Sick of Recliners?

[acampbel]

It was a half-cast that I could walk on (the full-leg plaster cast had been removed a few weeks before) and I was perfectly capable of opening the door and screaming "Follow me!", or is there more than that involved?

But as always NM you are skillfully avoiding the real question with an almost irrelevant technicality. Your firm doesn't advise the Coalition by any chance?


Cheers,

Andrew

.

 

[NM]

It was a half-cast that I could walk on (the full-leg plaster cast had been removed a few weeks before) and I was perfectly capable of opening the door and screaming "Follow me!", or is there more than that involved?

I would expect a check-in agent may not be quite so confident in your abilities and the agent's ability to explain that confidence to an enquiry if something did go wrong. I do expect even a half-cast would be disqualify you from securing an exit row.

But as always NM you are skillfully avoiding the real question with an almost irrelevant technicality. Your firm doesn't advise the Coalition by any chance?

What was the real question again?

 

[Dave Noble]

I believe there are rules defined by the airline regulatory bodies that require the airline ensure anyone seated in a exit row is physically capable of performing the duties that may be required in the event of an emergency. And I very much doubt someone with a cast on a leg would meet the requirements for such seating allocation.

Now the rules may be different for an aircraft such as a 747 where there is generally a crew member seated at each exit door, but that is certainly the case for aircraft such as 737 where the exit row does not have cabin crew seated nearby.

The rules apply on the 747s too. Having a cast on would definitely be a big no-no for allowing to sit by the exit

Dave

 

[acampbel]

I would expect a check-in agent may not be quite so confident in your abilities and the agent's ability to explain that confidence to an enquiry if something did go wrong. I do expect even a half-cast would be disqualify you from securing an exit row.

What was the real question again?

The check-in agent barely glanced in my direction (this was pre my membership of QC) and merely said that all the exit rows were taken. They may infer that physical adequacy is the main factor in deciding suitability for an exit row ..... but does anyone on this forum seriously believe that is their highest priority?

And the real question was why is the exit row a perk for passengers with status rather than a place for those most in need?

And just to head off your next spurious argument, I am not inferring that fat or smelly coughs should be upgraded for everyone's comfort ... much as that appeals to me ... but just that economy travellers get equal treatment regardless of status.


Cheers,

Andrew

 

[Dave Noble]

The check-in agent barely glanced in my direction (this was pre my membership of QC) and merely said that all the exit rows were taken. They may infer that physical adequacy is the main factor in deciding suitability for an exit row ..... but does anyone on this forum seriously believe that is their highest priority?

physical inadequacy is a major factor; regardless of status, they will not allow someone with an injury to sit there

And the real question was why is the exit row a perk for passengers with status rather than a place for those most in need?

Because it gives an incentive to their frequent flyers; there are not many people with need who would be eligable to sit there;

but just that economy travellers get equal treatment regardless of status.

There is not equal treatment elsewhere in economy; non status passengers can only pre-select seats until the regular alllocation limit is reached; non status passengers can not pre select the 1st few rows of economy ( which on a 744 for example, includes the nice bulkheads )

They happen to restrict the few exit seats pre-selection to their top-tier members; AA allows it for those with AA status and BA allows those on full fare or have sapphire/emerald status to preselect. At least 3 members of OW limit exit row preselection to those with status


In fact, preferred seating is a published benefit of status in OW

Dave

 

[Maca44]

Andrew, I usually stay clear of these discussions, however, when you suggest that economy travellers should get equal treatment regardless of status, I can't agree with you even though 90% of my travel is in Y. I believe you get what you pay for. If in F Class I expect to be treated and receive great service/food/wine etc like a king, and in J Class I expect comfort, good food and good wine, but in Y class I don't expect anything except a seat in a presurised metal tube because essentially that is what I have paid for with either money or points. The more you pay the more benefits you get, and although I don't have status I believe that exit rows should be allocated to Platinum/Gold status holders because they actually fly a lot with the airline and earn that privilege.

 

[acampbel]

Andrew, I usually stay clear of these discussions, however, when you suggest that economy travellers should get equal treatment regardless of status, I can't agree with you even though 90% of my travel is in Y. I believe you get what you pay for. If in F Class I expect to be treated and receive great service/food/wine etc like a king, and in J Class I expect comfort, good food and good wine, but in Y class I don't expect anything except a seat in a presurised metal tube because essentially that is what I have paid for with either money or points. The more you pay the more benefits you get, and although I don't have status I believe that exit rows should be allocated to Platinum/Gold status holders because they actually fly a lot with the airline and earn that privilege.

