a regular pax. It's frustrating, but I think it's just a matter of BA not being specific enough in it's wording.

As far as holding an infant during critical parts of the flight, I have read that that is the safest for the infant. BA isn't trying to inconvenience you, but rather protect your infant.

Both BA and VS don't allow pre seat assignment when you have a lap infant in your party, i haven't flown with BA but VS don't because they hold the bulkhead seats for those with infants (bassinet positions) and they can't be reserved in advance

Both BA and VS don't allow pre seat assignment when you have a lap infant in your party, i haven't flown with BA but VS don't because they hold the bulkhead seats for those with infants (bassinet positions) and they can't be reserved in advance


Actually BA DOES. It is one of the only times they offer pre-assignment, in fact (other than disability and a couple other situations).

It is non-lap infants that is the issue here.

just my 2 cents:

It seems that when BA says "infant" it really means lap infant. When an infant has its own seat, it is no longer a lap infant and treated just like a regular pax. It's frustrating, but I think it's just a matter of BA not being specific enough in it's wording.

As far as holding an infant during critical parts of the flight, I have read that that is the safest for the infant. BA isn't trying to inconvenience you, but rather protect your infant.

I don't know. I am not saying I don't believe you, but it sure would take a lot of convincing. The ONLY way I can think that the baby on my lap for takeoff and landing could be safer is because it would save evacuation time in an emergency (no straps to untie, etc.). Otherwise, I am really having a hard time grasping how my arms could hold a child in place during an emergency better than straps that are engineering to do that.

As far as holding an infant during critical parts of the flight, I have read that that is the safest for the infant. BA isn't trying to inconvenience you, but rather protect your infant.

I'm not sure where you heard but it's not correct. A car seat is actually the only way to fly safely with an infant. No gizmos, contraptions or your arms can hold him or her better. The plane can go upside down and it will still hold your baby. That's why having a car seat is recommended by the AAP, the FAA, various other car safety organizations and at least one Flight Attendant Union.

The ONLY way I can think that the baby on my lap for takeoff and landing could be safer is because it would save evacuation time in an emergency (no straps to untie, etc.).

This is a common myth and I think I know what company got that one started. They were pushing a very unnecessary baby travel product... This was also many peoples' justification for not using seat belts in cars for many years. The nano-second it takes to release the seat belt was supposed to make the difference between life and death, except the logic forgets that you first have to survive the impact.

It was actually waste time in an evacuation because you would be running around looking for your baby in the middle of the evacuation.

BA, by CAA rules requires the use of "belly belts" which are dangerous for babies. They do this to prevent the baby from flying through the cabin but it risks the parent coming down on the infant and crushing him or her.

They do have a certain logic. The parent who opts to save money by flying with their infant on their lap shouldn't put others at risk. Meanwhile, the FAA bans belly belts because not attached to the parent gives the infant a fighting chance of survival.

The CAA also has various illogical rules like not allowing rear-facing car seats. This is because it could keep the person in front of them from reclining their seat. I'm not sure why a comfort feature trumps a safety one but oh well... Forget even if there is no one in front or if the baby is in a bulkhead seat...

One of the reasons why the car seat rules are so strange in Europe is because many of their car seats can't be used in airplanes. They have the kind that need a shoulder belt to install, which of course, they don't have on planes. You can also see people here driving without car seats at all (just yesterday!) so the whole safety-mentality cultural thing is different here. Car seats on airplanes is a foreign thing to them. Some companies (especially charter here) don't even have any provisions for under 2's in car seats on their aircraft. Just hold the baby in the lap, I was told!

This is precisely why I try to fly U.S. companies or Lufthansa when I can. I also have reports that AF is getting better about allowing car seats on board but I can't confirm (maybe they got lucky?)

I wish I could wave a magic wand and make the other companies the same price!

Please, please, please write BA and let them know of this issue and the problems you had. Nothing will change unless they're made aware.

