Qantas to charge passengers extra for exit row seats

[Commuter]

That way the vertically enhanced or nervous flyers can get a bit of space around them that was otherwise denied them due to being second-class citizens in some peoples eyes.

Put it bluntly, I do not think nervous flyers should be in exit row. In my (simple logic, admittedly, and generalisation) view, they are less likely to be as much use in an evacuation than those with pretty much steel nerves.

 

[Commuter]

They probably should.

I believe they indeed should.

If I had a say in selecting exit row pax, I'd be far more strict than QF and I'd probably exclude myself!

 

[Commuter]

Re: Qantas Introduces International olci

Yes as long as there are exit row seats not already pre-allocated to Chairmans lounge, the Platinum is eligible to sit in an exit row and pays Qantas for the privilege....

Is that really so?

Please tell me that is indeed the case. In that case, I'm happy again.

CLs always had priority over WPs as far as I understood it, and if WPs can request it before the rest of the people prior to 7 days before departure (as long as they pay), I'm fine.

I appear to be the odd one out who doesn't give much of a thought about the need to pay for it. My gripe was about availability.

It's not that the situation will arise a lot since I've promised myself that I wouldn't travel long haul economy unless there is a dire situation (e.g. business class is truly horrifically expensive).

Well, as long as it is that WPs can request to more than 7 days in advance, before it is made available to everyone, I am back flying QF long haul.

 

[Commuter]

You addressed my question but ignored the later point that being hear impaired doesn't make you stupid. In the event of an incident, it will either be utter chaos and obviously time to go, or not - which then depends on the individual situation.

Also do you get ringing in your ears, phase shifts - been to any loud music events, been in any noisy environments regularly. Then you are hearing impaired. Basically, just about ever person over about 25 years of age will have some form of hearing impairment - should they all be prevented from exit rows?

It does not make you stupid, however, passengers are not (in theory at least) supposed to open the exit until they are instructed to do so. If they are unable to hear the crew's instruction, then it does cause a problem.

I am also against passengers with glasses sitting in exit row. This is because they may have difficulties observing external dangers prior to opening the door, which they are expected to do.

You may say, "But they have glasses on and so they can see" - glasses, unfortunately, do fly off in a major impact (for that matter I am also against cabin crew wearing needing glasses, although I believe discrimination issues etc have caused many countries to permit cabin crew members that wear glasses) and also present extra danger to yourself. Once the glasses have flown off and you are unable to see, you may have difficulties making adequate observations to assess the dangers outside prior to opening the door.

 

[JohnK]

Re: Qantas Introduces International olci

Is that really so?

Please tell me that is indeed the case. In that case, I'm happy again.

CLs always had priority over WPs as far as I understood it, and if WPs can request it before the rest of the people prior to 7 days before departure (as long as they pay), I'm fine.

I am really sorry. I misread the question and did not notice the "before 7 days". As far as I aware there is no special privilege for Platinums and pre-allocating exit rows.

I have edited the original post not to confuse anyone else.

 

[Commuter]

Re: Qantas Introduces International olci

I misread the question and did not notice the "before 7 days". As far as I aware there is no special privilege for Platinums and pre-allocating exit rows.

Bummer. In that case, I'm not happy with QF again. QF, why did you do this? All I want is a pre-booking system (I don't ask for it to be free) and you really can't provide that?

 

[pauly7]

I am also against passengers with glasses sitting in exit row. This is because they may have difficulties observing external dangers prior to opening the door, which they are expected to do.
.

To add another group of people that probably shouldn't be sitting there... - I'm against fat overweight people sitting in exit rows. What if they get stuck in their seat, are too slow to react or worse get stuck in the actual exit thereby blocking everyone!

 

[Hvr]

To add another group of people that probably shouldn't be sitting there... - I'm against fat overweight people sitting in exit rows. What if they get stuck in their seat, are too slow to react or worse get stuck in the actual exit thereby blocking everyone!

So fat underweight people are ok?

Seriously there probably needs to be some tightening of the rules but how many combinations would rule people out?

I've worn glasses for many many years and could afford to lose a few kilos both of which would eliminate me according to this thread. On the other hand I am a teetotaller so that would count for me, no discernible hearing loss nor do I listen to an IPOD or similar device whilst on a plane so I could hear the instructions if required.

Perhaps the option of exit row aisle needs to be put onto our seating preference? As frequent flyers we certainly know the drill and whether or not we fulfil the current criteria. We could agree that if allocated we would pay the applicable fee/points.

 

[Commuter]

To add another group of people that probably shouldn't be sitting there... - I'm against fat overweight people sitting in exit rows. What if they get stuck in their seat, are too slow to react or worse get stuck in the actual exit thereby blocking everyone!

One thing that annoyed me on QF recently was precisely this. I have no problem with 'a bit overweight' people sitting in emergency exit row as long as their mobility seems good.

However, a could of weeks ago for the first time in years of flying QF, I saw a very obese person who was placed in the exit row. I have seen it on many other carriers and it has always concerned me, but never before on QF.

