U/S emergency exits
A friend of mine told me about the following, and I tend to agree that it's slightly dodgy. Just windering about what others think.
What happend:
JQ international A330 service. Friend was told prior to boarding that he would be unable to sit with his travel comanion for the flight as the back half of the aircraft had been blocked, and was re-allocated a seat. He was unphased by this as he assumed that it was for possible weight and balance issue and figured they would do the usual "you can move about after the seatbelt sign is off" thing.
When they boarded however he noticed that the seats at the back of the aircraft had been roped off. He asked one of the flight attendents (who had trouble understanding the nature of his question due to an apparent language barrier) why the seats had been roped off. She simply replied words to the effect of "Its okay, its safe." Another passenger overheard and had a little more info to offer and stated that at least one of the rear emergency exits was U/S.
Both myself and my friend understand why the seats were roped off (I imagine a requirement of the MEL?) and don't have a problem with it. My friend was a little annoyed though because at no time were passengers briefed by crew that the exit(s) weren't available. His theory being that in the event of an evac. with the crew disabled, the U/S exits might be the nearest, least obstructed exits available and pax. might head in their direction only to find they won't open/deploy.
My question: Do you (plural) think that this kind of unservicability be made known to pax. I am aware that exits won't be illuminated etc. if they are U/S but I think my friend has a point.
P.S. I am not advocating that all PU's be made known to passengers, but if its fairly important to a safe evac, might be good idea.