Actually BA DOES. It is one of the only times they offer pre-assignment, in fact (other than disability and a couple other situations).

It is non-lap infants that is the issue here.

Aren't non lap infants counted as children though? I completely get the annoyance because i've read their rules also, but i couldn't reserve in advance for travel in Europe with BA with an infant so didn't think you could :rolleyes:

Aren't non lap infants counted as children though? I completely get the annoyance because i've read their rules also, but i couldn't reserve in advance for travel in Europe with BA with an infant so didn't think you could :rolleyes:

I don't know about intra-Europe. I use the BA USA web site, so maybe it's written differently on the US site to account for different service TATL. Maybe not.

All I know is that at least to and from USA, people traveling with a lap infant are allowed free seat assignments instantly - and bulkhead seats at that - while people with seat-occupying infants (and most other passengers) are not. Awesome business sense to reward the people with the least investment and kick the rest of the passengers in the nuts.

.. so the whole safety-mentality cultural thing is different here. ..

Yep, it's just people are not irrationally paranoid there. Perhaps some folks here should really give it a thought - it's not like parents overseas care less about their kids.
Unfortunately here in US so called "safety" concerns are continuously fed to public by various entities driven by either fear of lawsuits or desire to make lots and lots of money selling overpriced protective gear. :rolleyes:

Yep, it's just people are not irrationally paranoid there. Perhaps some folks here should really give it a thought - it's not like parents overseas care less about their kids.
Unfortunately here in US so called "safety" concerns are continuously fed to public by various entities driven by either fear of lawsuits or desire to make lots and lots of money selling overpriced protective gear. :rolleyes:

Its also not like American parents from 1960's cared about their kids less either, but they still had a much greater chance of injury or death with just a lapbelt or no belt than with the Child Safety seats on the market but not commonly used at the time. There are plenty of valid absurd "safety" targets in the USA to criticize. Such as hair dryer warning labels directing to not use while sleeping, but to imply child safety seats are not critically important devices is just insane.

I'm totally with Eclipsepearl on this one.

I spent quite some time living overseas, too, so I can appreciate the partial truth to the "paranoid" claims, but not as far as car seats are concerned.

Safety is important to me, to be sure. However, it's not even reason #1 for buying my daughter a seat or the reason I am so annoyed/outraged at the BA policy. I simply DON'T WANT to hold my daughter for 15-18 hours (depending on the direction) of flying time + the layover time because they won't return a gate-checked stroller. It's inhuman. When we take this trip, she will be about 20 months old, and she's a big girl (about 24-25lbs now at 15m). She wouldn't be happy with that, and neither would I.

Long-distance travel with little ones is had enough without making it unnecessarily harder, so if I am going to spend a lot of money on a seat for my daughter, she sure the hell WILL be sitting in her car seat next to me, especially at the times in the flight when the risks are highest (turbulence, takeoff, and landing).

Ba will ensure children are seated with at least one parents (and often all) - Don't get upset to quickly - first check the BA board for similar thread - next call again. To be frank - BA is excellent with children (LHR not as much).

Ba will ensure children are seated with at least one parents (and often all) - Don't get upset to quickly - first check the BA board for similar thread - next call again. To be frank - BA is excellent with children (LHR not as much).


I've already pointed out that the seating issue is one of the lesser of the concerns since I can pay and select seats AND because I qualify for free selection anyway due to disability reasons. The fact that they are fully prepared to take many hundred dollars from me for a seat for my infant daughter and THEN tell me my daughter can't sit in the seat IS the main issue here.

Also - when compared to what most other airlines available to me have to offer with regards to seat selection, I hardly find "ensuring that each child is with one parent" to be an acceptable minimum. It's 18 freaking hours of travel, for Pete's sake - not a two hour trip to Florida.

