[Charles-P]

I have now had a reply from the airline who have decided it’s all the fault of the airport not their staff.

The rest of the reply is the usual,
“we are sorry to hear, hope you will fly with us again boilerplate” that I assume is the same format they send to everyone but a single sentence in the email says,
“We have escalated this to the airport authorities”

This reeks of passing the buck in my view as clearly the responsibility is the airline and its staff to ensure the appropriate people are sitting in the exit row seats.

[canucklad]

Ding Ding –
Round One counter punch by the airline, Charles
Hoping you’ll just shrug your shoulders and go away.
Probably answered by someone in an outsource centre, somewhere far away, who doesn’t realise the point you’ve raised, is more to do with a breach of safety! .

[Charles-P]

canucklad – yes you are right. I wonder how they reacted when they saw my reply which had copies of my correspondence with UK CAA and the Belgian Bestuur der Luchtvaart ?

[esselle]

What a stupid reply from the airline! With internet check in, you can go through the entire airport without contact with anybody other than the security screening folk until you reach the gate. If the gate staff are not employees of the airline, then they are service partners acting on their behalf……….

Keep it going Charles P. They will capitulate in the end.

[Charles-P]

esselle – I agree with you but am not in any way surprised at this response. The days when airlines read properly complaints from customers are long gone, now we have minimum wage staff simply choosing a standard response from a choice of a couple with meaningless platitudes designed to make us give up and go away.

[nevereconomy]

In the U.S. most of the population is too big for an exit row in the new cramped seating, but even those needing seat belt extensions are routinely put in exit rows as it is considered unacceptable to put the safety of other passengers before their embarrassment. I too have seen very elderly passengers in exit rows.
Of course in the US airline industry, the passenger is the last concern!

[canucklad]

Charles P, I suspect your follow up letter informing them you’ve contacted the appropriate regulators will have been swiftly dispatched to their …….
“Let’s tread carefully with this potential trouble maker team”

Like most organizations, level one response’s are dealt with people on minimal wages who couldn’t care less about the company they’re working for, or more likely on behalf of…. The group 1’s !!
Your second letter, now involves those group of people who are paid enough to watch their back, just in case if they handle your concerns incorrectly, someone from above doesn’t come back and bite them in the bum from the 3rd group … Group 2 will reply with gobblely gook, techno mumbo jumbo excuses, whilst cc’ing in group 3. This covers their back, at the same time testing your resolve and checking your intellect on the subject matter your concerned about.

Unless a letter pops into group 3’s in-box from the authorities that matches your references, they might adopt , the going round in circles principal or bribe you off. If a letter does appear , then it’s fire hose time….Investigations into crew actions etc.

If it reaches this stage, your query will be managed by managers totally away from the first two groups, because, even Group 3 doesn’t trust their colleagues to sort it out without causing the business more potential damage.

Anyway, good luck!

[Bath_VIP]

I am glad to see this issue raised as it is a bug bear of mine. As someone who is registered blind, I have been moved from the exit row a couple of times. The practice of charging for exit row seats bugs me big time since I can’t purchase them since they discriminate against disabled passengers. I would have thought that such discrimination would be illegal and I would love to see a test case on this. it might force airlines either to abandon exit seat charging or to offer more extra leg room seats that are not in exit rows (my preferred solution).

[FDOS_UK]

Bath_VIP – 05/11/2015 16:43 GMT

I sympathise with your frustration, but airlines are obliged to apply CAA rules on exit seat criteria:

You can reference the following at http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx/doc/148/docs/80/airport_data/1996annual/default.aspx?catid=5&pagetype=90&pageid=9855

“The following categories of passengers are among those who should not be allocated to, or directed to, seats which permit direct access to emergency exits :

Passengers suffering from obvious physical, or mental handicap to the extent that they would have difficulty in moving quickly if asked to do so.
Passengers who are either substantially blind or substantially deaf to the extent that they might not readily assimilate printed or verbal instructions given.
Passengers who because of age or sickness are so frail that they have difficult in moving quickly.
Passengers who are so obese that they would have difficulty in moving quickly or reaching and passing through the adjacent emergency exit.
Children (whether accompanied or not) and infants.
Deportees or prisoners in custody.
Passengers with animals.”