Maca - you have contradicted yourself but I believe the gist of it is that "some of us are more equal than others". That's fine, and as some who is QC/Silver I do gain the benefit of a forward(ish) aisle seat on most of my flights. But nicities about cabin preferences are one thing - actually discriminating against passengers with needs on the basis of low status is another. When I travelled that time with a cast and a very fetching jandal/thong on my foot there were passengers and FA's constantly tripping over it as I had to extend it into the aisle (hence my move up the back). How it was safer to put me in the middle of the cabin than at the exit is a curious type of logic that only the Brahmins would think is reasonable.

But I see I have the QF posse on my case now so there is little point in preaching to the converted ....


Cheers,


Andrew

.

 

[NM]

The check-in agent barely glanced in my direction (this was pre my membership of QC) and merely said that all the exit rows were taken. They may infer that physical adequacy is the main factor in deciding suitability for an exit row ..... but does anyone on this forum seriously believe that is their highest priority?

did you not request to be given an exit row seat because you had an injury? Did you mention this medical need to the check-in agent? The agent would have had two ways to answer your request:

• Tell you all the exit rows are allocated so you can't have one even if they wanted to give you one
• Tell you that you cannot sit there as you don't meet the regulatory requirements

Now in this situation, the second response is almost always going to be met with a "discussion" about how capable the passenger is, even though he is wearing a little bit of plaster on the end of his leg. That would be argument that would not end with either party being satisfied with the result. So much easier to provide the first response and its end of story.

And the real question was why is the exit row a perk for passengers with status rather than a place for those most in need?

First requirement is that they meet the physical capabilities requirement, and those in most need of the extra space are unlikely to meet that requirement. If they have a real requirement for extra space then they have the option to purchase a business class seat.

I think reserving the most desired seats for high status FF members is quite an acceptable policy for an airline to operate.

And just to head off your next spurious argument, I am not inferring that fat or smelly coughs should be upgraded for everyone's comfort ... much as that appeals to me ... but just that economy travellers get equal treatment regardless of status.

That thought has not crossed my mind

 

[SeaWolf]

I'm curious as to why a bulk head seat couldn't have been given instead, they have the extra leg room (don't they?) and no regulatory obstacles about being able to stand and lift X kilos while being gassed by blazing jet fuel.

 

[NM]

I'm curious as to why a bulk head seat couldn't have been given instead, they have the extra leg room (don't they?) and no regulatory obstacles about being able to stand and lift X kilos while being gassed by blazing jet fuel.

Often they can have less leg room. The advantage of a bulkhead is the lack of a recliner in front of you. But there is also no seat in front under which you can put your feet. For someone with limited knee mobility and of any significant height (say over 6') the bulkhead can be a bad seat to be given for a 14 hour flight.

 

[Mal]

I'm curious as to why a bulk head seat couldn't have been given instead, they have the extra leg room (don't they?) and no regulatory obstacles about being able to stand and lift X kilos while being gassed by blazing jet fuel.

Yep, as NM comments, Bulkheads are both good and bad. Good that no-one can recline into you, bad that people want to walk in front of you while sleeping, the leg room can be limited, and you can have a screaming baby seated next to you. Also the arm-rests are closer together normally (to support the in seat monitor/seat tray) so those who are larger around the waist may also have issues with these seats.

 

[simongr]

Often they can have less leg room. The advantage of a bulkhead is the lack of a recliner in front of you. But there is also no seat in front under which you can put your feet. For someone with limited knee mobility and of any significant height (say over 6') the bulkhead can be a bad seat to be given for a 14 hour flight.

Or even a two hour flight...

 

[Reggie]

For someone with limited knee mobility and of any significant height (say over 6') the bulkhead can be a bad seat to be given for a 14 hour flight.

Even on a 1 hour flight. I have a note added to my profile - NO ROW 1

 

[james_1972]

Yes - Sick of Recliners.

Any chance we could start a petition to get reclining banned on all domestic economy seats in Australia?

