Baby in UC

quote:Originally posted by candyman
i9 thought sky cots were for under 1's only

steve

Yes, but what I meant (sorry not explained very well) is that under twos do not get a seat unless you pay for it, but you have to tell Virgin that you are taking an infant and the age, so all 1 year olds should flag up in the system as needing a cot.

yep sorry alan get your point now
and i agree with it totally
trouble is logic is not always applied so well by some companies not sure how VS rate here

quote:Originally posted by AlanA
...all 1 year olds should flag up in the system as needing a cot.

Potentially needing a cot. We travelled to Vietnam via BKK (on Air France) last year with our, then, 11 month old. If she'd had been put in a sky cot she would have jumped out - which is no laughing matter when you realise that on the AF planes they hang the cots from the overhead bin - is this sensible!!

I guess the point is that VA just cannot be certain and dont want to carry additional cots if there is no confirmed requirement.

Also taken on board Deckers comments and I agree with the fact that sky cots are primarily a convenience rather than safety - guess I was carried away by the increasingly safety orientated nature of the thread. However the point still stands - If I booked in advance I should get first refusal over someone who did not - whichever class.

Phil (Buffy)

but the thing here phil is that you would not know that your cot had been given
to an UC pax
they would take it and tell you that the were just not enough on
board when you think about the difference in the fare that the pax
pay they would rather upset some one paying £300 than one pay £4000
just makes good comercial sense really

quote:Originally posted by candyman
they would take it and tell you that the were just not enough on
board

No arguments from me as to what they would do - or indeed what makes commercial sense - just arguing on the ethics of it that's all - the key word was 'should'.

Oh and lest anyone remind me - I know we do not live in a perfect world

Phil (Buffy)

I agree with what Declan says, especially having been on an aircraft which hit CAT once. It was daytime (not a VS flight) and those who didn't have their seatbelt at least loosly fastened got injured...

It takes you by surprise and you can't comprehend what happens / happened!

Namely...3 broken arms, neck injuries and half the contents of the overhead bins falling out.

Does make me wonder what would happen though on say, a MCO flight with all those kids running around!!!

Hold on here obivusly some people do not think here. I was in severe turbulence just after take off from UVF in the 70's- the crew were serving drinks and the cart hit the roof along with the crew! Imagine if you had hit that turbulence and your child had hit the roof- i think as declan said at the start of this thread its called common sense and if a crew member had stepped on ur child or worse had crawled out whilst u were asleep and got his hand caught under a wheel of a cart- u would have been the first to compain.

VS were 100% correct to make u take the child off the floor. At the end of the day they have your safety at heart. VS and all airlines now recomend that you keep your seat belt fastened at all times in fact on some US domestic flights (DL LGA-BOS) you are not allowed out of your seat at all. One must remember the training crew go through to be crew- ie: they are trained to know what to do in case of sudden turbulence or depressure in cabin you are not hence why they are allowed to work in turbulence etc and why pax are advised not to walk around the cabin or not have seat belt off.

The question lies as to why your child on the floor wasnt noticed on o/b flight. I have seen a number of crews (some vs some not) completely not see things such as hand luggage that is to large for seat under, seats no upright, electronics being used. Indeed a friend once had left his phone on by mistkae on a QF LHR-SIN flight by mistake and of course got a text message- not one of the crew noticed the phone ringing! So you were lucky on o/b and had a lax crew.

2nd point: Declan saying pax sleeping in door way etc. I thought on flight to/from USA it was against FAA rules since 9/11 to have gatherings of people in puiblic areas (ie exits, galleys etc). At least this is what is announced on Air NZ flights to LAX and SFO.

The reason for passengers not being allowed to leave their seats on LGA-BOS is not because of a high occurrence of CAT in the area.

US Gov regs since 9/11 require passengers to be seated and strapped in sometime before landing (I think that it is 30 mins, but not sure). This particular flight is too short to allow passnegers to be unbelted.

Pat: I realise this perhaps i didnt make my point clear enough sorry! The LGA-BOS route is actually 55minutes long.or was when i did it!

Perhaps it is 45 mins then. Allow say 10 to climb out before seatbelt sign normally goes off and then 45 mins until landing and you end up with pax not be allowed out of their seats.

However, I seem to recall that it was for flights into Washington National.