Originally Posted by
flyerbaby19
I don't know...it says "as a lapchild" and this wasn't a lapchild. I kind of interpret it as there is no option. None apply. Not able to sit upright. Don't have a carseat. Not listed as a lapchild. Therefore, the family should have been denied boarding.
Well I agree with you. No matter how you interpret this situation, there are only two logical outcomes. Deny boarding, or allow to sit on lap.
Originally Posted by
Global321
It is abundantly clear.
Your choice two is incorrect. You cannot sit on someone's lap unless you are in the manifest as a lap child; a FAA/DOT term. If you have an assigned seat, you must be in it. Period. No exception. (How many times have you heard "We need all ticketed passengers in their assigned seats before we push back". The young lad was not a lap child and had to be in his seat.
The simple solution would have been to remove the child from the seat and add the child as a lap child. Or, as you suggested, deny boarding.
If you can point me to a single solitary line in a document that states what you are claiming, I'm willing to agree with you.
The way I interpret the FAA rules and the CoC is there are only two options in the case where there is no car seat possible. Deny boarding or allow the child to ride in a lap. The FA was wrong here no matter how you slice it.