"Do you know how tall I am ?"

[ashleyn]

I think so far this has been a perfect thread. OP asked for advice, advice was given quite unanimously, OP accepted the advice. Any chance we can now close off this one ? Nothing more to be said I hope and nothing to be gained by continuing the thread ?

 

[JohnK]

It is not an excuse but it was my (wrong) impression at the time.

Hopefully, this post would "educate" someone else and that would serve its purpose on AFF.

It is a good post and I was not having a go at you.

 

[clarkkent]

Perhaps a more complicated example: the window seats at the back of a 747 where the seating is only two abreast and there's large gap between the seat and the window. People often put their bag/blanket/pillow/everything into the gap, which then means 'your' space under the seat in front is directly in line with 'their' space next to their seat, and items can easily cross the seat-edge boundary...

 

[opusman]

I do it all the time and the person behind can play footsies all they like but my foot is going to rest there. Sometimes that is the only way I can be comfortable.

Interesting. But if someone in front of you can only be comfortable by reclining, they are in the wrong?

 

[whatmeworry]

I would never put a bag under my seat, especially If I had a laptop in my bag. This is why we have overhead lockers!

 

[medhead]

Misunderstanding accepted !

At no stage the FAs said I was in error.

maybe not directly, but I'm pretty sure that the PA instruction is for passengers in exit rows to put all carry on in an overhead locker. With getting settled in it is easy to miss this annoucement.

I should say that you're not the only one to misunderstand the front seat/my seat thing, I see it regularly. fortunately not a problem for me most of the time. Oh and the guy sounds like a rude sod all the same.

 

[prozac]

I am with everyone else, so I cannot understand why your son did not place said laptop under the seat in front in "his" legroom space. Admirable of you to accept the common position and do so graciously. FWIW I try not to annoy or disturb anyone around me. In return I expect the same respect.

 

[TonyHancock]

I am with everyone else, so I cannot understand why your son did not place said laptop under the seat in front in "his" legroom space.

The OP and son were sitting in an emergency exit row, so would not have been able to place their carry on underneath the seat in front of them.

 

[prozac]

I missed that TH. I go with the OH locker everytime and hate it when some drongo across or down the aisle takes "my" space there too.

 

[legroom]

I suspect the OP either misinterpreted the FA's comment OR the FA decided to "keep the peace" and "request" the OP put the gear in the overhead... where it should have been all along.

I can confirm - with absolute clarity - that the FA told the pax behind my son "that is his space, Sir"

I would not have objected otherwise.

Maybe she was repulsed by his loutish manner, just maybe !

Thinking about it now, perhaps the concept of property rights had influenced my thoughts at the time.

Now, I am not a lawyer !

The layman's understanding is that you own what lies beneath your property.

See what the ICAC in Sydney is investigating the "biggest corruption in the history of NSW". It's all about what lies underneath the soil.

I am not - repeat, not - disputing what the consensus here at all.

If I were to tally up the responders to my little post, there is a fair bit of WP1 / WP and close to 100,000s coughulative posts from you guys.

Even if the FA had been right, your consensus essentially reflects what is the "right" thing to do anyway !

"Mainstream" opinion, in other words.

Thank you for taking an interest in my post.

 

[medhead]

I view aircraft "property rights" in terms of what I can access easily. Underneath my seat doesn't fit into that category. Underneath the seat in front does.

If only reclining and armrests were so clear cut.

 

[Deleted member]

I always thought you p[laced items "under the seat in front of you"

 

[legroom]

I view aircraft "property rights" in terms of what I can access easily. Underneath my seat doesn't fit into that category. Underneath the seat in front does.

If only reclining and armrests were so clear cut.

My reply will be off topic here, I am sure.

"What is right" has been a goldmine to lawyers for centuries.

Sometimes a full bench of Court of Appeal could get it wrong on a technicality - their judgment trashed by the High Court.

But even then, the High Court was split 3:2 anyway.

So, what one person think is "right" is coloured by his knowledge, expectation and prevailing rules etc....

All that is subject to interpretation by someone else, of course.

In this case, the FA in question made her call as I reported earlier.

It appeared her decision had been wrong by the consensus here on AFF.

Again, this is off topic but it reflects how we carry on with our lives - interpretation of rules / expectations

 

[medhead]

My reply will be off topic here, I am sure.

