Support NeoGAF

[TheBryanJZX90]

It's the policy, I am confused with your comment

Private airline policy is of a lower level of authority than FAA regulations, essentially. Where the two conflict the FAA regulation should hold precedence. But I don't think they really conflict, she should have been moved to another row with her kid if the airline was intending to rely on their policy.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Studies indicate that everyone doing this (and alternating entries) would improve traffic flow:
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/zippermerge/

This is not zipper merging.

 

[numble]

Thats not a zipper merge.

Thats a cunt driving in a no turn lane then merging into a turn lane while others can't because of backed up traffic. Also known as a self proclaimed rocket scientist.

That's a person missing a turn lane though, not a zipper merge

This is not zipper merging.

As I said, I was responding to CornBurrito who posted that image in response to someone talking about "Using all available lanes on the highway".

 

[CarpeDeezNutz]

We're arguing whether or not an infant should be given extra protection...

 

[Zoe]

FAA sets the rules that all airlines must follow. If an American Airline policy contradicts the FAA rule, the FAA rule prevails.

That doesn't make sense. To use your example before, because the FAA doesn't say you can't have more than two drinks on a plane, the airline wouldn't be able to stop you from having more.

The FAA rule is the base rule. AA makes it more restrictive.

 

[Big Baybee]

I don't understand the thought process behind a situation like this. A baby being safe or the ability to slightly recline? Like, for real?

 

[TheSpoiler]

We're arguing whether or not an infant should be given extra protection...

Yeah, but what if I need to nap?

How come nobody ever thinks about my needs?

 

[MikeDip]

FAA sets the rules that all airlines must follow. If an American Airline policy contradicts the FAA rule, the FAA rule prevails.

Private airline policy is of a lower level of authority than FAA regulations, essentially. Where the two conflict the FAA regulation should hold precedence. But I don't think they really conflict, she should have been moved to another row with her kid if the airline was intending to rely on their policy.

But this is part of the regulation?

Here's an excerpt from the faa themselves.

"If an approved CRS, for which a ticket has been purchased, does not fit in a particular seat on the aircraft, the airline is responsible for accommodating the CRS in another seat in the same class of service. The airline may have polices that dictate the specific safe seat locations for specific aircraft."

Then there is a pdf giving examples, here: http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/avia...afety/info/all_infos/media/2015/InFO15013.pdf

The airline needed to get these people new seats and they didn't.

 

[numble]

That doesn't make sense. To use your example before, because the FAA doesn't say you can't have more than two drinks on a plane, the airline wouldn't be able to stop you from having more.

The FAA rule is the base rule. AA makes it more restrictive.

No, the FAA saying you must allow properly installed child seats doesn't mean that you can restrict it. The FAA even says that the airline must always accommodate it, even if it means moving where passengers sit.

The base rule is it is always allowed. There is no way to make it not allowed.

In this situation the flight attendant changed it from proper installation to improper installation. There is no way you can have an internal policy to make child seats improperly installed.

 

[Zoe]

No, the FAA saying you must allow properly installed child seats doesn't mean that you can restrict it. The FAA even says that the airline must always accommodate it, even if it means moving where passengers sit.

The base rule is it is always allowed. There is no way to make it not allowed.

See Mike's post above.

 

[MikeDip]

No, the FAA saying you must allow properly installed child seats doesn't mean that you can restrict it. The FAA even says that the airline must always accommodate it, even if it means moving where passengers sit.

The base rule is it is always allowed. There is no way to make it not allowed.

Read above, the faa specifically allows for policy to dictate where the seats can go.

 

[numble]

See Mike's post above.

How does that address what I said?

The FAA rule is that properly installed seats are allowed. In this situation the flight attendant changed it from proper installation to improper installation. There is no way you can have an internal policy to make child seats improperly installed.

Read above, the faa specifically allows for policy to dictate where the seats can go.

The FAA rule is about child seats not fitting, the child seat fit in the seat.