His mobility was poor (it took him ages to get himself into the seat), and he would not have been able to get through the 737 overwing exit because his stomach was protruding so much. He did not require an extension belt because he was not so fat around his pelvis, so while he would have fulfiled the CASA guidelines in that respect, I did not think that QF made a sensible decision by seating him there.

You could say this is one of the reasons why I prefer to sit in exit row - one less exit row seat for those whom I consider inappropriate to sit, if I occupy one (I was across the aisle from him, so I hoped that the exit nearest to me wouldn't be blocked if we did crash).




So, I have a bright idea! QF should charge people to undergo an exit row assessment and training. Those who get through would be able to sit there, FOC, but only those who are assessed as suitable and pass the training can do so. Make this assessment and training FOC for WPs. :mrgreen: QF gain publicity for 'enhanced safety measures' while keeping some WPs happy (and I guess some WPs unhappy if they don't get through).

Then again, how many WPs would pass it, I wonder?

 

[medhead]

It does not make you stupid, however, passengers are not (in theory at least) supposed to open the exit until they are instructed to do so. If they are unable to hear the crew's instruction, then it does cause a problem.

I am also against passengers with glasses sitting in exit row. This is because they may have difficulties observing external dangers prior to opening the door, which they are expected to do.

You may say, "But they have glasses on and so they can see" - glasses, unfortunately, do fly off in a major impact (for that matter I am also against cabin crew wearing needing glasses, although I believe discrimination issues etc have caused many countries to permit cabin crew members that wear glasses) and also present extra danger to yourself. Once the glasses have flown off and you are unable to see, you may have difficulties making adequate observations to assess the dangers outside prior to opening the door.

I think you have a rather funny view of what happens in a crash. I for one am not going to sit in a burning wreck and wait for the crew to instruct me to exit :!: In this case even a hearing impaired person knows when to exit. If that is not the case, if things are all good such that a crew member can instruct you to exit then a hairing impaired person will be just as capable of understanding and following the instruction, even if they can't hear it. i.e. by lip reading or hearing aid, or even their hearing friend next to them. :shock:

Glasses! People have to be able to see big dangerous things outside a window, like flames and rivers and such. Someone who wears glasses to read is going to be able to tell if there are big oranges flames outside the window.

Really, I find this judgemental stuff to be really disturbing. But what the hell all english as a second language people must be banned from exit rows as well, they can't understand the instruction from the crew member who is going to drag themselves through burning twisted wreckage, with broken legs from the rear galley to the exit row.

His mobility was poor (it took him ages to get himself into the seat), and he would not have been able to get through the 737 overwing exit because his stomach was protruding so much. He did not require an extension belt because he was not so fat around his pelvis, so while he would have fulfiled the CASA guidelines in that respect, I did not think that QF made a sensible decision by seating him there.

This guy should fail anyway because of his limit mobility.

 

[Commuter]

I think you have a rather funny view of what happens in a crash. I for one am not going to sit in a burning wreck and wait for the crew to instruct me to exit :!:

More importantly, it is about knowing when NOT TO evacuate. There are situations where passengers should not initiate evacuation even if it seems like a good idea to them - there are situations where they really do not know enough to make the right decision.

English as a second language is not necessarily a problem if they are able to understand it well enough, but it can be a problem if they do not.

Regarding people requiring glasses, I should have qualified it as 'those who need it for distance vision, such as those required to wear glasses for driving' or something similar, I guess. As it happens, external dangers are not limited to flames and easy-to-spot items, anyway.

It has nothing to do with being judgemental. It is about choosing the appropriate people to sit in the exit row - yes many WPs would be deemed inappropriate, possibly including myself.

Would you say that it is judgemental that a pilot with a serious heart condition that is at the risk of in-flight incapacitation would not be permitted to hold a Class 1 medical?

 

[medhead]

More importantly, it is about knowing when NOT TO evacuate. There are situations where passengers should not initiate evacuation even if it seems like a good idea to them - there are situations where they really do not know enough to make the right decision.

Look obviously this is going to be judged on a situation by situation basis, but IMO in general that is just about the biggest load of rubbish I've ever read. I'm sitting in a burning wreck and there is no obvious danger outside the aircraft, like flames; there is a clear escape route. In what circumstance should I not initiate an evacuation? How is it going to be better to sit there and burn?

Regarding people requiring glasses, I should have qualified it as 'those who need it for distance vision, such as those required to wear glasses for driving' or something similar, I guess. As it happens, external dangers are not limited to flames and easy-to-spot items, anyway.

Stop right there big fella. How do they test your eyesight when you get a licence. They make you read an eye chart. Bang straight off, people who need reading glasses have to wear those glasses to drive. No doubt, so they know you can read the signs.

Would you say that it is judgemental that a pilot with a serious heart condition that is at the risk of in-flight incapacitation would not be permitted to hold a Class 1 medical?

I assume the requirements of the medical are clearly defined, based on appropriate scientific/medical standards. They, no doubt, also have a clear, defined appeals process and are subject to review. So, no, that is not judgemental at all.