P.S. The absurdity of the "you must hold the infant during takeoff, landing, and turbulence" thing can be highlighted by noting that there are a LOT of >2 year olds that are smaller and weight less than my 20 month old will at the time of the journey. Those children are not required to be removed from their purchased seat and held during takeoff, landing, and turbulence, but my daughter will because she will be 20m old? WTH is that?

There is just absolutely ZERO basis in terms of physics, logic, or common sense for their insistence on this.

. I simply DON'T WANT to hold my daughter for 15-18 hours (depending on the direction) of flying time + the layover time ...

Now that makes perfect sense and I 100% agree.

I wouldn't worry too much - parents with kids travel on BA all the time and apparently manage just fine.
On the other hand statements like
so if I am going to spend a lot of money on a seat for my daughter, she sure the hell WILL be sitting in her car seat next to me
unfortunately only support "ugly americans" stereotype who want everything done their way because they "spend a lot of money" - i wouldn't advice taking this approach in communication with BA. If you fly BA you will follow their rules, plain and simple. @:-)

I'm sorry, you're saying I'm an "ugly American" because I expect use of something I pay for? You're making it sound as if I am expecting something MORE than I have paid for. All I want is for my hild to sit in the seat I buy for her. You don't go to restaurants and order a meal only to have the waiter throw it on the floor and say "too bad," and that is really the equivalent situation. You expect to receive the product for which you've paid.

ETA: So you'd tell someone who bought first class tickets and felt entitled to board first or get a pre-flight drink, etc., that they are ugly americans, too? They paid for a service, so they are entitled to expect to receive it just as I am entitled to expect to enjoy use of a seat that I buy for my daughter. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think it's adequately clear that I won't be flying BA. I started this post to alert other to the ridiculousness so NO, I will not be following their rules.

No offense meant (and I apologize if it came across as such), i merely suggested that flying BA but not following their rules just because you paid for the ticket would not be the best approach. I of course did not say that you were not not entitled to service outlined in contract of carriage.
Since you are switching to another airline that can accommodate your preferences the issue is moot. In general I found the airlines and fellow pax quite accommodating when we travel with kids.



I'm sorry, you're saying I'm an "ugly American" because I expect use of something I pay for? You're making it sound as if I am expecting something MORE than I have paid for. All I want is for my hild to sit in the seat I buy for her. You don't go to restaurants and order a meal only to have the waiter throw it on the floor and say "too bad," and that is really the equivalent situation. You expect to receive the product for which you've paid.

ETA: So you'd tell someone who bought first class tickets and felt entitled to board first or get a pre-flight drink, etc., that they are ugly americans, too? They paid for a service, so they are entitled to expect to receive it just as I am entitled to expect to enjoy use of a seat that I buy for my daughter. Nothing more, nothing less.

I think it's adequately clear that I won't be flying BA. I started this post to alert other to the ridiculousness so NO, I will not be following their rules.

Then she said that even if I buy my infant a seat and have her ride in a car seat that I still have to hold her in my lap for takeoff, landing, and turbulence. ...as if she is safer in my lap than strapped into her car seat in those circumstances.

At that point I seriously told the agent to stop because I was no longer interested in even doing business with a company that engages in such ridiculousness.

Can anyone confirm or deny this absurdity?

According to BA's site it seems car seats are just fine to sit in on take off and landing, but the BA provided Infant seats and carrycots are not suitable. Which makes sense since those are basically just for naps and aren't meant for crash/turbulence safety.

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/child/public/en_gb

According to BA's site it seems car seats are just fine to sit in on take off and landing, but the BA provided Infant seats and carrycots are not suitable. Which makes sense since those are basically just for naps and aren't meant for crash/turbulence safety.

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/child/public/en_gb

Exactly - so I am not sure what the issue is. Perhaps the OP should check on the BA board to see what the real deal is?

Actually I have plenty of first-hand confirmation of the car seat policy regarding take off and landing already, both from other internet users, BAs phone agents telling me this themselves, and out very own EclipsePearl.

