DougSkymiles

I understand that DL doesn't ask about someone's condition that requires them to preboard. I am fine with that. Delta's website decribes Preboarding as: Customers needing assistance or additional time to board, including families with car seats or strollers. My issue is allowing someone who feels they need additional assistance and/or time to board to sit in an emergency exit row. I feel it is putting the other passengers safety more at risk in the event of an actual situation that requires emergency evacuation of a plane.

I wonder if Delta has weighed their added liability exposure by allowing passengers, that require extra time/assistance getting on, to be responsible for performing the duties of exit row passengers. As outlined in the FAA guidelines, §§ 121.585(b) and 135.129(b), it is not associated with a specific disability, such as vision impairment, but only their ability to lift the aircraft doors andassist other passengers in the emergency evacuation process.

http://fsims.faa.gov/WDocs/8900.1/V0...03_033_006.htm

C W

I'm with you 100%. Emergency exits seats must be filled by those who confidently and obviously meet the requirements. This is far more important than revenue from assignment fees from the the extra legroom or making specific customers happy. Airlines have come to treat exit rows as a commodity when in fact they are critical to a safe evacuation, it seems this should go without saying. One immobile passenger could prevent dozens from exiting and indeed in a panic could be grievously injured by other passengers forcing their way by.

Gate agents, FAs, and ultimatly the captain are all responsible here and each should have disallowed it at some point.

xolinlevh

I've only once seen a FA actively enforce this, and it was glorious. Family with small children seated in the exit row, FA comes over and lets them know they will have to be moved. Dad throws a fit, red coat comes on, dad says they wont be 'downgraded' because he PAID for these upgraded exit row seats. GA calmly points out that they had a popup and agreed that everyone was 18+ and able to assist, they can either move now or be thrown off the flight. They move and dad demands a refund for the exit row, the glare on her face shut him up so fast.....

tvnwz

I have actually talked to an FA once about an elderly gentleman at an exit window seat who was very much too frail to help. And would obviously be an impediment. She moved the gentleman and thanked me for bringing it to her attention.

The bad news here is that it was fairly obvious and if I had not said anything the guy would have stayed sitting there. They would have just let it ride.

Widgets

Gate agents with a CRO can move certain passengers out of an exit row, but not all conditions that require preboarding disqualify a person for exit row seating. Having a peanut allergy is an example.

kop84

Plus you are unable to ask about the specific nature of their disability. And it's doubtful the GA/FA has a 40lbs weight available to test someone's strength. Something you should think about though...just keep it under the counter!

DougSkymiles

As I tried to point out, the FAA says that just because one has a disability doesn't preclude them from sitting in an emergency exit row per se. However, the FAA document that I attached does say:
C. Selection Criteria.

1) As applicable to the exit seating rule, the required selection criteria for an occupant of an exit seat are listed in §§ 121.585(b) and 135.129(b). The selection criteria are a listing of capabilities and conditions to be applied to determine the suitability of persons to occupy an exit seat.

2) The selection criteria should be contained in its entirety in the air carrier’s manuals, including the F/A manual, and the exit seating passenger information card. The selection criteria must also be available for inspection by the public at all passenger ticket counters and loading gates. Air carriers should avoid paraphrasing the selection criteria, as it may change the meaning of the neutral selection criteria and result in unwarranted discrimination. An example of such paraphrasing whereby the meaning of the criteria is changed would be if an air carrier misrepresented § 121.585(b)(4) as follows:

a) “The person lacks sufficient visual capacity to perform one or more of the applicable functions.”

b) The omission of “without the assistance of visual aids beyond contact lenses or eyeglasses” (as stated in the regulation) significantly changes the meaning of the criteria and could result in unwarranted removal of passengers with eyeglasses seated at exit seats. However, in some instances the regulatory language could be changed for simplification purposes without changing the meaning of the criteria. For example, “to exit expeditiously” could be restated as “to exit quickly.”

3) The airline employee designated to determine who may be assigned to an exit seat must make this assessment in a nondiscriminatory manner by consistent application of the neutral criteria.

a) For example, if a passenger is being evaluated for assignment to an exit seat, age (with the exception of those younger than 15 years of age) or the size of a person alone should not be the determining factors. The airline employee must evaluate the individual’s physical and mental capabilities and other conditions, as clearly outlined in the selection criteria. If that individual meets all the selection criteria, then age or size alone should not be a disqualifying factor.

b) However, if that individual has difficulty walking and lifting his or her own carry-on luggage, then the application of the neutral criteria would exclude this individual from being assigned an exit seat because it would appear by observation that the individual would not be able to move expeditiously and perform the tasks involved in the emergency evacuation.

c) For example, if a passenger with a prosthesis is being evaluated for assignment to an exit seat, the presence of the prosthesis would not be the determinant for being able to meet the criteria but rather the physical ability to perform the exit seat duties.

d) During the screening, if the CH determines that a passenger may not have full functionality of the prosthetic limb (e.g., the passenger has removed the prosthesis for comfort or their prosthesis is in a sling or arm-brace), then they may not meet the “mobility” exit row criteria.

So, in essence, a passenger could have a prosthetic leg, or amputated arm, but if they don't need assistance or extra time boarding, then there is probably no reason they couldn't fulfill the responsibilities of emergency row seating. However, no matter what their issue, if they do need extra time or assistance, then they probably shouldn't be.

C W

I think you're right in most cases, with some exceptions as pointed out by Widgets.

I think the critical section in the regulation to your argument is:

Just a friendly suggestion, your last post would be easier to read with the regualtion quoted. Until I went and clicked on the link and read it again I wasn't sure what was the regulation and what was your commentary.

The smallest state

I agree with you on the idea that if you need pre-boarding assistance, then you shouldn't be in the exit row. I used to fly SW a lot on a PVD-TPA route. If you ever want to see a ton of preboards it was a flight out of New England in the winter, heading to Florida when they had the group boarding assignments. I asked the GA's more than once that SW should have a rule that if you needed to pre-board, then you needed to wait at landing to let all the 'able-bodied' passengers off first.

Lavarock7

I have purposely avoided trying for exit rows because of my tinnitus (ringing in the ears). Oftentimes the overhead announcements were impossible to understand (although it might have been bad audio :-), still, the fellow passengers safety comes before my comfort.

DougSkymiles

I'm sure I'm missing something, but why would someone with a peanut allergy need extra time or assistance in boarding?

Widgets

People with peanut allergies could need extra time to sanitize their seat and the seats near them. This wouldn't disqualify them for exit row seating. They can't comfortably sanitize nearby seats if they don't preboard.

thesaints

There are disabilities which manifest themselves only on boarding and not on deboarding.
Everyone of us has witnessed school children moving lethargically when reentering class after a recess, only to be able to sprint out as soon as the bell chimes the end of the school day.

C W

Fixed that for you

Often1

Carriers make judgments about fitness to fly and fitness to occupy exit row seats every day and maintain medical departments, generally via contract, to make more sophisticated judgments.

If you believe that a GA/FA has missed a cue about fitness to occupy an exit row, you should bring it to a FA's attention clearly and immediately. It's a safety issue for you as well as others.