On the other hand the Qantas CIP looks at you, decides they don't like you, and bang your cash is gone.

edit: also this isn't really getting far, and I basically agree with what your saying, in general. But also agree to disagree on specifics. So I will make this my last word on the matter. (but will read your response)

 

[Commuter]

Look obviously this is going to be judged on a situation by situation basis, but IMO in general that is just about the biggest load of rubbish I've ever read. I'm sitting in a burning wreck and there is no obvious danger outside the aircraft, like flames; there is a clear escape route. In what circumstance should I not initiate an evacuation? How is it going to be better to sit there and burn?

The trouble is that there will be situations where accidents do not result in a burning wreck and will be more dangerous to evacuate than not (although many might try) - in fact, many accidents don't end up with a burning wreck at the end of it. Those situations need to be managed carefully, hence the importance of being able to hear the crew's instuction.

I assume the requirements of the medical are clearly defined, based on appropriate scientific/medical standards.

They are, although some of the appropriateness of scientific/medical standards are often questioned. I shall not bore you with some of the current controversies on aircrew medicals though.

On the other hand the Qantas CIP looks at you, decides they don't like you, and bang your cash is gone.

While there are dangers of that, I don't think it will happen very often (if at all). I suspect there have hardly been any occasions where WPs were turfed out of their pre-assigned exit row seat for seemingly no good reason.

The same criteria for exit row seating applied to them, so I suspect that it will be handled similarly for paid-for exit row pax. Bear in mind that most CIPs don't usually seem to like putting extra effort into anything (with the exception of some really lovely ones who try to make your life better), and turfing someone out of their paid-for exit row seat involves extra effort. I really think it'll be too much hassle for them to randomly turf people off their paid-for seat.

You could even say that my 'glasses' and 'hearing impairment' comments guarantee to improve the process somewhat. If all pax need to be pre-approved, then no argument from CIP, unless there's something like a broken bone happens between 7 days prior to flight and the time of the flight.

 

[medhead]

The trouble is that there will be situations where accidents do not result in a burning wreck and will be more dangerous to evacuate than not (although many might try) - in fact, many accidents don't end up with a burning wreck at the end of it. Those situations need to be managed carefully, hence the importance of being able to hear the crew's instuction.

Yes, and as I said, in those circumstances it won't be general mayhem and the crew might just be in a position to communicate with the exit row pax directly. And many hearing impaired people will be able to understand and carry out those instruction in those circumstances. Remember, hearing impaired includes probably 75% of the adult population, not just people who are 100% deaf.

While there are dangers of that, I don't think it will happen very often (if at all). I suspect there have hardly been any occasions where WPs were turfed out of their pre-assigned exit row seat for seemingly no good reason.

Well I barely fly, and I've experienced a couple of negative CIPs. And I've had a few negative customer service experiences - IMHO it is native to think that human nature isn't going to show through in CIPs in exactly the same way it does for all of us.

(sorry, this truely is the end from me )

 

[Commuter]

Remember, hearing impaired includes probably 75% of the adult population, not just people who are 100% deaf.

I guess it all depends on the degree of the impairment. Slight hearing impairment shouldn't really be an issue. Really, I was talking about those find it difficult to discern words at a normal volume of speech, not 'slightly' hearing impaired.

Well I barely fly, and I've experienced a couple of negative CIPs. And I've had a few negative customer service experiences - IMHO it is native to think that human nature isn't going to show through in CIPs in exactly the same way it does for all of us.

It's very unfortunate that you had bad experiences with CIPs. Maybe I am indeed naive to think that CIP wouldn't be unreasonable about exit row passengers. I just haven't had any bad experience with CIPs despite flying a lot*, and I wouldn't dream of saying 'no' to someone who paid for an exit row seat just because 'I don't like them'. So I tend to think that it doesn't really happen.

I do live in hope though - I'm generally an optimist, except when it comes to points upgrade coming through - I never like my chances, even though I almost always get it nowadays!

*I've had plenty of lazy ones or grumpy ones but none that tried to be proactively horrible to me.

 

[Mal]

For this thread and other, can we save CIP to mean "Commercially important Passenger", and check-in staff to be something like CIS? "Check-in staffer"

Gets confusing when you have multiple definitions for the same acronyms.

 

[dajop]

For this thread and other, can we save CIP to mean "Commercially important Passenger", and check-in staff to be something like CIS? "Check-in staffer"

Gets confusing when you have multiple definitions for the same acronyms.

Yes I agree it does get confusing. Perhaps in the context of these discussions, Check In Agent, or its acronym might be the best one to use.

 

[Commuter]

I agree that it is confusing indeed. CIS/CIA would be better. When I first saw "CIP", I did have to stop and think for a moment to work out whom it was referring to.

 

[Nigelinoz]

I still struggle with the concept of paying for an Exit Row. It's still just a seat in Y.

I agree,when it comes down to it exit rows are just another seat,so Qantas want me to part with hard earned cash or frequent flyer points for the priviledge.
Yeah right.

 

[Dave Noble]

I agree that it is confusing indeed. CIS/CIA would be better. When I first saw "CIP", I did have to stop and think for a moment to work out whom it was referring to.

Or even simply just "agent" and little confusion for anyone.

Dave