Originally Posted by
tmlamku
In the absence of an equipment box, I think we can all agree that the under seat storage should be allocated as follows:
9D => 8D
9E => 8E
10F => 8F
However, when there is an equipment box and a jumpseat present, it seems like there is no order or rules, and this will then become chaos.
Using simple logic (and IMO), the presence of any obstruction should not deter from the norm. But based on the comments, that does not seem to be so.
IADCAflyer - In this situation, why is the 10F passenger to assume his seat is like a bulkhead seat? Could the same not apply to 9D and 9E?
I faced exactly this situation a few days ago. The wife and I were seated in 9D and 9E on a LUS A321 (the V3 version on SeatGuru). There was the large metal equipment box directly behind 8E and 8F (it actually blocks part of the back of 8D too). There was also the jump seat behind 8F. There is a small vertical "slot" created between the equipment box, the jump seat, seat 8F, and the side wall of the aircraft. I squeezed my small backpack into the slot behind 8F and my wife used the slightly restricted underseat of 8D. The passenger in 10F ended up using the overhead for their carry-on. There's actually very little space available under row 8 when the metal equipment box is present so there's really no practical way to accommodate the carry-ons of three pax.
Originally Posted by
IADCAflyer
This is the closest image that i can find to what we are dealing with....But as I said above, I think there is a jumpseat where 9F would be.
Your image is correct for aircraft
without the metal equipment box. The metal box makes access to the underseat area of seat 8E in your impossible, and creates the "slot" described above. The jumpseat is actually slightly forward of row 9 and nearly touches the back of row 8.