Should airlines prioritise infants over the disabled?

[MrsGrumpy]

Probably going to be hated for asking this, but after a recent nightmare flight with BA and a less than satisfactory reply to my letter of complaint, it is bugging me. Should I be feeling aggrieved that airlines prioritise the comfort of passengers travelling with infants over that of passengers with disabilities? Surely they should be treated with equal merit? The BA website states:

Current legislation states that a customer with a disability should be permitted to pre-book their seat on a first come first served basis, and if their disability causes them to need a specific seat (e.g. bulkhead) then we must meet their request. Customers with fused or immobilised legs are also entitled to a bulkhead seat, or a seat with sufficient legroom

‘First come first served’ should be taken heed of. But on our recent outbound flight, despite informing them of my problems and needs five months in advance, and being allocated 16J & H we were moved to accommodate families travelling with infants. (That said, the three middle bulkhead seats were taken up by people with no infants in sight, which confirmed what two separate check in agents had told us about BA selling these seats.)

Surely the fairest thing would be to allocate seats equally between parents and disabled? The Access to Air Travel for Disabled Persons and Persons with Reduced Mobility – Code of Practice states:

3.33 There have been occasions when disabled people have requested a seat in a particular area (for example, in a bulkhead seat) and have then been advised that their seat may be allocated to someone else at short notice. This should only occur when the airline regards someone else as having a greater need. Care should be taken to ensure that bookings are not taken if all suitable seats have already been allocated.

Who decides that parents and infants have a greater need than people with disabilities?

Having endured the most uncomfortable flight ever, (and being reduced to tears by the BA customer service rep at Gatwick), with the seating needs eventually sorted to some extent at the gate by the extremely helpful dispatcher (it really was a case of passing the buck) I wrote to BA on my return asking for an explanation and after more than three weeks received a reply which answered none of my questions and barely apologised. I now feel like writing to the Chief Executive, Keith Williams. I know BA are not alone in this policy, but despite travelling much more often with Virgin and being warned of this possibility, it has never happened.

Am I being unreasonable?

[Guest]

I know if a child requires a sky cot then it has to be a bulkhead seat but I wouldn't have thought a toddler would have greater priority. What do I know? I think the airline should be a bit more specific about how they define "greater need".

[Hidden mickey]

I do not have a disaillity but as a parent whoose children are no longer infants and have travelled transatlantic with them when they were infants on a number of occaision, having them on my lap has never caused me physical discomfort so on balance i would say that disabillites as described above should be a priority..after all as parents we have an option to ut seats for our infants however if your leg is fused etc... there is not a lot you can do about it

[lindyT]

So could you have bought these seats yourself? or did you and you were still "bumped"?

[cartoonp]

From past experience They boarded both infants and disabled together so they both boaded the plane at the same time

[marlouwrig]

I also do not have any form of disability and I too have had less than comfortable flights with babies/toddlers when my kiddies were young.

Its a no brainer for me. People with disabilities should always take priority and airlines should not take more bookings than they have suitable facilities for. I would consider going to CAB because they could take it up with the government as a social policy issue. Its outrageous that people who have disabilities are not treated with greater consideration.

[Guest]

Agree with everyone else. It really needs sorting out. And yes, I think disability should come before what is basically convenience.

[SiandAm]

Maybe the skycot thing is something to do with safety? I know virgin offer a similar policy. my friend has a 10 year old with autism and requested bulkhead seats so that he doesn't annoy passengers infront by kicking or fidgeting. She was told that whilst her request has been noted it is not guarenteed as passengers requiring skycots will take priority. She has since paid for extra legroom seats to ensure a more comfortable journey.
There really isn't a 'right' or 'wrong' in this situation as I can see it from both sides of the fence... if an airline provides skycots and your infant is entitled then they should get it, equally if you require extra room due to a disability you too should get it, and I suppose the airline just see us as bums on seats and are not really worried about any ethics!
It's not ideal but if you pay for the extra legroom at least you can ensure a more comfortable flight x

[MrsGrumpy]

Originally Posted by lindyT

So could you have bought these seats yourself? or did you and you were still "bumped"?

See more...

The bulkhead seats I need are not supposed to be sold until 24 hrs before the flight, and only then if there are no infants/people with disabilities needing them. But two separate check in agents told us that was obviously not being adhered to!

Originally Posted by cartoonp

From past experience They boarded both infants and disabled together so they both boaded the plane at the same time

See more...

It's not the boarding I'm worried about (although by the time they had sorted us out at LGW everyone was on the plane and waiting for us ), it's the allocation of seats, and being sure of getting them - saves an awful lot of stress and worry.

Tracy, I don't think it's a safety issue with the sky cots because as soon as the seat belt sign goes on the babies have to be taken out of the cots, even if they are fast asleep poor things.

All I would ask for is equal allocation of 'special needs' seating between the two groups.

[Warkman58]

Ok, I know I will be in the minority here, but I am not sure why the disabled should ahve priority over any other group. Bulhead seats are no extra leg room, indeed are less leg room as you cnat put your feet forward.
Surely the DDA states that teh disabled should be treated the same as any other person not treated as a special section of society?
Certain people have back problems, long legs, oversize, but are not by definition disabled, but should be treated the same as any other passenger surely?

Its like disabled car spaces which spebd 99% of their time empty, rather than making all car parking spaces suitabble for all drivers whether they are disabled, with children or not?