Originally Posted by
LHR/MEL/Europe FF
I was absolutely using the exit row criteria as an example of how a visually impaired passenger is at a very real disadvantage when it comes to not only operating the exit door itself (ie if they are sitting in an exit row),
And I absolutely was not. Everything I've said here revolves around my belief that the airline has misunderstood (willfully or otherwise) the guidelines regarding exit rows and applied them in an irrelevant and discriminatory manner. It truly is a straw man argument.
Originally Posted by
LHR/MEL/Europe FF
. It is not for the passenger to question that and demand an explanation from the crew. Take it up with management yes, but not the poor crew.
We're never going to see eye to eye on this (excuse the pun).
I really am in the midst of taking this further with one of my governments and have received correspondence from the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department (so far I've seen nothing to justify the aisle seat rule). If the incident hadn't occurred, I wouldn't be doing this.
Neither you nor I can know for sure if any of the the crew or police who removed Rabby from the place privately supported his stand, after all, the photographer/blogger was not prevented from taking photographs. You are merely assuming that they were embarrassed. For all we know there were crew members who were just as disgusted by their airline's policies as I am.
Originally Posted by
LHR/MEL/Europe FF
On the 'do not change seats', that is pretty common in Australia, at least with Qantas and jetstar, passengers are often told to remain in their allocated seats until after takeoff), either for weight and balance, or for special meals, or to be able to find pax. It is also common in the US on regional jets (weight and balance).
Best of luck with finding
any evidence of a group of 3 friends/family/business acquaintances travelling in the same row being told they can't swap their seats.