Exit Rows Empty. is that a safety issue?

[Sdtravel]

So i was on a short AA flight AUS to DFW yesterday. Since i have status i selected the MCE exit row seat. I soon realised i was the only one sitting in the two over wing exit rows on a 767.

After my personal safely briefing on the emergency exits i asked if some of my colleagues could join me given the empty seats. i was told NO as they are special seats that you need to pay extra for. So in the unlikely event of an emergency everyone is at the mercy of me.

I have seen with QF when there was a few empty exit row seats pax were allowed to move to them. While pointless to pay for it on a 1 hour flight is there no safety issue? No one else has been "briefed" on the doors or verbally consented to assist in the event of an emergency.
If something did happen i would have just scooted over to the window and opened the exit in my row. Im obviously not going to go back and open 3 other doors.

Am I overthinking this? Is there no safety policy around having minimum pax around the doors to operate them?

 

[RooFlyer]

In my last trip report, where I took a number of AA flights, I noted how slack the FAs were in terms of passenger safety issues, compared to what we are used to in Australia. Although each was small, I wondered what other safety regs they decided not to enforce or not to observe.

The US regulations do differ a bit from ours (most obviously, they don't require window shades to be up for take off and landing) but I'd be very surprised if they didn't require a passenger at each over-wing exit.

Personally I would report this to AA.

 

[Sdtravel]

How does one report this to AA? Just fill in some "contact us" form on their site?
But I would assume they would be aware of such issue though? Seating is allocated and online so one assumes the system would show no one at 3 of 4 exit rows.
Apart from a "We are sorry we didnt meet your expectations we will look into it" i dont know what would come of reporting this.

You are right about how things are much better is AUS.
AA's safety demo is all via seatback screens, no live demos by staff so if your screen isnt working then too bad.
BA's exit row briefing was "You speak english right? Read these set of diagrams on the back of the tray table"

 

[RooFlyer]

Sorry, don't know how to communicate with AA; you are probably correct re their response. If seats aren't sold, then your initial response would be the company expectation, I would think - FAs should allocate some-one there.

 

[Mattg]

I believe that there may be a requirement for a minimum number of passengers to be sitting in the exit rows on flights within Australia. But I have seen this not being observed overseas.

Last year I flew from GRU to MVD with LATAM. I asked at check-in if I could move to an exit row seat and was told in no uncertain terms that I would have to pay USD45 for the privilege, even with oneworld status. As the flight was only 2 hours I declined. Every single exit row seat (and the bulkhead seats which also cost extra) remained empty for the entire flight.

Other times I have been asked if I would move to an exit row after boarding as they needed to be occupied. This has happened on Jetstar and even Easyjet.

 

[Pleb Status]

I have been on a couple of 3K flights where at least one bank of three exit row seats on the A320 has been unoccupied.

They normally get people to shift around the exit rows to fill all four areas but this cannot always occur on lightly loaded flights.

 

[opusman]

I would have thought the flight attendants could open the exits if required; it's only if there are passengers in the way that the pax themselves need to do it.

 

[RooFlyer]

I would have thought the flight attendants could open the exits if required; it's only if there are passengers in the way that the pax themselves need to do it.

But isn't that the point? FAs are at front, rear and bulkheads, not at the wing. In an *emergency* and if called for by the captain, the door needs to be opened and evacuation started immediately, not when two FAs might fight his/her way through the crowd of passengers who would inevitably be blocking the the aisles, intent on using the over-wing exits.

I guess I'm so used to it in Australia now, but I would have thought this was the most blindingly obvious safety thing that all airlines could do, at no added cost to them - make sure there is an able bodied pax at the over wing exits, willing and able to do something in the event of an emergency.

 

[Daver6]

If you wish to report this to AA, https://twitter.com/AmericanAir would be your easiest and simplest approach.

 

[OzEire]

Happens in Australia too. I had a personal briefing on an E190 recently, asked the FA "is it just me ?" and all seemed fine from her perspective.