You may bring a car seat on board, but you may NOT have your child in it during takeoff, landing, or turbulence. So basically, they reserve the right to force you to treat your seated infant as a lap infant for the low, low price of 4 times the lap infant fare.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090921071114AArXC9u


http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=175382

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2750535/

Actually I have plenty of first-hand confirmation of the car seat policy regarding take off and landing already, both from other internet users, BAs phone agents telling me this themselves, and out very own EclipsePearl.

You may bring a car seat on board, but you may NOT have your child in it during takeoff, landing, or turbulence. So basically, they reserve the right to force you to treat your seated infant as a lap infant for the low, low price of 4 times the lap infant fare.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090921071114AArXC9u


http://www.car-seat.org/showthread.php?t=175382

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/2750535/

From what I read there it appears that the 0-6 month old babies are required to be on the lap for takeoff/landing because BA does not allow rear facing safety seats at all. So the only type of seat the child could be in onboard is the BA provided Infant seats and carrycots. It looks like 6 month and up children in forward facing seats with five point harness may stay in them at any time.

So it seems more that the issue is no rear facing safety seats. Which in coach I guess would possibly block other passengers recline. Though at 6'1 my knees can do that also. It seems completely absurd to not allow them in biz/first where even that would not be an issue. But they probly don't want to start a PR disaster of only children of rich families being allowed to be safe. So we'll just have no one safe.

From what I read there it appears that the 0-6 month old babies are required to be on the lap for takeoff/landing because BA does not allow rear facing safety seats at all. So the only type of seat the child could be in onboard is the BA provided Infant seats and carrycots. It looks like 6 month and up children in forward facing seats with five point harness may stay in them at any time.



I, too, thought this initially, but after I continued reading the message thread it became clear that british aviation rules are like you've said (6m and under only), yet BA requires ALL children under 2 to be removed from their car seats.

Hopefully they'll wake up someday and follow UA/LH's example of allowing use of reasonable safety seats at all times.

This also seems to be an example of when American Legal system style punitive damages in court are needed to change the idiotic policies of a company. Customer complaints are one thing, but massive multi-million dollar judgments against them for causing brain damage/paralysis/death to children during turbulence/accident does a lot more to get policies changed.

Next summer we'll be taking BA SFO-LHR-VIE with a 18 month old (big for her age) and 3 1/2 year old. Hopefully they won't be looking at birthdays when it comes time for take off. :p

So it seems more that the issue is no rear facing safety seats. Which in coach I guess would possibly block other passengers recline. Though at 6'1 my knees can do that also. It seems completely absurd to not allow them in biz/first where even that would not be an issue. But they probly don't want to start a PR disaster of only children of rich families being allowed to be safe. So we'll just have no one safe.

That's a good point but what about when the family, in economy, is in a bulkhead seat or there is no one in front? I know families who purposely put a willing member of their party in the seat in front of the child, which eliminates that problem.

The fact is that air travel is safe and the CAA and BA get away with these absurd rules because there just haven't been enough accidents and there isn't enough data collected to be able to convince them otherwise. There aren't enough parents to contest these rules either, especially in the U.K. The only time it would come up is when there are conscientious parents who want to use a car seat on board. There are few enough of them to say "tough cookies".

Companies aren't sued in the U.K. like they are in the U.S. When I lived there, you couldn't sue anyone unless you had a LOT of money. Lawyers couldn't be hired on contingency. It was illegal (and one friend who worked in a law office told me their records were checked to confirm this). I heard an interview on T.V. once with a little old lady who was injured because of something faulty in her home. She simply didn't have the cash to go after the company who made it. I understand they've eased up on this law since I left but they don't have the same concept of responsibility that we Americans do (not using a blow drying when sleeping, that's a riot!) The warning labels are entertaining to me too when I visit the U.S.

