Budget airlines in child fare price scam
in [UK Air Travel]
|
From: Roland Perry on 8 Aug 2010 02:47 In message <gD87o.71234$gM.47745(a)hurricane>, at 09:16:12 on Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Buddenbrooks <knightstemplar(a)budweiser.com> remarked: >> Which is odd when every airline (even the low-costs) board families >>first! I suspect these groups are late because of general >>dis-organisation and an inability to get the all the kids to do what >>are told when it comes to negotiating their way through the departure >>terminal. > >Perhaps you have been luckier than I then. I have been on more flights >where delays post-boarding have been due to passenger behavior than >technical faults. I see these late-arriving families; I was just commenting on why they might be late. >As a always non-priority passenger I notice that those with priority >often turn up after the non-priority >passengers have started boarding. This enables them to avoid queuing. >They have paid extra so why not? Not sure what you are getting at here - families haven't normally paid extra. Speedy-boarders (and business class where applicable) have. >Similarly with families with buggies etc, they get pushed through >without delay. > >The problem with both of course is the seats have begun to be taken and >4 or 5 together can be difficult. > >Perhaps the budget airlines ought to consider an allocated seating >section to cater for some passengers. Some do already, you can pay extra on BMIbaby to be allocated seats, and to some extent Easyjet speedy-boarding is a similar concept (although some holiday-type flights I've been on have a very high proportion of them - I wonder if there's a quota, or could you end up with the entire plane paying, which rather spoils the concept? -- Roland Perry
From: Mister Niceguy on 8 Aug 2010 05:12 "Buddenbrooks" <knightstemplar(a)budweiser.com> wrote in news:aTr7o.113362$Ds3.2431(a)hurricane: > > "Mister Niceguy" <mister.niceguy(a)rocketmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9DCDF21AFE2CCniceguyonzetnet(a)94.75.214.90... > > >> Were you never a child? Did you "behave" all the time? > > When I was a child there was much more separation of children from > the > general public. > Pubs and many hotels were not children or pet friendly. Same here, but I resented that. I don't like it now, either. > I follow the philosophy of live and let live, which does require > people to have a choice. You are free to have a child, there is no > reason why I should be forced to have any association with it. Fair enough, But the onus should be on you to make alternative arrangements, not to try and force segregation onto others. > We are all entitled to a small private space around us and this should > be respected. That's why you have your own propery. Your house, your car etc. In public we all have to tolerate each other, apart from activities we define as criminal.
From: Mister Niceguy on 8 Aug 2010 05:19 "Buddenbrooks" <knightstemplar(a)budweiser.com> wrote in news:ZXr7o.113363$Ds3.101693(a)hurricane: > > "Mister Niceguy" <mister.niceguy(a)rocketmail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns9DCDF29208644niceguyonzetnet(a)94.75.214.90... > > >> maybe they could spend some useful time helping improve the lives of >> children rather than complaining when others can't manage. > > Why? You have a child it is your responsibility. If you cant control > your > child in a situation which is avoidable then don't do that activity. That's your opinion. I do the best to bring my children up as wholesome healthy adults. I'm sure people along the way have found them annoying but that's tough. Many more have found them friendly and harmless and fun-loving which I believe is much better for a child than having them sitting quiet and still for hours on end. > I am happy to help lift a pram onto a bus, part of essential day to > day > living. I'm pleased (relieved?) to know that. > Children will have tantrums in Tesco's. Taking a child on a 9 > hour flight to Florida is not essential and there are other holiday > options. No, not essential, but it's an option available to them. For what it's worth I wouldn't want to take young children on a long flight. But there are many other things I wouldn't want about a long flight either and have to put up with. However if people do want to take their children to Florida then they can. You can always fly business class via JFK if you want peace. Your ticket will probably still be cheaper than theirs.
From: Mister Niceguy on 8 Aug 2010 05:28 Roland Perry <roland(a)perry.co.uk> wrote in news:5OAZ8UMtFlXMFA1c(a)perry.co.uk: > In message <Xns9DCD5DB96697Fniceguyonzetnet(a)94.75.214.90>, at 08:12:38 > on Sat, 7 Aug 2010, Mister Niceguy <mister.niceguy(a)rocketmail.com> > remarked: >>>>I really hate screaming Mothers demanding that people are reseated to >>>>make a block free for their brood. Particularly as they seem to make a >>>>point of turning up last when all the seats have been taken. >>> >>> Which is odd when every airline (even the low-costs) board families >>> first! I suspect these groups are late because of general >>> dis-organisation and an inability to get the all the kids to do what >>> they are told when it comes to negotiating their way through the >>> departure terminal. >> >>You guys are unbelievable. What's happened to society when it doesn't >>treasure its children? How will these kids grow up - knowing that their >>sheer presence is resented as an inconvenience. > > But it's not their sheer presence that's a problem - I'm happy for them > to board first, for example, and travel in a well-behaved fashion. I > don't even min babes-in-arms being free. > >> A few extra seconds of your time makes a world of difference to >>parents who are having real difficulty getting youngsters through >>cumbersome airport logistics - possibly for the first time. > > It's not extra seconds at stake, but the extra hand luggage and > demanding to be seated together even if last on the plane. I've been in that situation. Child needing to do toilet stuff, wetting themselves at the airport, baby needing a feed etc etc etc. It is very hard to be at the call to board at exactly the right time when children have bodily needs. Fortunately, people have always moved before being asked, as indeed I would if travelling without childen, knowing what that family has just suffered. >>Families are boarded first (or passengers thus re-arranged) so they can >>sit together. Yes. Or would you rather have a 2 year old next to you >>and their mum or dad 10 rows back? It's for your benefit as much as >>theirs. > > Precisely, get there first for these perfectly acceptable concessions. > It was the late arrivers that started this discussion. But do you think they're arriving late deliberately? I doubt it. >>And all this grumpiness about buggies? Would you say the same for >>wheelchairs, zimmer frames and medical apparatus? > > As I'm not grumpy about buggies (but it helps if families don't leave > them behind on the apron when they get off), it's a non-question. Again do you think it's deliberate? We nearly did that the first time we took a buggy on the plane. I don't think we were told about where we'd collect it and certainly didn't expect it to be on the apron. I've seen parents come off the plane looking shell-shocked after comforting a child who has reacted badly to re-pressurisation and is in no fit state to remember everything an efficient traveller would remember. Show some understanding, please. >>Jeez, I'm glad I've never had to board my family with you. > > You'd be fine if you got there on time, and then stopped your child > kicking me in the small of the back for three hours. I'd like to see you manage a family in the perfect way you expect from others.
From: Joe Curry on 8 Aug 2010 05:45
On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 18:31:07 +0100, "Clive" <clivebraham(a)nospamorange.net> wrote: >These people have obviously opted out of society, so they can jog on. They >can just stay at home in their miserable old bachelor pad and have another >microwave meal for one while scouring the dating channels or writing letters >of complaints to themselves... You seem familiar with the procedure? :-) |