Surely this is the scourge of flying for most people
(OK - mostly people who are on this forum who travel for business - I'm guessing there aren't too many people who got to be frequent flyers purely on recreational travel?) [back to my original line]
who travel for work and want some space on the tray in front for reading, writing, laptop screen space, personal space etc.

Does this have legs (wings even?)

 

[NM]

I'm guessing there aren't too many people who got to be frequent flyers purely on recreational travel?

you will find many AFF members who travel little for business and mostly for leisure.

Does this have legs (wings even?)

I very much doubt it has legs (or any other limbs). Non-reclining seats would be seen by many people as a step backwards and such a move by the airlines could lead to their customers choosing to fly with another airline that does have reclining seats.

It is my view that the lack of space in the economy cabin of aircraft is due to the continual push for more competition and cheaper fares. In order for the airlines to be competitive and provide ever lower prices, they need to squeeze as many passengers into the cabin as possible and to reduce the cost of delivering their services.

My personal view is that I have no issues with the person in front of me reclining except during the meal service. If I need to work and use a laptop during a flight then I will be in business class. if I am flying in the economy cabin then I do not work or pull out my laptop.

I don't blame the airlines for a lack of space ... I blame the customers who demand lower fares.

 

[Yada Yada]

I'd forgetten just how funny some of the posts in this thread were.

you will find many AFF members who travel little for business and mostly for leisure.

I reckon that would make for an interesting poll! I often feel that I am one of a minority here who travel most for work. Maybe I'm wrong?

Does anyone have any suggestions on poll options that would get the best results? Just having business vs leisure would be insufficient because people will probably have a combination of both with varying degrees of balance between the two.

 

[james_1972]

I'm not prepared to drop the petition for no reclining yet - hey we got them to stop other disgusting behaviour like smoking!!! Maybe they could designate one half of the plane reclining (even 3/4 etc) and leave some areas non reclining??

But in response to Yada Yada for a poll - here are my suggestions for options to give us a good spread

1) I'm too busy flying for work to bother responding to this poll
2) Mostly for work - I don't even fly enough for liesure to use up frequent flyer points
3) Mostly work - but I could do with some more points - sometimes I even pay for my own flights
4) Half and Half - I really don't like my home much ;-)
5) Mostly liesure - but sometimes I have to do work to get me some money to go travelling again
6) Once upon a time I travelled for work
7) As I sit here on holidays in the bahamas bored out of my mind - I thought I'd check in on those poor folk at frequentflyer.com.au to see what they're doing!!

 

[drron]

Well James I have made explat on AA purely on recreational flying.
My major problem flying economy were those behind who felt they had a right to kick my seat back or pull on the back of my seat when i was reclining.I would complain to FA but that usually didnt work.I must admit on one occasion when the annoyance worsened after the intervention of the FA I stood up and told the offender that i was drinking and may very well spill it.the aggro continued so a glass of water accidently spilt backwards.
I solved the problem by now flying business class and i suggest if it worries you so much do the same.As has been said if people keep demanding lower fares the conditions of flying certainly are not going to improve.

 

[acampbel]

Yada Yada,

Yes there are many options that could form a reclining poll. These could include voting buttons on :-

A complete reclining ban on domestic flights
A complete reclining ban on flights < 2 hours
A complete reclining ban on daytime flights
A ban only during meals (as is the case now)
No ban - complete free for all (as some people seem to prefer)

I think the business/leisure travel and elite/economy class distinctions are not justifiable. All my travel is economy and this should not impact my need to work, or my right to some modest amount of personal space. I don't mind the airline dictating what that is (I can always chose another airline) but I do mind the person in front of me chosing my level of comfort.



Cheers,


Andrew


.

 

[james_1972]

Folks - certainly enjoying the discussion - hope my responses don't offend ;-)
drron - I would love to fly business class but my annual qantas spend just for me alone would be over 100k - just couldn't possibly afford it as much as I'd like to. Sorry for kneeing you in the back and pulling on your chair - it wasn't personal. - just jokes - I can understand how frustrating someone pulling on the seat - kneeing in the back - and on early morning/late night flights or overnight flights there is need to get some sleep. But (hypothetically) would you be prepared to limit your reclining to these periods if you still had to fly economy (and I can understand - despite my earlier posts - that everyone flies for different reasons and has different requirements)?



acambel - comrade!! yes - so I take it you're a signatory to the petition?? I'm keen to see this as an online poll!