By contrast, not to get too off the topic, they are very security conscience, much more so than Americans pre-9/11, thanks to the IRA and other terrorist threats there. Americans who leave a bag in a public places, I've seen being told off, not by the authorities but by people in the crowd first. I've been in evacuations in the London Underground and wow, do those people keep a cool head! Talk about cooperating and not panicking! If I had to be in any sort of emergency situation and got to pick my nationality, I'd jump in a crowd of British in a heartbeat.

I'm not a psychologist but it would seem that their safety-awareness/protective instincts would be focused more in this direction.

Actually one more follow-up as to how BA changes that 6m and under or 6m and over guideline:

It's not at all that only babies 6m and under must be removed from their carseat because BA won't allow you to buy a seat AT ALL for a baby under 6 months. You're not even given the option of doing it whatsoever.

So BA has twisted it into:

1. No car seat AT ALL for babies 6m and under - only lap and bassinet are allowed. They won't even sell you a seat because they know how to care for your baby better than you do, apparently.
2. All babies in a purchased airline seat with car seat between ages 6m - 2y must be pulled out of the car seat during the most dangerous parts of the flight.

If you have a bumpy flight across the ocean, you just won yourself a lap infant even though you paid NOT to have a lap infant.

:confused: and :td:

...
The fact is that air travel is safe and the CAA and BA get away with these absurd rules because there just haven't been enough accidents and there isn't enough data collected to be able to convince them otherwise.


If there is not enough data how can you (or anyone for that matter) know what is better? :confused:
IMHO carseat on a plane obsession is absurd and quite possibly causes more inconveniences and risks. Planes are not cars and the type of minor emergencies more probable on a plane require quick evacuation that can be hindered by multiple straps, buckles etc of car seats (unbuckling a wiggly kid in a car can be a PITA, imagine doing it with shaking hands in an emergency). Car crashes on the other hand are better managed if one is tightly strapped in a seat so I don't think it's a good analogy with the only exception of turbulence for which car seat is probably a good fit.


There aren't enough parents to contest these rules either, especially in the U.K. The only time it would come up is when there are conscientious parents who want to use a car seat on board. There are few enough of them to say "tough cookies".


You mean they need more crazy paranoid people there? :D


Companies aren't sued in the U.K. like they are in the U.S. ...

This can't possibly be a bad thing. @:-) Seriously.

I see we've somehow circled back to the safety debate again. :)

For me, while I OF COURSE want my kids to be safe, it's more about the facts that:

1. I do not WANT my daughter in my arms and lap for 18 hours. I trust I can speak for her and say that SHE does not want this, either.

2. I need car seats at my destination, and I'd rather the car seats travel with me int he cabin and not as general baggage.

For me, it's about getting a decent flying experience - at least as decent as a long-distance flight CAN be for a family of 4.

So on the safety front, I am 100% with Eclipsepearl that the safest place for takeoff, landing, and turbulence is buckled in.
...but safety isn't the reason I am so outraged at BA's policy. I am outraged because they are essentially saying "we will gladly sell you a ticket and still reserve the right to NOT let you use it."

So on the safety front, I am 100% with Eclipsepearl that the safest place for takeoff, landing, and turbulence is buckled in.
...but safety isn't the reason I am so outraged at BA's policy. I am outraged because they are essentially saying "we will gladly sell you a ticket and still reserve the right to NOT let you use it."

As for safety I'll take the 5 point harness that the pilot gets and if it can be rear facing in a reinforced impact shell all the better.

If there is not enough data how can you (or anyone for that matter) know what is better? :confused:
IMHO carseat on a plane obsession is absurd and quite possibly causes more inconveniences and risks. Planes are not cars and the type of minor emergencies more probable on a plane require quick evacuation that can be hindered by multiple straps, buckles etc of car seats (unbuckling a wiggly kid in a car can be a PITA, imagine doing it with shaking hands in an emergency).

