keith.miller

Thank you zenkerflyer!!!

emanon256

+1 ^

ryerflyer

OP is clearly an egocentric control freak. Last person you want managing the exit row, if you will. Someone who so easily "flips out" and can't control their emotions has no business managing anything in a crisis. And his Gold kids were proud of him? Great - another generation of "all about me" morons to look forward to flying with...

ger3sf

And the OP states he's private pilot (hate to be riding in the same small plane as him) and a doctor (hate to be on his operating table).

bocastephen

Shouldn't matter if the kids are 8, 13, 15 or 25 - if you have family sitting elsewhere on the flight, or even a pet, you should not be in the exit row - it's really for solo travelers or situations where the companion is seated in the same exit row and can be moved off quickly.

If I'm not sitting in the exit row, I expect the people in that row will be moving quickly to open the doors, climb out and help evacuate people quickly and without worrying about family, friends, pets or expensive bags left behind.

Maybe the purser could have been more diplomatic about it, but they were correct to do this...and it really shouldn't matter how old the kids are - no other family seated elsewhere on the plane you'll be worried about.

SkiAdcock

zenkerflyer, first, Welcome to Flyertalk! Hopefully you'll stick around; FT's a great resource.

Second, thanks for providing additional information re: the situation.

Cheers.

Passmethesickbag

Whilst the OP appears to be in the wrong here, I think this point has been made clearly and heaping abuse on him doesn't really lead anywhere we'd like to be. Moderators, may I suggest that you close this thread? It seems to me that whatever lessons can be learnt from this have already been administered.

lkar

Wow -- small world! Awesome.

Seriously, though, this rule needs to be clarified. How hard would it be to make the rule that someone who is a family member of a person too young to be in the exit row cannot themselves be in the exit row? The "small child" language is a problem.

It's a common refrain on FT that passengers are responsible for knowing the rules, and prior permitted conduct doesn't matter. I've seen this come up in many posts -- usually with the OP getting pretty firmly trounced. Everything from what kind of return travel documents are required to check in to a one-way flight to Italy to unaccompanied minors being allowed to fly outbound but not return. Generally, I'm in agreement, but some times it really does seem like a trap for the unwary. Despite all the claims that the rule here is "express," it's not. When you couple vague language with extremely inconsistent enforcement, you create a problem. Sometimes, it can leave a well-meaning passenger who is reasonably educated about flying in a middle seat or, worse, delayed. Sometimes, it can create an environment where a self-entitled DYKWIA can ruin the day of an FA and bother those around him. Either way, it really is up to the FAA to be clear and the airlines to enforce rules other than selectively.

Which brings me to my own children in the exit row story. I was flying HA with my family, and there was a completely open exit row one row ahead of us. A short time into the flight, I moved to the exit row. FA1 comes over and tells me I had to go back to my seat, which I did. About 10 minutes later, FA2 comes over and says, "it's ok, you can sit there." So, I do, and close my eyes. At which point FA1 comes over, shakes me, and starts reading me the riot act about how disobedience with crew member instructions can be fined. I tell her that the other FA said I could sit there. (Actually, I was momentarily confused; I think I didn't even understand it was two different FAs; I thought it was the same one.) She starts laying into me about getting a different FA to give me a different answer and lecturing me about the fact that I have family on the plane so there is a rule that says it's not good. I am about to mention that I didn't approach the other FA, she approached me, but the FA starts to tell me how she can have the pilot have me arrested when we land. At this point, I figure that anything I say or do can be held against me and I'm in a vulnerable position, so I simply apologize and go back to my seat.

I'm posting this not to draw fire about what a DYKWIA I am or to hear about how there are two sides to my story. Maybe there are. There actually is a different point -- ever since this experience, I pay close attention to the exit rows (especially because I'm often in one when I'm in Y). And I can say, at least based on my own small sample size, this particular "rule" is observed in the breach most of the time. Frequently. I think when the plane is filling up, this is the last thing on people's minds.

Once the rule was explained to me, it makes complete sense. But there really does come a point where the airlines' complete disinterest in enforcing rules, whether they are on the books or not, is on them, not on rightly confused PAX.

McTigerFan

+1

I had the same thing happen to me on a flight from IAD to State College last year (United Express). I was annoyed and said so (kids were 16 and 10) but didn't throw a fit. In that case younger kid was with wife in non-exit row and 16 yr old was in exit row with me. I feel the problem is that the rule is not known or enforced the vast majority of the time. Like OP, I routinely book Exit row and adjacent row for family and have for years. If there's a rule against it I am totally fine with that, but just make it known and enforce it consistently. That one flight was the only time in probably 20 times I had booked the exit row in that way that it was ever mentioned (and the FA was kinda rude about it).

Completely agree about the teachable moment... that's the most important lesson in this case.

drewguy

Right . . . the point was that there are plenty of other reasons that anyone in an exit row might be less capable of performing the relevant functions, but I find it odd that airlines strictly adhere to a vague FAA rule (which doesn't specify any children, just "small" children, which 15yos are not) but don't meaningfully screen for other incapacities (or prevent them in the case of drinking).

bkkman69

I would think that the over 15 age requirement has to do with the person being old enough to be physically capable of removing the exit door and throwing it out of the plane, as much as with it being an adult/child litmus test...

I am also solidly in the camp that believes that with mother and father in the exit row and the children in the row behind, that their attention/loyalties would be conflicted (remove exit door and get out of the plane as quickly as possible vs. trying to help their children in the row behind them prior to executing their primary exit row task(s) )

bwicoplat

or does it seem odd that Zenkerflyer is a first time poster and just happens to wander onto this site within a day or so of this flight to refute this story, never to post again. The OP is wrong. Dead wrong. But I laughed out loud reading everyone congratulating this "new party" for their "neutral story" and no one thinks how this is possible? Just saying...

lkar

It's a good point.

I think zenkerflyer's story fits in with the prevailing FT theme on these, which often tends to be PAX always wrong, Airline always right, so we all jumped in line for confirmation of what we already believe.

Kind of interesting thought experiment -- if zenkerflyer had posted that he was on the flight and that the FA was being a prima donna, looking for a fight, and went out of her way to be abusive to the passenger, I bet you would have had 10 people jump on the post to say, "you're a first time poster, I'm sure you weren't there, it's too unlikely." Interesting point.

Whether or not zen was actually there, I think the far more interesting question is the FT response to that kind of post.

emanon256

I read FT for a few years without ever signing up until I found something I felt I needed to reply to. On that day, I signed up, and now spend way too much time here. I would assume Zenkeflyer did the same. Why else would someone have any reason to say such? The OP used so much profanity before it was moderated that he already looked pretty bad before Zenkerflyer commented, but I am glad she/he did.

I have also had two "I was on that flight too" moments in the last month. Pretty cool!

bwicoplat

Agree. I've had instances where I've complained about something here and had another poster verfiy what I said. It makes you realize just how small a world it it. Not impugning anyone's ability to tell their story, just observing how everyone lauded zenkerflyer for his/her version of the story, when in the past I've seen people villfied for much less. I just thought it funny and wanted to give the masses something to ponder.