sbm12

You are not eligible per the FAR and per the airline's published rules.

ajGoes

Stretch your imagination and put yourself in the following scenario. Your family is seated as you describe. The flight goes fine until, on landing, the airplane strikes another plane that has intruded onto the runway. The cabin begins to fill with smoke as the pilot brings the severely damaged plane to a halt.

FAs begin barking instructions, focusing on passengers in exit rows. "You there! Open the exit door over the left wing, throw it out onto the wing, and step outside right now!"

You're the one who has to follow these instructions. Can you leave your wife and 13-year-old in the airplane?

Aussienarelle

At 8 he was sitting with me. At 12 he would sitting in the seat immediately behind me. Not three rows away. I know he would follow the directions to exit the plane - he was 12 and understood the need to follow directions in an emergency.

On the basis you are stating then on school excursions if there is an emergency evacuation from a bus you would have the same issues and I can assure you that at 12/13/14 no child wishes to be anywhere near their parent when other kids were around. To answer your other question, yes I would act in the interest of all.

FWIW - when he was 14, on non-US flights (as noted above) we would both sit in the exit row.

Why would be not trust his wife to be responsible for the 13 year old?

Your argument then must go when families are seating in different rows all through the plane, then instead of making an orderly exit they will try to get to the other family members.

ajGoes

He could be distracted by concern for both his wife and his daughter. Most fathers would find it extremely difficult to flee to safety while leaving their family in peril.

sbm12

Why bother with make believe? UA's policy and the FAA regulations say it is a no-go.

ajGoes

To encourage people not to skirt the rule.

Aussienarelle

+1

As someone who enjoys the extra room in the exit row, I would happily have this rule for uniformed military personnel.

FWAAA

First off, it sounds like UA has the same policy as AA,
which makes the OP ineligible for the exit row if he's traveling with an ineligible passenger.

So where should the disabled (temporary or permanently) sit in order to "stay out of everyone's way" while all the able-bodied passengers evacuate?

Assuming he had hands and arms and normal upper-body strength and motion, he may have been capable of opening the door. That would have been required had something happened to you and your wife that prevented you from opening the door.

You mentioned that you and your wife would have been fine, but that passengers behind him "would not." Why is that? Is it that he would have held up the evacuation because of his slow movement? That's the case with every passenger who has limited mobility. Should they be seated in seats that are likely to be the last passengers to get out so that they don't impede the progress of the able-bodied?

In the aisle seat, he was about 40 inches from the hatch. Even if he was slower than normal, it doesn't take very long to move 40 inches.

Aussienarelle

I agree that 12/13/14 are not small children.

As for the 15 cut-off it could be lower if the 12/13/14 year old is strong enough but most of them have not yet developed the muscles to remove the door in an emergency, and have probably not yet developed the height such that adults in an emergency may try to trample them in getting the door removed. So I understand the 15 year old cut-off.

So OP should be fine based on the UA rules, as I understand them.

LordHamster

Whenever I've been seated in an exit row, they ask me if I'm willing AND able to ASSIST in an evacuation.

While there may be disabled people who would be perfectly able to help AND assist... I doubt they are the same folks taking advantage of the extra time to board.

IMO, those two conditions should be mutually exclusive. You are either fit enough to help in an evacuation (and board like everyone else), or too infirm for both and need extra time.

Fizzer

As somebody who frequently used to travel with a disabled daughter ( unable to walk at all) I was sometimes briefed by the FA that regulations required us to stay seated until all other passengers were out of the way in the event of an evacuation. More often than not we wouldn't get any briefing, depending upon how efficient the crew was. On more than one occasion, however, the briefing was followed by a wink and a quiet " and you're not going to do that are you?". We were always in window and middle seats because if not we would be unable to easily get out of the way for a window passenger to get out for the washroom etc.

The rule, whether unwritten (or written I really don't know) was First On Last Off. What would have really happened had an emergency ever occurred is unknown but material for many parental nightmares nonetheless.

cjermain

Once several years ago on a UA flight I was in an exit row seat, with my wife and son a few rows away (he was maybe 5 years old at the time). When the FA realized that my son was on the same plane, I was booted from the exit row. The explanation given: in an emergency, they want to be sure my first thought was following crew instructions, and not making sure my son was safe.

This sounded reasonable, and I've never tried to book an exit row seat with my son on the plane again.

I don't think it would matter wether a child was 5 or 12; a parent's first thought in an emergency is going to be the child's well being. It'd make a parent of an underage child a pretty poor steward of the emergency exit.

kale73

Given that criterion, wouldn't deadheading and/or commuting airline crew (any airline) be even better prepared to 'man' (or 'woman') the exit row in an emergency?

Two Bee

... perhaps, but I'm really not prepared to give up 21C to any of them!

FlyfromDenver

When I've been in the exit row, they have often been my seat mates. I don't have an issue with that. I don't have an issue with them always having the exit rows. I think it's something that shouldn't be about status or payment. It should be about safety.