UK plans free seating for parents and children under 14 on flights

The government wants airlines to seat children under 14 beside a parent or accompanying adult without a fee. The measure depends on legislation, and no start date is confirmed.

View from the back of a Qantas aircraft cabin, looking forward along the rows of seats
File photograph of the interior of a Qantas aircraft, photographed on 12 June 2013. Douglas Paul Perkins, ‘Airplane cabin.jpg’ (resized and converted to WebP). CC BY 3.0.
LinkedInPostEmail
Save for later

The UK government announced plans on 1 October to require airlines operating in the country to seat children under 14 beside a parent or accompanying adult without an extra fee. It says a parent and child could currently pay up to £104 to sit together on a return flight. The rule has not taken effect: it depends on the Civil Aviation Bill and later implementation.

The announcement adds detail to NewsJaws’ earlier report on the family seating plan. The Department for Transport has since removed a stated implementation date from its announcement, saying it was an error. Families therefore have no confirmed date on which the proposed rule would apply.

What the family seating proposal would cover

The Department for Transport says the requirement would cover children under 14 travelling with a parent or accompanying adult. Its stated aim is to make seating arrangements more consistent across airlines operating in the UK. The department acknowledges that most UK airlines already offer protections against hidden costs; the proposal would establish a common requirement rather than describe a fee charged by every carrier.

The department’s estimate of up to £104 concerns a parent and child sitting together on a return journey. It has not set out in the supplied announcement how that maximum was calculated or how often families pay it. The figure should be read as the government’s stated possible cost, not as a typical fare supplement.

Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said parents should not have to pay extra to sit next to their child. Prime Minister Andy Burnham called charging parents to sit with children a ‘rip-off’ and placed the proposal within his effort to curb small charges that accumulate when families book travel. Those comments describe the government’s case for the change; airlines disagree about whether the charges remain part of their current policies.

How airlines and consumer groups responded

Airlines UK told the BBC it was surprised by the announcement and said UK airlines follow current Civil Aviation Authority guidance on seating children under 12. The trade body’s response points to a distinction in age: the government’s proposed requirement would cover children under 14. The BBC also reported that Airlines UK said minor name corrections are already allowed without charge.

Ryanair told the BBC that ‘no such extra fees exist’. Its chief executive, Michael O’Leary, called the proposal government spin. The airline changed its family seating policy in June, the BBC reported, after the Competition and Markets Authority opened an investigation into its previous arrangements. Ryanair’s current objection should be considered alongside that policy change, rather than treated as a description of its earlier booking rules.

easyJet said it already allows spelling mistakes to be corrected free of charge and has never forced parents and children to pay to sit together. It described extending the relevant child age from 12 to 14 as the principal change for its existing policy. These responses show why the practical effect may differ between airlines, although the government has not published a carrier-by-carrier assessment in its announcement.

Rory Boland, editor of Which? Travel, welcomed the proposal. He said it was unfair to make parents and children as young as three pay extra to sit together, and said Which? had pressed airlines to remove such fees over the preceding decade. His comments support a uniform rule even where some airlines have already changed their practices.

The Ryanair investigation and the next legislative step

In June, the Competition and Markets Authority said Ryanair’s then-policy required an adult travelling with a child aged two to 11 to reserve a seat. That reservation typically cost about £8 each way, according to the watchdog. It opened an investigation into whether the term was unfair under consumer law and whether the charge was presented properly during booking. At that stage, the CMA said it had reached no conclusion that Ryanair had broken the law.

The CMA said it understood Ryanair was then the only major airline flying from the UK to impose the charge it was examining. It said other major airlines generally seated children with an accompanying adult without a paid adult reservation, or allocated seats together for free during booking. That finding concerns the arrangements the watchdog examined in June; it does not establish that Ryanair still charges the same fee after changing its policy.

The government says its planned changes would be delivered after the Civil Aviation Bill receives Royal Assent. The Guardian reported that ministers hoped to introduce them before the 2027 summer holidays, but that is an aim rather than a confirmed start date. The department’s 2 October correction removed the date previously shown on its announcement. Passengers should therefore not assume the proposed entitlement already applies to a booking.

The announcement also proposes free correction of simple name errors on flight bookings. The department says minor mistakes or administrative changes can cost up to £40. Separately, it says it is working with airlines and trade unions on a system to share information about persistently disruptive passengers. Those measures sit alongside the family seating proposal; their details and timing also depend on further action.

Sources and context

AI-assisted article checked against the listed sources. NewsJaws did not conduct interviews or attend the reported events.

About NewsJaws Desk

AI-assisted reporting and explainers reviewed against the linked source documents. No claim of on-scene reporting or original interviews.