I saw this discussed on the US forum, but couldn't find it here.

Observed middle age Oriental couple seated, just before doors closed, in exit row (20 J/H?) opposite Ms. BWIflyerman and I on a two class 767 (LAX-IAD) that just looked at the FA when she asked the usual question about assisting in an emergency. The FA turns to her partner FA and says something to the effect, "I hope they can help each other". That's it.

I did send a note to 1K Voice reporting more specifics. Was that the proper response for an FT'er?

You obviously didn't feel too threatened if you still decided to fly on the plane with the couple in the exit row. Either you make a stink right there, or you decide its not worth it. Nothing that can be done now.

Depends on what your inquiry to 1K Voice was, specifically. Did you think the FA's negligent to not re-query the couple or was there no good reason for the FA's to question the couple's understanding?

For what it's worth, ANA has pre-printed exit row instructions in Japanese and English which they show to any exit row occupants upon taking their seats. Their rule is that you must be able to understand either of the two languages. However, as recently as a few years ago there were stories of domestic agents denying exit row seats to foreigners at check-in because of expected language difficulties, even when said foreigners spoke Japanese fairly well.

While they *should* take the requirements seriously, I could easily imagine a slippery slope forming if they were to consciously clamp down on exit row requirements. At some point a clueless FA would force an English-fluent "foreign-looking" passenger to change seats, and then the airline would face a lot of bad publicity and perhaps even be sued. It's a bigger PR risk overall than the safety risk of an exit row passenger not being able to figure things out in an emergency. But yeah, that couple you saw probably should have been re-seated, or at least questioned further.

Update. 1K Voice acknowledged my email submission and said a supervisor would investigate my allegations. I think they took it seriously. That wasn't the only transgression that I alleged against those two FA's, but it was the only one that put, IMO, the safety of passengers in the vicinity of that exit door in some degree of risk if the occupants couldn't react promptly to crew instructions (think of US Air's rear doors being opened in the Hudson River crash). BTW, my safety card said don't open the wing doors in a water landing without crew instruction.