This is a common myth. The fact is that if you don't have the car seat for your, your child will probably be thrown in the cabin and has less chance of surviving the crash, let alone getting out of the plane. The name of the game in a crash is surviving the impact, not the nano-second it takes to get a child out of the car seat. This detail isn't what would make the difference. Pressing one button is NOT a big deal and in an emergency, a parent's instincts would kick in and they'd be fast. The fact is that the child is alive to get out of a car seat is what counts, just like in a car, not any misconceptions about undoing straps.

The car seat on a plane "obsession", as you refer to it is not only safer for the child but actually a smart way to transport the car seat. So many car seats are broken and lost by the airlines when checked as luggage. Baggage can be really roughly handled once it leaves your sight and if you arrive and your car seat was sent to the wrong city, you have no safe way of transporting your child in the car.

Parents should have the right to keep their children safe and this shouldn't be viewed as being "paranoid". Being paranoid means that you think something bad is going to happen. Taking very reasonable precautions against something bad is not being "paranoid". Children rely on their parents to keep them safe and bringing a car seat on an airplane is a very practical and sensible way of making sure they survive a crash... and that their car seat isn't thrown on to the tarmac and damaged!

When you fly on foreign company, you are agreeing to their rules. The one time I flew across the Atlantic with a lap baby, the only tickets available were on a company who wouldn't accept my car seat so I left it at home. It was a case of go or stay home and I chose to go. There was a car seat waiting for us when we arrived. Obviously my baby arrived in good shape! I compromised on safety that time... and bought a seat for her every flight since!

I also fly on RyanAir quite often which doesn't allow car seats in the cabin at all. I've made various arrangements since to have a car seat or not need one at our destination when I fly them.

Having said this, be aware that some foreign companies are very flexible and accepting of car seats. Some accept basically any seat that is certified for air travel.

About the suing, if it were such a good system in the U.K., they would have kept it but they didn't. Justice only for rich people is quite frankly, unfair and they came to realize this. Not to get OT but as the victim of an unfair lawsuit, I still defend the way it's done in the U.S.

So, out of interest, what would happen if the child couldn't be held by the parent (for example, if the parent had a disability, injury etc?) Presumably you cannot fly BA with 2 under 2s either then, even with both in their own seats if they are required to be held?

According to BA's site it seems car seats are just fine to sit in on take off and landing, but the BA provided Infant seats and carrycots are not suitable. Which makes sense since those are basically just for naps and aren't meant for crash/turbulence safety.

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/child/public/en_gb

Is as far as I know the correct answer. However as others have pointed out the infant needs to be old enough to fit a forward facing seat and seat meets BA criteria. Suggest you print out the rules for car seats from the BA website and take it onboard because there are not many people familiar with the rules especially telephone agents.

The OP's frustration with BA seating policy is understandable but not truly reflective about BA and children. There are alot of frustrated people who want to pre-assign - just see the BA board threads. As others have said BA will assign seats 4 days out.

And I agree with the poster that said BA is great with kids ^

We;d be going BOS-TLV.

Two separate agents told me that we won't get advance seat selection because we are NOT taking her as a lap infant, but we would get it if we did the lap infant thing, which I am not AT ALL open to doing for a flight of this length.

They said that as soon as we buy her a seat, she is effectively a child, so we cannot choose seats for free anymore, even though the web site says "passengers traveling with infants get seat selection free of charge from time of booking" and not "passengers traveling only with NON-PAYING infants get free seat selection..."

So apparently an infant by any other name is not an infant. :rolleyes:

This whole thing sucks, too, because they have a fantastic price right now. However, no amount of money in the world is worth travel stress (because traveling with a 3yo and 1yo is so stress-free already!!) or having to hold my non-lap infant anyway. The other flights are HUNDREDS of dollars more right now. Even though we are far from wealthy by any standards, I will gladly pay more to a different company in order to not be treated like that.

We just did BOS - TLV on BA Monday and despite free seat selection for people with disabilities (and we have a child on oxygen, feeding tube etc) we didn't get it. It is a theoretical. Since you won't have a baby in arms on your booking the computers aren't likely to have you flagged for free seating, but they will most likely seat your family all together since you have small children, so how much does it really matter?