"What is right" has been a goldmine to lawyers for centuries.

Sometimes a full bench of Court of Appeal could get it wrong on a technicality - their judgment trashed by the High Court.

But even then, the High Court was split 3:2 anyway.

So, what one person think is "right" is coloured by his knowledge, expectation and prevailing rules etc....

All that is subject to interpretation by someone else, of course.

In this case, the FA in question made her call as I reported earlier.

It appeared her decision had been wrong by the consensus here on AFF.

Again, this is off topic but it reflects how we carry on with our lives - interpretation of rules / expectations

Indeed. And mineral rights on land is hardly a good precedent to apply to an aircraft seat.

In any case, that FA seems to have ignored the clear instruction to put luggage under the seat in front that is given on 99% of my flights.

 

[TonyHancock]

For the record here is what QF says about carry on.

I guess it will be argued that the references to "under the seat in front" and "overhead locker" relates to the size of hand luggage...but then QF goes on to give very precise dimensions. If that is the case it does make you wonder why QF doesn't say "under your seat".

Just so that we don't pin the consensus down to AFF you'll find the same on Flyertalk dating back to the late 1990's.

The FA provided incorrect advice...and we are only hearing one side of the story.

What a grumpy poster I am today.....probably because I have a dental appointment tomorrow!!!!

 

[legroom]

Indeed. And mineral rights on land is hardly a good precedent to apply to an aircraft seat.

In any case, that FA seems to have ignored the clear instruction to put luggage under the seat in front that is given on 99% of my flights.

I am approaching the theoretical side of me again.

Everyone here keeps stating the flight announcement "luggage under the seat in front".

But then, doesn't it only refer to "luggage" and not "feet" per se.

Yes, I do know you guys' preference and "etiquette" by now but for arguments' sake, is there ever any announcement to the effects of "put your feet under the seat in front" ?

And if you do not put "luggage" as per the announcement, what substance is there to say that "under the seat in front" is mine - apart from the expected etiquetts ?

And by "substance" I mean, for the sake of theoretical musings, the Ts & Cs of QF etc....

Have fun !

 

[lovestotravel]

The space was his. I would be pretty, actually very, annoyed if the person in front of me placed their carry on under their seat, thus reducing my legroom. Poor form I'm afraid.

Yep that's pretty much it!

 

[medhead]

I am approaching the theoretical side of me again.

Everyone here keeps stating the flight announcement "luggage under the seat in front".

But then, doesn't it only refer to "luggage" and not "feet" per se.

Yes, I do know you guys' preference and "etiquette" by now but for arguments' sake, is there ever any announcement to the effects of "put your feet under the seat in front" ?

And if you do not put "luggage" as per the announcement, what substance is there to say that "under the seat in front" is mine - apart from the expected etiquetts ?

And by "substance" I mean, for the sake of theoretical musings, the Ts & Cs of QF etc....

Have fun !

Taking the theoretical question for a start. The cramped seat arrangement means you have little choice but to put your feet under the seat in front.

More seriously if we consider the annoucement, it is an instruction to everyone on board. So even if the person behind has no luggage, the person in front still needs to look forward not down. (as a general statement)

There are also the exit row instructions that would be relevant to your situation.

 

[whatmeworry]

Since the OP wants to talk legal what ifs and hypotheticals...

If you couldn't use the part under the seat to stretch your legs because someone left a bag there, it would increase the likelihood of DVT and thus increase the airline's likelihood of getting sued.

On all long haul flights I have been on, all mention in one form or another the dangers of DVT.

 

[legroom]

Since the OP wants to talk legal what ifs and hypotheticals...

If you couldn't use the part under the seat to stretch your legs because someone left a bag there, it would increase the likelihood of DVT and thus increase the airline's likelihood of getting sued.

On all long haul flights I have been on, all mention in one form or another the dangers of DVT.

Friends

I was burnt once by relying on hypotheticals and "form" guides - even under guidance of a former judge and a SC.

Worth a cool 40 (yes, forty) return QF J trips SYD-LHR (in peak seasons) !!!

Think of all the SCs (now, that's Status Credits) I had wasted on Phillip St, Sydney

Could have been WP1 a few times over (am I right ?).

What I/we think is right - once tested - may not be right at all.

That's the basis of my musings

Have a good day

Thanks for interests in this little posting