Is Row 1 on a A321 an emergency exit row ? ?
 

Am I right in thinking that Row 1 on an A321 short haul is an emergency exit row? Or is it just a bulkhead row reserved for Golds? There were baby bassinet trays on the plane not the BA provides baby bassinets any more on short haul. I know there are no exits at row 1 itself but has been possibly a historical designation.

I was very surprised that on a recent flight I took, the CSM (yes it was a MF fight) allow a famous celebrity and his wife who got seated in row 2 to change with the pax in row 1. This was after a long litany of complaints from the celeb on boarding in through Hollywood diva style (was/is famous on both sides of the pond who will be 90 this year). I was particularly surprised since the celeb needed assistance at the airport - wheelchair and golf buggy at the airport and even needed a walking stick on board. Celeb wife was truly the diva and wanted to exit the plane first even though they wanted special assistance.

CSM had to persuade pax in row 1 to move by bribing them with free champagne to take off the plane - they gave in far too easily if you ask me. Suspect they were not BAEC elites and manage to nab the seats at check-in

Row 1 in a 321 is a bulkhead, not an emergency exit. But sometimes MMB can't tell the difference.

Row 1 should be blocked for Golds whether in CE or UK Dom configuration.

There is a bassinet which is very useful to use as a drinks table.

I would have told S'leb to get stuffed.

They aren't exit rows. There is a toilet on the left and galley on the right - so bulkheads similar to other Airbuses.

I don't know why, but this sort of behaviour by any "celeb" makes my blood boil. And the effect is worse when BA (or any organisation) fawns and panders to them and actually gives in to them. Why do organisations do this - is one of lifes many mysteries. Like all of us, they are only entitled to a seat in the cabin they paid for. Any specific seat should only be decided by FF status or when OLCI opens.

I feel the same. It seems to me that such behaviour is abusing their position, a position which the public have put them in. As such it feels like an abuse of us, the public. Nobody like that. Like other I would have felt like telling them to sling their hooks, but that would probably only made the situation worse. And obviously my English reserve would have taken over, so I would have given them a really serious tut!


Up to you KenJohn, but I would have no qualms about naming and shaming them, not that it would help.

+1 ^ They make my bloody boil too.

If I was asked in Row 1 to move to 2 for a celebrity I would have just plainly said no... I grabbed these seats for a reason!

And bribing the people at row 1 with champagne - they simply caved in too easily. Maybe a free J ticket from LHR to SYD return then maybe.... :D

/AE

+1

At 90 probably an old f@rt living on their past fame.

More importantly..........congratulations on your 5000th post :D

Name and shame ^^^^

Oh yeh! Congratulations! Can I have your autograph?

I heard madonna was plugging her new song.

I think the OP should name and shame the celebrity for the DYKWIA behaviour.

I say name and shame :D ^

If they were 90 maybe have a guess who it was?

OP said celeb was gonna be 90 this year. So I reckon Christopher Lee ;)

Probably right. He can't walk far, has a walking stick and his wife is an ex-model = diva.

+1. If I was asked nicely by them, I'd consider moving, but if they acted as described by the OP, I'd downright refuse to move if asked, and would only do so if explicitly told I had to by the crew. I'd then be writing to BA in the strongest terms, and naming the DYKWIA them via all social media outlets available to me :D

Pandering to them like that just encourages their childish behaviour IMO.