Originally Posted by
Scanner Lady Nancy
He's not caring for an infant in a different class of service, and the mere fact that said infant is pretty far away from Dad (i.e., Dad won't be holding the baby, I'm sure Mom will volunteer to do that) means that some witch gate agent using the "might prevent" clause to boot you out of the exit row is just as asinine as "Anne can't sit in the exit row because she's preoccupied with her 12 cats at home and who is going to feed them if she gets killed on the flight"
I disagree completely with this. And the analogy is ludicrous. Pets/Children/Whatever at home are not going to make someone move in a direction other than toward the exit they're supposed to open. Having a child seated in the section where a section of the roof just caved in is extremely likely to cause divided attention when one should be opening an exit door.
The rule makes complete sense and I'm glad they have it for just this reason. Irrelevant analogies don't a valid argument make.
Originally Posted by
Scanner Lady Nancy
Why is common sense so rare?
Indeed.
Cheers.