kb9522

That children are just the worst?

Essentially. It's not specific to BA though and it has nothing to do with trust... It's more about legal obligation. I have not, however, attacked anyone.

I'm being realistic. While BA may move people to seat a child next to their respective adult, they are under no obligation to do so. Based on the CoC, they are under no obligation to guarantee anyone's seat regardless of how much they pay for them or what "super special card" (whatever this means) they hold. It's up to them which revenue streams they want to keep happy... I'm betting the number of paid seat selectors greatly outweigh the number of toddlers.

bisonrav

What part of "BA will seat children younger than 12 next to a parent" is so difficult for people to understand? Because that's what will happen, like it or not. You can work through regulations, CoC, the holy bible and the entire body of common law to show they don't have to or might not, but that's what they will do. For very good reasons - an unsupervised child on a flight creates potential disruption to other passengers and safety issues. As we were reminded in the snoring thread, "it's public transport, innit?".

I'd be willing to bet that no-one complaining about this has ever been asked to move. I'd double down on that with a wager that in reality no parent has ever asked a passenger to change nappies (though those of us with a bit of fellow feeling would be happy to help a harassed parent, probably short of changing nappies, but that wouldn't be asked except in absolute extremis). BA deal with this in the background. If you pay or have status you can choose an optimum seat configuration for your needs, otherwise BA will arrange something workable.

I do wonder what is behind the passions this arouses. I think it's to do with the psychology of control - on a flight you are taking people who usually have quite a lot of control and removing almost all of it. One element you do retain is the ability to choose a seat or a meal or stow a bag close to your seat - remove any of that and all hell breaks loose. Even worse if someone else appears to be being granted control unfairly. I'm pretty sure that's what it's about. In this case it's not something that actually happens, it's the fear it might. Fascinating.

nallison

OK you hate children. Now we know where this vendetta you're on is coming from I'll feel good to ignore it. And I say that as someone who neither has or particularly intends to have, children. In my experience even the worst children can be charming. Some adults, never.

kb9522

That's not the issue. The issue is that OP thinks he is entitled to this. Simply put, he is not.

I frankly don't give 2 sh*ts what BA does or doesn't do in this situation. I do care about the growing sense of entitlement among travelers.

nallison

+1 completely nailed it.

It is fascinating. It's either as you say fear of losing control, or people have developed an idea of their own importance which is somewhat compromised when the 'less deserving' start being given things.

kb9522

Does it matter if it's an adult or a child? The age is irrelevant. The advertising on BA's website could have said "We'll sit immediate family ages 30+ together"... OP still would not be entitled to this, as there is no provision for it in the CoC or (that I know of) any regulation or law.

Anytime someone mentions "child" people on this site get so hung up on the age that they forget to discuss the actual point.

nallison

​​​​​​The actual point was a question the OP reasonably asked. Which all your frothing about 'entitlement' comes nowhere close to doing . Fortunately others have discussed the real world and given the OP the correct information that their children will be sat with a parent.

kb9522

That must've been lost in OP's hubaloo about BA being "mad" for not sitting his kids next to him even though he declined to pay for seat selection.

EsherFlyer

Not to most of us .

When I read threads like this I assume its bringing out some deep seated sociopathic tendency.

When my son was about 3 years old some nutter in a supermarket deliberately ran into him with a trolley stating that they wanted to get to the bananas and if my son couldn't figure that out he shouldn't be in the supermarket. The culprit deeply believed that they were in the right to have unfettered access to the produce, and no level of admonishment or explanation from others around made a jot of difference to him. This thread reminds me of that .

nallison

Interesting you mention you word 'mad'. Some of this thread clearly meets that criteria.

offtothehills

For Pete's sake..... just stop this absurd arguing. Really, you should all go to your rooms and take time out. Behave children!

HIDDY

Strange how we managed just fine all those years when we hadn't a clue where we would be seated before checking in at the airport.

TravelwhileyouEat

Some people can't look beyond their own privelage...

The financially able... 'you should pay for it, it's easier that way'
Those who had to pay... 'I had to, why do you get it for free? I should have more rights to the seat I want than you being seated next to your child by virtue of paying'
The child-free traveler... 'Maybe you should have thought about your budget to include seat selection since your traveling with children'

I think the OP just wants everything sorted before the trip starts so that it can be a more relaxed vacation. BA needs to educate their agents about their own policies.

That is in the T&C of seat selection, your seat is not guaranteed and there are even threads about unhonoured seat selections in this very board. Those butthurt about OP 'demanding' free seat selection because of BA's own policy need to check themselves.

Steve in Olympia

It has been approximately 80 posts since anyone suggested that families have a "legal right" to be seated together, but you continue to flog that argument.

Folks are just suggesting that BA's written policy makes paid seat selection unnecessary. But you don't like that answer. Too bad.

s0ssos

Currently in Asia, and sat in a row of youngsters. No biggie. Apparently only in the West is it such a big deal.