I just had a very positive experience on a short inter-Europe flight with an exit row seat:

I (FBPE) do not normally choose exit row seats, preferring an aisle seat in the first row after C. On Friday, I had some OLCI check-in problems and couldn't select my seat before arriving at the airport. When I tried to select my seat, the first few rows were full, but the exit row (10) was complete empty, so I chose 10C.

When I boarded the plane, the FA was standing in row 10, keeping her hand on the overhead bin. When I asked, she said that she had reserved that bin for the people in the exit row.

After boarding was completed, I was still the only person in exit row, and I overheard that the FAs wanted to 'upgrade' two passengers with long legs. When they arrived, they were given seats 10D and 10F. However, both of them preferred the window seat. The FA awkwardly asked whether they could agree who wanted to sit where, and when asked about seat 10A, she said, pointing to me: "this passenger paid for his exit row seat, so he deserves more space than you".

Well done, KLM: both reserving luggage bin space for exit row passengers and recognizing that moving passengers into seats that other people have paid extra for is a sensitive matter.

Interesting that they upgraded people to emergency exit seats... I was told they weren't allowed to do this. (This was in a conversation I had with one of their FAs, just after they started charging GEs, when I found myself on a flight where the entire emergency exit row was empty. I wasn't after an upgrade, BTW, just commenting on the safety aspects of having no one sitting there)

I always thought it was supposed to be a safety hasard to have an exit row with noone seating in it as their would then be noone to take care of opening the doors in the case of an emergency. I am never certain if I'm wrong about this or not. If so, it shows again the paradox of using emergency exits as cash cow with an increasing number of airlines (more room, some people willing to pay for it, let's sell it to whoever is -- be it on BA, AF-KL, most US airlines, etc) or, more traditionally, strategic seats safety-wise (we don't want some types of people to seat there, we want the most efficient and reactive passengers who would do the best job in the case of an emergency, which are not necessarily those who would pay for the exit row).

Anyway, assuming there was good reason to want someone to sit there, I do think that it was handled with some level of sensitivity by the FAs in this case.

KLM FA's always reserve the exit seat overhead bins for the exit row pax, to ensure that they have an alternative to placing their cabin luggage on the floor or under the seat infront (as this is obvously not allowed). Good policy.

I've definitely been on flights where this was not done...

At 1.93m and an FB platinum, I always take an exit seat. The "saving" of space in the overheads I have seen on less than 25% of my 60-200 flights a year. That said, I have seen more of it lately. Some aircraft even have placards on the bin doors saying that it is reserved for exit row passengers. Let's see if it sticks.

As I understand it some countries have rules about this, some don't. The Netherlands appear to fall into the latter category - or if they don't then perhaps no one has told KLM yet! The FA told me that empty emergency exit rows had become a regular occurrence since they changed the policy, and she clearly wasn't happy about it.

This was a few months ago (not long after they started charging GEs), and maybe they've now been told they have to put people into those rows... but it would be a fairly recent change, I've been on flights not that long ago where the emergency exit rows were empty (mostly on the NWI-AMS route - where the Plats tend to sit in Business Class and GEs, understandably, aren't prepared to pay extra on such a short flight)

It was my impression that the FA's are only allowed to move passengers into paid seats if circumstances so dictate.

I can check with KLM and get back to you.

Gajan

Every flight I have taken this year, where there were more than 2 E seats empty, the FA upgraded somebody to one of them. AF and KL.

It seems terribly unsafe that there are flights taking off with no pax in the exit rows. I would be surprised to hear the UK CAA accepting this. If the Dutch regulator condones this practice, shame on them and at the same time shame on KLM for trying to make money over passenger safety.

Of course, having no-one there means the door cannot be opened quickly. Worst of all is that other pax will need to open it but will have not been briefed by the crew and might struggle to open it.

Quite shocked to be honest.

As mentioned in another thread these seats are reserved for the blind and disabled and unaccompanied minors

Commercial airline accidents are so vey rare, that not having anybody in the emergency exit row doesn't make much of a difference. Crossing eight lanes of rush hour traffic with your eyes closed is something I would call terribly unsafe.

Johan

Safety culture works quite different from your scenarios imho. Serious accidents are rarely caused by stupidity such as crossing 8 lanes in rush hour with your eyes closed. They are usually caused by a chain of tiny seemingly insignificant events that go wrong, and together cause disaster. Only one tiny seemingly unsignificant event needs to be taken out of such a chain to avoid disaster.

Although obviously insignificant things make it highly unlikely that something will go wrong, it is the chain of events which are usually observed in disasters which dictates that proper safety culture is in the detail.

In my opinion it does not rhyme when people seated in the exit row must get instructions, just in case (and if you don't understand them or can't cooperate for whatever reason you leave that row), and at the same time when the row is empty suddenly the safety measures concerning operating the emergency doors do not exist anymore.

Of course it doesn't rhyme, but an empty emergency exit row does not suddenly make the flight terribly unsafe. On the contrary, it remains terribly safe.

Johan

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/ar...10-charge.html