Old Jun 27, 17, 6:48 pm
  #20  
cbn42
Moderator: Manufactured Spending
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 6,097
Originally Posted by leungy18 View Post
I don't understand why the FAA is making a big fuss about this.
The government is making a fuss about this because the airlines are unable to handle it. To me, it is simple human decency to make sure a child can sit next to a parent, but the airlines would rather monetize the cabin in a way that forces the family to pay extra to avoid being separated. There were enough incidents that got bad publicity, so Congress decided to intervene. I don't feel sorry for the airlines, they brought this on themselves due to excessive greed.

Originally Posted by nmh1204 View Post
Adjacent doesn't have to mean touching, directly next to. And I didn't say whenever, I said wherever. Yes, the law says maximum extent practicable, but there's not always going to be an option that's practicable, hence I said wherever.
In what situation would it not be practicable? I can't think of too many situations when the airline could claim that it would be impracticable to let a parent and child sit together. "We can't move that lady because she paid extra for that seat assignment" probably isn't going to fly.

The FAA regulations will probably spell out what terms like "adjacent" and "practicable" mean.
cbn42 is offline