To be fair, the OP omitted this fact from the OP, only sharing it subsequently. Similarly, the OP didn't mention any medical need to the FA (unless he also omitted this inthe recounting).

The onboard experience could have been simplified if he said to the FA "I was asssigned this seat for a medical condition which I don't care to discuss further."

The FT recounting could have been simplified if he said in his original post "I was asssigned this seat for a medical condition which I don't care to discuss further."

Instead, the OP mentions it in Post #3, and later accused another poster of breaking the law for asking him how he got the seat!:rolleyes:

I'm sure that's certainly supposed to be "airborne object"

Who are we kidding? A bulkhead seat is more comfortable because there's nobody reclining in front of you, more privacy, and a few more inches of leg room, maybe. There are very few medical conditions where those few inches make a medical difference, it is just that the extra space is more comfortable.
Same for a family with an infant, having a bassinet in the bulkhead is not necessary but it is more comfortable. If the airlines choose to make a policy who qualifies for that extra bit of comfort, that is their perogative. But just like handicapped parking spaces, people are not above using some minor medical condition to get a better seat the same as they do a closer parking space. Besides that, Flyertalk is full of strategies and tricks to snag better seats. As a general rule, the passengers I see sitting in the bulkhead
look more fit and more healthy and more able bodied than most of the rest of the passengers.

I think you point should be well-taken (I see tons of able-bodied, non infant-bearing people in bulkhead all the time), but it's worth noting that the OP mentioned he has only requested bulkhead seats within the last 18mo because he personally feels there is now a material difference given his condition. Before 18 months ago, he didn't request bulkhead. I see no reason to doubt his sincerity.

True, I don't have any reason to doubt the OP's medical condition or his sincerity. Others have asked, what about the other two guys in his row and their status for being in the bulkhead seats? More often than not, the passengers in bulkhead seats do not seem to fit the airlines stated policies
of families with infants or medical conditions (at least not obvious medical conditions). If the guy has any kind of condition at all, he's more entitled than most.

We don't really know; perhaps the child was indeed birthed in flight.

The fault lies with Delta - not the OP or pax with infants that can't get a bassinet. How hard is it to design and implement a clear policy?

Not to mention that HIPAA does not prevent people from asking another person if they have a medical condition, or what that condition is. In fact, it wouldn't have covered the FA asking the very same question.

Not to mention that I don't believe GYEWorldTraveler is a medical provider, health plan, or health care clearinghouse that is handling the OP's medical needs.

But I do agree with the OP. I personally might have moved, but only if the seat next to it was empty. We all have our priorities, but the FA lecturing him was wrong.

Who I see in the bulkheads of coach are usually adult men who look able bodied. They jump on the bulkhead seats as soon as availability opens up 2 hours before. Families with babies and others who have a medical condition may not know they need to do that because they are not frequent flyers. If the airline policy is for them to have the bulkhead, it would be simple to assign the seats when the ticket is purchased. Most of the time, the families with crying babies and little kids wind up in the back rows. Don't know that I agree with favoring families with babies or those with minor medical conditions
with premium seats. In the old days when the policy originated, regular seats were more spacious and planes rarely completely full. The bulkhead was not a big advantage in terms of extra space, but it did help segregate crying babies and kicking kids from the other passengers, as much a service to the other passengers as to the families.

Quite honestly, I hate the bulkhead seats. If the wall goes all the way to the floor, I have LESS leg room. I can stretch out much better, with my legs under your seat. So you can have my bulkhead. I always turn it down.

Another way to solve the problem is just take away the bassinet option all together.

Parents, you need to buy a seat for your child and bing a good FAA approved car seat for thier safety. You would not want anything bad to happen to you new bundle of joy would you?

I'll take your bulkhead seat. :D

And, no, I don't want any bassinet blocking up my extra space anterior to my seat!

Eastern traveller, why? Many bassinets on many airlines are sturdier and better done than any carseat than a parent would possibly bring along. Furthermore, if it were a mixed itinerary, what seats should the parents use as for example many int'l carriers will not allow FAA approved car seats, and instead need then CAA or whatever approved, or do not allow them at all. Or even if they allow them require parents to hold children in their laps for takeoff, landing and turbulence. Then again I am sure that you are in fact unaware of these facts, but instead want to make an uninformed opinion for whatever reason to push your own unrelated point??!!

Since we are into conjectures, the couple might have been NRSA. The couple might have known the FA personally. The fact that the couple were NRSA might also have been the reason why FA took the matter in her hands instead of taking it up to the purser. I don't know if the purser is allowed to upgrade a coach passenger in return for them giving up their seats. If yes, that facility might not be available to accommodate NRSAs. Do you still believe there is no question about the couple having paid 10%.
In any case, paying 10% does not entitle you to a bassinet. The infant has to weight below a certain weight as the bassinet cannot support heavy infants.
It's not a big deal that you missed it. However, it's stretching it too far to claim that I might have "using CRAP" or "Busying RAP". ;)

There are countless threads on FT indicating that a portion of the populace believes the ability to procreate makes you special. One person's common courtesy is another's preferential treatment. IMO, common courtesy would dictate that parents 1) never take a stroller to a shopping mall or airport, 2)never take children under the age of 12 to nice restaurants and 3) either drive their little darlings to their destination or stay home. :D