[Bath_VIP]

FDOS,

I have no problem with the CAA regulations, my eyesight is a liability in an emergency. If airlines didn’t charge for these seats, I wouldn’t have an issue. What is an issue is the fact that airlines are commercialising these seats by selling them for extra whilst not offering something similar for disabled passengers who are prevented from buying them. That is discrimination.

[canucklad]

I agree with you Bath_VIP ….
And here’s an alternative thought, shouldn’t eligible people who find themselves sat in those seats be compensated for having that extra responsibility.
After all ,if no one chooses to sit in these rows, the plane can’t take off

[IanFromHKG]

I don’t think that is correct, canucklad. I am not aware of any regulation that requires the seats to be occupied (whether or not by “qualified” people!). I have been on a few flights recently on CX or its subsidiary KA where I have been the only passenger in the exit row (which I get free as a FF).

Bath-VIP, while I (truly) sympathise, to my mind this is one of the (few) situations where “discrimination” is at least arguably justifiable on safety grounds. Having said that, in a (common) 3 by 3 layout, I cannot help but wonder the extent to which the person in the aisle seat can really make a difference. Surely the passengers in the window or middle seat would in practice take the burden of dealing with the door?

However, I fear that until such time as the authorities starting being a bit more pragmatic about such matters (don’t hold your breath) that you will have to accept this limitation as one of the things that goes along with your (regrettable) disability. However, I am well aware that there is a huge difference between being “registered blind” and what most people think of as “blind” – or perhaps I should say that the former covers a very wide spectrum of visual impairment. A former colleague of mine was registered blind, but was able to read normal documents without undue difficulty (albeit with – ahem – “significant spectacles”). it is clear that you are able to read in some manner. I don’t know whether this is using a braille reader, or transcription software, or something else – but is it in fact the case that you *could* read printed instructions? If so you might be able to argue that you don’t fall within the exclusion cited by FDOS above.

Funnily enough, I was referring back to a post you made a long time ago in a conversation with Junior Offspring about why the overhead handholds in a metro were rather luridly coloured, and explaining that this wasn’t a matter of taste (well, not necessarily, anyway) but was in fact a good thing. Many of us don’t stop to think about the insignificant (to us) changes to our environment that make a very significant difference to the people around us who may have to deal with the world in a different way. And although I curse under my breath from time to time when my suitcase wheels get stuck in the grooves of the ridged tiles used to help the visually impaired navigate, I do so while thinking I am lucky that that is the only extent of my problems, and that I am fortunate enough not to have to use them myself.

One final thought – although it isn’t a real substitute for legroom, have you ever tried to purchase a “comfort seat” instead? http://www.britishairways.com/travel/gsanswer/public/en_us?faqid=3804&gsLink=searchResults

[LuganoPirate]

If you buy a comfort seat, I wonder if you have to pay double airport taxes? I’d buy one of these seats just not to have someone next to me and a place to put my jacket and papers.

If the passenger in the outside seat then also tried to take advantage of MY free seat that I had paid for, would I say anything? What would others do?

[IanFromHKG]

No, LP, I understand there are no taxes on comfort seats. As to encroachment by a neighbour, I think a printout of the comfort seat reservation and a polite explanation that you have paid for the seat SHOULD be enough (but nowadays, who knows??)

[Poshgirl58]

The airlines cannot pass the buck to their “handling agents”. The airlines appoint them and should therefore expect an understanding of their policies. After all it is a safety issue. We are constantly reminded that cabin crew are there for safety reasons, so they should enforce it. My experience is confined to charter airlines and Monarch. Have witnessed Thomson cabin crew remonstrating with handling agent for seating a disabled passenger in an aisle seat (in extra leg room but not by exit). In many years of travelling with someone who required extra legroom for comfort, he was only ever asked once if he had read the emergency card.

I agree with Bath VIP’s comments; airlines should offer a good alternative for disabled passengers without extra charge.

Canucklad – interesting thought about compensation.

[Author]

Posts