Concerned about exit row seating policy on Thomson Airways ...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: East Anglia, UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concerned about exit row seating policy on Thomson Airways ...
Hi all, as title.
Not aircrew but have flown reasonably often - but have not come across this issue before ...
Booked holiday travel to Canaries with Thomson, and paid for 'extra space' seats, which I believed to be main exit row and overwing emergency exit rows.
I logged on to choose seats and found that, although I could choose overwing exit rows (15 and 16 in this 737-800) I could not choose row 1. I rung Thomson's number and got non-UK call centre, and enquired if I could choose row 1 - pretty horrified to be told 'rows 1,2 and 3 are reserved for disabled passengers' !
Rung again the next day and got the same answer from the Call Centre - 'row 1 is reserved for disabled passengers'.
I emailed Thomson and got the reply 'rows 1, 2 and 3 are for our passengers who need welfare assistance and these are not situated by an exit door but are by the entrance doors. This has been confirmed with the CAA to be welfare seating on the aircraft'... The business about 'exit' and 'entrance' doors is splitting hair here??
So - what the heck is going on here? Pax in row 1 surely may be required to assist flight crew opening the main door, deploying slide and other tasks, or potentially may have to assess the area outside the aircraft on their own if the flight attendant is incapacitated, etc etc ... Putting 'welfare assistance' passengers by the main door is surely putting all the passengers at risk?
Surely having a row of disabled / welfare assistance passengers by the main door is hazardous. Or am I missing something here?
Not aircrew but have flown reasonably often - but have not come across this issue before ...
Booked holiday travel to Canaries with Thomson, and paid for 'extra space' seats, which I believed to be main exit row and overwing emergency exit rows.
I logged on to choose seats and found that, although I could choose overwing exit rows (15 and 16 in this 737-800) I could not choose row 1. I rung Thomson's number and got non-UK call centre, and enquired if I could choose row 1 - pretty horrified to be told 'rows 1,2 and 3 are reserved for disabled passengers' !
Rung again the next day and got the same answer from the Call Centre - 'row 1 is reserved for disabled passengers'.
I emailed Thomson and got the reply 'rows 1, 2 and 3 are for our passengers who need welfare assistance and these are not situated by an exit door but are by the entrance doors. This has been confirmed with the CAA to be welfare seating on the aircraft'... The business about 'exit' and 'entrance' doors is splitting hair here??
So - what the heck is going on here? Pax in row 1 surely may be required to assist flight crew opening the main door, deploying slide and other tasks, or potentially may have to assess the area outside the aircraft on their own if the flight attendant is incapacitated, etc etc ... Putting 'welfare assistance' passengers by the main door is surely putting all the passengers at risk?
Surely having a row of disabled / welfare assistance passengers by the main door is hazardous. Or am I missing something here?
As soon as tour operators started using emergency exit (and entrance!) rows as marketable commodities there was always going to be the danger that money would talk, over and above safety - pretty much in the same way that the totally ludicrous amounts of carry on bags no, in my opinion, as a passenger, render efficient evacuation in an emergency a nonsense.
Having sat at the rear of a packed RJ100, full of passengers and their carry on bags I can honestly say that I felt my chances of escaping we severely cut.
Will it take needless loss of life in a survivable accident to bring safety back to the fore, ahead of profit?
Having sat at the rear of a packed RJ100, full of passengers and their carry on bags I can honestly say that I felt my chances of escaping we severely cut.
Will it take needless loss of life in a survivable accident to bring safety back to the fore, ahead of profit?
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes you are missing the fact that the main doors are all manned by cabin crew who will operate the doors. The over wings are not and therefore only ABPs may sit there as they are self help exits.
Additionally those who have mobility issues and who may potentially have difficulties in reaching an exit should be seated are close to an exit as possible? Or should they have to crawl on the floor 15 rows through a smoke filled cabin to get out? PRMs will struggle to get out of the over wings and main door exits are much more suitable. Would you be 'horrified' if they reserved these rows for babies and small children?
If you have concerns about the policy then you're free to raise them with the CAA.
Additionally those who have mobility issues and who may potentially have difficulties in reaching an exit should be seated are close to an exit as possible? Or should they have to crawl on the floor 15 rows through a smoke filled cabin to get out? PRMs will struggle to get out of the over wings and main door exits are much more suitable. Would you be 'horrified' if they reserved these rows for babies and small children?
If you have concerns about the policy then you're free to raise them with the CAA.
Last edited by HeartyMeatballs; 1st Mar 2016 at 07:48.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: East Anglia, UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi HeartyMeatballs and thanks for your comments.
However I did make the point that pax in (eg) row 1 are required to be able to assist FC to manage the doors, and may be the only people manning those doors, slides and assessing the area outside if the FC are occupied elsewhere in an emergency, or incapacitated.
Yes, I would be horrified if there was a row of babies in row 1 - they would clearly not be able to assist FC or operate the doors. Their parents would be blocking the exits trying to help the babies and slowing evacuation of the plane.
Whether I am right to be concerned or not I think this issue needs to be sensibly discussed.
However I did make the point that pax in (eg) row 1 are required to be able to assist FC to manage the doors, and may be the only people manning those doors, slides and assessing the area outside if the FC are occupied elsewhere in an emergency, or incapacitated.
Yes, I would be horrified if there was a row of babies in row 1 - they would clearly not be able to assist FC or operate the doors. Their parents would be blocking the exits trying to help the babies and slowing evacuation of the plane.
Whether I am right to be concerned or not I think this issue needs to be sensibly discussed.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: East Anglia, UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ATNotts ... it is an interesting issue - looking at the 'seat allocation' map to select your seats, you can see rows 1, 2 and 3 - seats a,b and c in each row, are allocated as these 'welfare' seats...