 

[MikeDip]

How does that address what I said?

The FAA rule is that properly installed seats are allowed. In this situation the flight attendant changed it from proper installation to improper installation. There is no way you can have an internal policy to make child seats improperly installed.


The FAA rule is about child seats not fitting, the child seat fit in the seat.

No. Read the pdf. The airline can dictate policy to determine what seats are allowed for the seats due to safety and many other factors. Not specifically because they can't fit.

Here's a quote for you.

"An operator may have policies based on safe operating practices
that
establish certain seat locations for a
passenger who use
s a CRS
on a specific aircraft. Even if a certain seat
in another location in the same
class of service can accommodate an approved CRS, an operator does not have to permit the CRS in that
location if the operator’s policies disallow the CRS in that seat. "

Man that pdf has weird formatting when copying

 

[numble]

No. Read the pdf. The airline can dictate policy to determine what seats are allowed for the seats due to safety and many other factors. Not specifically because they can't fit.

If it fits, prohibiting the use is inconsistent with the FAA rules.

However, prohibiting the use of a CRS (if a ticket has been purchased) when there are seats on the aircraft, in the same class of service where the CRS could be used safely is not consistent with the requirements stated in parts 121, 125 and 135.

Edit:
Your edit conveniently leaves out the last sentence, which says the CRS cannot be prohibited if a ticket has been purchased and there are seats (including the purchased seats) that fit the CRS.

 

[MikeDip]

If it fits, prohibiting the use is inconsistent with the FAA rules.

Read quote above, you are wrong.

 

[numble]

Read quote above, you are wrong.

Read quote above, you are wrong.

 

[The Nexus of G]

Refund the extra money the mother paid and that's it.

 

[Aselith]

One study found that they'll be sitting there until they run out of blinker fluid.

My study.

What if I mouth "I'm sorry" and look suitably chagrined about my self inflicted ingenuity?

 

[MikeDip]

Read quote above, you are wrong.

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension, sorry mate.

Refund the extra money the mother paid and that's it.

Agreed.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Team recliners literally hate babies confirmed.

Recliners hate everyone. I have never been in a situation where the person reclining showed any thought or courtesy towards me or anyone else.

 

[RoninChaos]

Yeah how dare that selfish BITCH care about her INFANTS safety.

People that bitch about kids on planes, specifically infants, need to understand that a baby crawling all over you for hours is going to be noisy and it's unsafe. A baby in a car seat is going to be much more settled and make the flight better for everyone, on top of being more safe.

And it's worth noting that shit like this wouldn't be happening if airlines weren't treating planes like cattle cars and shoving as many people as possible on board.

 

[CornBurrito]

Yeah, but what if I need to nap?

How come nobody ever thinks about my needs?

You dont need to even recline to nap.

 

[MikeDip]

If it fits, prohibiting the use is inconsistent with the FAA rules.

Edit:
Your edit conveniently leaves out the last sentence, which says the CRS cannot be prohibited if a ticket has been purchased and there are seats (including the purchased seats) that fit the CRS.

I don't know why we are arguing we both seem to agree on the same point I think? That very seat the baby was in was against policy. FAA states they need to find baby and family other seats in the same class. That's it.

"Further, because no certificate holder may prohibit a child from occupying a
CRS if the child holds a ticket for an approved seat
, the aircraft operator need only accommodate the CRS
in another seat in the same class of service. "

What are you arguing exactly?

Also how are you getting your copy paste from that pdf to be so neat?

 

[numble]

I think you need to work on your reading comprehension, sorry mate.

The sentence following your quote from the PDF is to qualify the statement about allowing prohibitions based on internal policy. The airline may prohibit based on internal policy, even if it fits, but prohibiting it when it fits into seats is inconsistent with FAA rules.

Use an Apple operating system to copy-paste.