They will not make you take a baby out of a FAA approved car seat for taking off and landing.

Pre-boarding happened for us every single time with no exception. As soon as they opened the gates the took us to board (a family of six is quite conspicuous to the British it seems!). We boarded before the passengers in wheelchairs or even most of the first class passengers. We didn't present ourselves or ask for pre-boarding, they did it on their own, three out of four legs they didn't even know we were the ones traveling with the child who needed oxygen (it isn't obvious since he only needs it when sleeping). It was just because we were a family with children, though our youngest is five!

They took great care of us and I am glad I flew BA. Their prices can't be beat either, which doesn't hurt. :)

I'm glad to see that even though BA's safety rules are a bit illogical, I'm glad the crews seem to be nice on board. Makes the long walk to get your stroller at baggage claim a little better!

If they weren't so expensive, I'd fly them now that my kids are out of the car seat and stroller phase. They never manage to beat Lufthansa...

BA's ground staff was quite commendable as well. They picked us out in a the crowd to take special care of us every segment of our journey. They checked our boarding passes and scanned our passports for us before the gate was even opened and welcomed us while we waited at the terminal. We didn't ask for special service, though we certainly got it!

That's great to hear. Thanks for the recent feedback. Perhaps I will be able to reconsider then.

So it is still a confirmed fact that there will be no stroller available for layovers?

That's great to hear. Thanks for the recent feedback. Perhaps I will be able to reconsider then.

So it is still a confirmed fact that there will be no stroller available for layovers?

We had our stroller for the layover. It was a small umbrella stroller and it seems that the crew stowed it on board the plane for us. If it is actually gate checked (and put under the plane) it seems you may not get it for the layover.

If the stroller is gate-checked on a BA flight to LHR, you ordinarily won't receive that stroller back until baggage claim at the airport for which its tag is written/typed up.


So it is still a confirmed fact that there will be no stroller available for layovers?

If you are able to get your own collapsible stroller on board the flight, then you may have it available for layovers at LHR. This is applicable if you are able and/or allowed to get it stored in the cabin in an appropriate place (overhead bin being the most common but closets sometimes too). If you are able to get it tagged for delivery at the gate (and that delivery ends up being actually performed, which is not always a given), then you may also have it available for layovers at LHR -- but this is frequently refused by BA staff.

If you are able to get your own collapsible stroller on board the flight, then you may have it available for layovers at LHR. This is applicable if you are able and/or allowed to get it stored in the cabin in an appropriate place (overhead bin being the most common but closets sometimes too).

So the flight crew was just extraordinarily nice to us? I certainly didn't stow the stroller and I have no idea where they put it. I handed it to someone when we got on the plane and it was waiting for us right outside of the door to the plane when we got off.

So the flight crew was just extraordinarily nice to us? I certainly didn't stow the stroller and I have no idea where they put it. I handed it to someone when we got on the plane and it was waiting for us right outside of the door to the plane when we got off.

I'm not sure it necessarily has anything to do with BA cabin crew being extraordinarily nice or not. However, encountering extraordinarily nice cabin crew does not hurt the chances to bring on board a collapsible stroller and get it stored in an overhead bin or in a closet in the cabin. [Even if the gate agent(s) do not prevent the stroller(s) from being taken to the plane, the gate agent(s) defer to cabin crew when cabin crew is unable or unwilling to help accommodate a stroller, so cabin crew approval/non-disapproval is important if wanting to transport a stroller in the cabin and making sure it is there at the gate area on arrival.]

The cabin storage in a closet [or other non-standard locations for most passengers to independently store carry-on items without cabin crew involvement] when done/possible/allowed, is most frequently done by FAs -- if at all. That or overhead bin storage usually helps get the stroller at the gate/plane door on arrival faster at LHR than would happen if gate-checked and not stored in the cabin.