To get these seats you have to ring Thomson Customer Welfare and you may be seated in them. I don't think a payment is required!
To get these seats you have to ring Thomson Customer Welfare and you may be seated in them. I don't think a payment is required!
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
People's sense of self entitlement never ceases to amaze me. You'll happily endorse people to lie, take up a seat that someone might actually physically need all because you think your the safe option, where in reality it's just because you want the extra legroom.
Can you point me to the regulation that row 1 pax are required to assist? If you can and that is at odds with TOM's UK CAA operations manual then there's grounds for further investigation.
As far as assisting the crew, there's a bulkhead between row one and door 1L, and this is where both cabin crew sit. The cabin crew will operate the exists. If they can't then someone else will. Every other passenger should know how to operate the exits.
On row 1, EasyJet has restricted seating in 1ABCD and unrestricted in 1CD but they only have a bulkhead on the right side (for now anyway). So I assume airlines have a choice.
I can't see any risk. The over wing exits are a different story.
Can you point me to the regulation that row 1 pax are required to assist? If you can and that is at odds with TOM's UK CAA operations manual then there's grounds for further investigation.
As far as assisting the crew, there's a bulkhead between row one and door 1L, and this is where both cabin crew sit. The cabin crew will operate the exists. If they can't then someone else will. Every other passenger should know how to operate the exits.
On row 1, EasyJet has restricted seating in 1ABCD and unrestricted in 1CD but they only have a bulkhead on the right side (for now anyway). So I assume airlines have a choice.
I can't see any risk. The over wing exits are a different story.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: East Anglia, UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this...
What about the BA exit row reqs for instance :-
Safety requirements for sitting in an exit row seat
You must meet certain Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) safety requirements to sit in an exit row seat.
However, are you saying on these Thomson 737-800 aircraft there is a bulkhead infront of seats 1-a-b-c as well as infront of 2-d-e-f? Maybe the situation is different if there is a bulkhead.
What about the BA exit row reqs for instance :-
Safety requirements for sitting in an exit row seat
You must meet certain Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) safety requirements to sit in an exit row seat.
- You must be an able bodied adult in full fitness and able to understand printed and verbal instructions given in English.
- You must be willing and able to assist in the unlikely event of an emergency evacuation.
However, are you saying on these Thomson 737-800 aircraft there is a bulkhead infront of seats 1-a-b-c as well as infront of 2-d-e-f? Maybe the situation is different if there is a bulkhead.
Additionally those who have mobility issues and who may potentially have difficulties in reaching an exit should be seated are close to an exit as possible?
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Soon to be out of the EU.
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're misconstruing what I'm saying. They should be close to but not at a self help exit. Main doors are different. I can't think of any airline that specifies PRMs must sit in areas well away (I'm talking several rows away). I'm aware of the need to sit certain passengers at window seats but not aware of any airline that groups PRM in specific parts of the cabin, any from the exit. I'm not aware of any requirement to do this.
I have only seen restrictions on specific seats next to an emergency exit. What you're implying is that they should be sat away from all exits, the furthest away and I've seen no requirement to do this.
All remaining passengers will know how to operate the exits. Let's face it is the cabin crew are killed or injured, there's a very good chance that what ever injured the crew will render those sitting right behind them (in row one) unable to operate the exit.
Therefore it'll be down to the rest of the 189 to operate the exit which all of them should be able to do.
I just seems logical to have them seated close to 2 cabin crew, 2 pilots and at the first point of entry for emergency services.
I have only seen restrictions on specific seats next to an emergency exit. What you're implying is that they should be sat away from all exits, the furthest away and I've seen no requirement to do this.
All remaining passengers will know how to operate the exits. Let's face it is the cabin crew are killed or injured, there's a very good chance that what ever injured the crew will render those sitting right behind them (in row one) unable to operate the exit.
Therefore it'll be down to the rest of the 189 to operate the exit which all of them should be able to do.
I just seems logical to have them seated close to 2 cabin crew, 2 pilots and at the first point of entry for emergency services.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: East Anglia, UK
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the crux of this issue is the fact that the 737-800 aircraft here have a partition infront of row 1-a-b-c and Thomson are not regarding this row as an 'exit row'.
Whether this is right or not I don't know ...
Whether this is right or not I don't know ...
In any aircraft I have been on, the front main doors are not obstructed by row 1 seating. There is no question of an ABP (crew or passenger) having to reach across a less-able person to access the door in an emergency.
Placing less-able persons close to the main exits therefore seems common sense. Certainly not a hazard. Indeed, if one has limited mobility it would be more of a hazard to others by being seated further back.
Placing less-able persons close to the main exits therefore seems common sense. Certainly not a hazard. Indeed, if one has limited mobility it would be more of a hazard to others by being seated further back.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't speak for Thomson but the airline I work for only requires ABP's (able bodied passengers) at seats 1cd and 2cd. These aisle seats allow the best access to the exits, given that there is a cabin wall in front on 1abc and 1def. Assuming that those requiring assistance would have somebody traveling with them to assist if needed then this may perfectly fit in with any regulations to have people available to assist at the exits. Hope this helps 
Last edited by partyboy_uk; 4th Mar 2016 at 10:34.
And some airlines - Air New Zealand Link, for one - doesn't bother a) sitting ABPs at emergency exits and b) responding to comments on their questionable policy of pricing those seats to (almost) ensure that they're rarely occupied.
Fact is: unmanned emergency exits degrade survivability in a non-prepared emergency on takeoff or landing.
NZCAA is now reviewing the issue.
Fact is: unmanned emergency exits degrade survivability in a non-prepared emergency on takeoff or landing.
NZCAA is now reviewing the issue.
Last edited by RevMan2; 6th Mar 2016 at 06:07.