TBH I would hazard a guess that 90% of adults in Oz would be able to open it, the handles are pretty clearly marked. The other 10% would either panic or try to push it out.

Only problem arises if unbriefed pax open it to water/fire/smoke then let those into the cabin.

In OPs case, I don't like that revenue is the key driver rather than safety.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So i was on a short AA flight AUS to DFW yesterday. Since i have status i selected the MCE exit row seat. I soon realised i was the only one sitting in the two over wing exit rows on a 767.

After my personal safely briefing on the emergency exits i asked if some of my colleagues could join me given the empty seats. i was told NO as they are special seats that you need to pay extra for. So in the unlikely event of an emergency everyone is at the mercy of me.

I have seen with QF when there was a few empty exit row seats pax were allowed to move to them. While pointless to pay for it on a 1 hour flight is there no safety issue? No one else has been "briefed" on the doors or verbally consented to assist in the event of an emergency.
If something did happen i would have just scooted over to the window and opened the exit in my row. Im obviously not going to go back and open 3 other doors.

Am I overthinking this? Is there no safety policy around having minimum pax around the doors to operate them?

From a pure safety perspective, having passengers at each row for an overwing 'self-help' exit makes sense. Aircraft evacuation requirements (pax out within 90 seconds through half the available exits) probably assume passengers are seated at these exits and able to open them in a timely manner. But there are other factors at play... weight and balance might affect the availability to sit pax by the overwing exits, and if the plane is lightly loaded, the 90 second requirement could be met by standard full exits.

From a legal perspective, you'd have to find the applicable regulations. There is, for example, a 2015 EU proposal to standardise the requirement that pax must be seated at all 'self-help' exits, but I dunno if this was passed or not: https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/NPA 2015-18 (C).pdf

I can't find find similar regulations for the USA... but that doesn't mean they aren't there... it's not easy to search with so many different terminologies being used for the same issue. However, USA airlines are usually pretty good with FAA requirements, they can be fined in the event an inspector sees a breach. So I suspect they were acting within the law. However... that's where the difference between 'legal' and 'safety' comes in. As i alluded to in another thread, flying could be made safer but there's a lack of regulation in some areas to provide an incentive to the airlines. A requirement to have a passenger seated at every overwing (weight and balance permitting) is one such example.

 

[RooFlyer]

From a quick trawl around, it appears that this is NOT a regulator requirement in the USA. It is encouraged by the FFA however. From this:

3) Many air carriers have procedures that designate certain crewmembers to conduct additional structured personal conversations or briefings, beyond the oral briefing required by §§ 121.585(h) and (i) and 135.129(h) and (i), to ensure that the passengers in exit seats can hear, understand, and speak the language of the air carrier. (However, fluency in the language of the air carrier is not required as long as the exit seat passengers can understand crew instructions, commands, and the graphic illustrations related to exit seat functions, and are able to adequately impart information related to emergency functions.)[h=5]4) Individual briefings that are given to passengers who occupy exit seats have a positive effect on the outcome of an aircraft evacuation. Individual briefings also assist F/As in assessing the suitability of passengers who occupy those seats. An individual briefing reminds passengers of their exit seat responsibilities, gives them the encouragement to review their safety information card and also gives passengers the opportunity to ask the F/A any questions they may have about exit operation or procedures. This briefing also presents an opportunity for the F/A to assess the passengers’ ability to understand oral crew commands.[/h][h=5]5) POIs and/or CSIs (if applicable) should strongly encourage their assigned air carriers to consider the safety benefits that are accomplished by individual exit seat briefings and to include such briefings in their predeparture procedures. In the absence of procedures that require individual briefings, POIs and/or CSIs (if applicable) should ensure that each air carrier has a method in place to ensure compliance with § 121.585(g), which requires verification by a required crewmember that the passengers can perform all required functions, including the ability to follow oral directions.[/h]