Unbelievable - family forced to sit in the aeroplane floor

[Say again s l o w l y]

Originally Posted by Old King Coal

Imho, some of you need to swat-up on what the EASA regulations actually say.

This family were appropriately seated for take-off & landing wherein, from how I read the article, the child had a regular seat, and the the parents were each seated on a jump-seat, and those seats would also be available to them during flight, i.e. in the event of turbulence and / or the seatbelt sign being illuminated. It's also the case that on the B757 (at least on the ones that I've flown) there are jump-seats located in the mid-cabin which this family could have used, i.e. during the period that the cabin crew required unrestricted access in the galley. However, for whatever reason (did someone shout "compensation!" ?) this family chose to decamp to that vacant area, albeit - from any safety perspective - that's no worse or significant than having a queue of passengers standing in the aisle waiting to use the crapper... and yet they then proceeded to make a song & dance about it in the media.

Here's what the actual EASA regulation says about passenger seating:

CAT.OP.MPA.165 Passenger seating

• The operator shall establish procedures to ensure that passengers are seated where, in the event that an emergency evacuation is required, they are able to assist and not hinder evacuation of the aircraft.

So that rule was complied with. There was no emergency and, had there been, i.e. one that required an evacuation, they would, by definition, be on the ground and these pax would be in the seats assigned to them.

Here's what the EASA regs also says about the use of seats & seat belts by passengers:

CAT.OP.MPA.225 Seats, safety belts and restraint systems

1. Before take-off and landing, and during taxiing, and whenever deemed necessary in the interest of safety, the commander shall be satisfied that each passenger on board occupies a seat or berth with his/her safety belt or restraint system properly secured.
2. ...

So that rule (1) was also complied with. Had the seatbelt sign been switched on, any & all pax whom were not seated would have been asked to return to their seats and buckle-up, for which this family would have gone to the seats they'd been assigned for takeoff & landing.

Here's what the EASA regulations say about Supplemental Oxygen:

CAT.IDE.A.235 Supplemental oxygen — pressurised aeroplanes
(b) Pressurised aeroplanes operated at pressure altitudes above 25 000 ft shall be equipped with:

1. ...
2. ...
3. an oxygen dispensing unit connected to oxygen supply terminals immediately available to each cabin crew member, additional crew member and occupants of passenger seats, wherever seated;
4. ...

So that rule (3) was also complied with... wherein the fact that some pax (this family, and maybe also other pax moving about in the cabin for whatever reason, e.g. stretching their legs, and / or maybe going for a dump) were not in their seats at specific moments during the flight does not detract from the fact that oxygen is indeed provided at the seats, i.e. when & if the pax happen to be seated in them.

It would seem to me as if the crew did a good job in difficult circumstances, and a legal one too!

That's all well and good, but if the crew did not take the pax to the other jumpseats during service, then that is the problem, that is when the pax are suddenly no longer meeting the requirements.
What we don't know is who directed them to sit down where they did. If it was the crew, then straight away, they have breached all the regs you've mentioned.

This below is the interesting one in this case, as this was complied with right up to the moment that the crew asked them to move out of the galley. At that point, they were no longer in compliance. Could they have got back to their seats in the event of an emergency? Who knows. That depends on what the emergency is and what is going on. Which means that you really can't argue that this is being complied with any more. It was. Then through the actions of the crew, it wasn't.

CAT.OP.MPA.225 Seats, safety belts and restraint systems

1. Before take-off and landing, and during taxiing, and whenever deemed necessary in the interest of safety, the commander shall be satisfied that each passenger on board occupies a seat or berth with his/her safety belt or restraint system properly secured.

The CC should never have allowed them to sit on the floor like this. Or at least made sure they had permanent access to suitable jumpseats elsewhere in the cabin at all times.

No matter what you might think of the situation, if the crew did not manage the situation at all times to ensure that the pax had assigned seats and the wherewithall to operate them, then they are in breach. If they did and the pax decided that the floor was more comfortable than the jumpseats (a very realistic proposition!) then, there is no story here and it's a whole load of guff about nothing, other than the fact that TUI have been a wee bit daft in PR terms...

Unfortunately, if the CC have made this mistake, it'll be the commander who cops it. It always is.