An operator may have policies based on safe operating practices that establish certain seat locations for a passenger who uses a CRS on a specific aircraft. Even if a certain seat in another location in the same class of service can accommodate an approved CRS, an operator does not have to permit the CRS in that location if the operator’s policies disallow the CRS in that seat. However, prohibiting the use of a CRS (if a ticket has been purchased) when there are seats on the aircraft, in the same class of service where the CRS could be used safely is not consistent with the requirements stated in parts 121, 125 and 135.

 

[MikeDip]

The sentence following your quote from the PDF is to qualify the statement about allowing prohibitions based on internal policy. The airline may prohibit based on internal policy, even if it fits, but prohibiting it when it fits into seats is inconsistent with FAA rules.

They just need to get that baby to another seat where policy permits. But they didn't even try.

Airline messed up.

 

[kswiston]

Recliners hate everyone. I have never been in a situation where the person reclining showed any thought or courtesy towards me or anyone else.

You can't expect people to not do something if the rules allow it.

Airlines should have to choose between stationary seats, or seats that actually allow people to recline without the person behind them being kneecapped if they are tall enough to dunk.

 

[CarpeDeezNutz]

My baby girl is big enough to have her own seat now but man I would just buy two seats to make sure she was safe rather than deal with some of the people in this thread.

A small jolt hit the soft spot in her infant head? Yeah fuck that I don't want to get her injured. Maybe this debate is parents vs single people? I'm not sure.


Edit: parents vs non-parents.

 

[MikeDip]

You can't expect people to not do something if the rules allow it.

Airlines should have to choose between stationary seats, or seats that actually allow people to recline without the person behind them being kneecapped if they are tall enough to dunk.

Airlines should just give a special class those lying down cubbies like in trains.

They should also make the bottom of some of the plane transparent like the sky cart in trains.

Planes need to learn from trains

 

[MikeDip]

The sentence following your quote from the PDF is to qualify the statement about allowing prohibitions based on internal policy. The airline may prohibit based on internal policy, even if it fits, but prohibiting it when it fits into seats is inconsistent with FAA rules.

Use an Apple operating system to copy-paste.

Cool, my firefox windows is making copy paste all weird.

And that qualifier is not for the actual seat the people buy. They just need A seat in the same class.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

I don't know why we are arguing we both seem to agree on the same point I think? That very seat the baby was in was against policy. FAA states they need to find baby and family other seats in the same class. That's it.

"Further, because no certificate holder may prohibit a child from occupying a
CRS if the child holds a ticket for an approved seat
, the aircraft operator need only accommodate the CRS
in another seat in the same class of service. "

What are you arguing exactly?

Also how are you getting your copy paste from that pdf to be so neat?

Lol it's been a while since I've seen such violent agreement.

 

[SnakeXs]

I was gonna post "Woe is the world in which this occurs."

And then it dawned on me that this is a debate now.

Ugh.

 

[Galang]

Mother isn't at fault at all. What is this everyone was an ass bullshit. I agree with the mother completely. As if i'm going to jeopardize my child's safety so some annoying ass person can recline their seat.

 

[RBH]

Not surprised at all to see this kind of shit from American Airlines.

 

[oneils]

She could have maybe swapped seats with her kid? Or did the passenger in front of her also recline her seat?

 

[Madness]

Yeah SELFISH BITCH MOTHER thinks her INFANT is ENTITLED to SAFETY.

That FUCKING SELFISH BABY can DIE for all I care. I DESERVE more COMFORT.

"Rabble rabble rabble I am going to type with caps and use buzzwords that I pulled from my ass and say something you didn't even say to show you my indignation and to not engage in discourse but to try and act like I am some smartass".

 

[MikeDip]

I can't believe they just kinda wedged it in there diagonally. Jesus.

 

[H.Protagonist]

Neither the mother nor the recliner are at fault here. Both correctly paid/booked the seats they wanted to accommodate the safety and comfort of their flight, but the airline took the mom's money for the extra safety she wanted and basically denied her that and screwed it up for both parties.

They should have offered the recliner or the mother a different seat that was suited to what they paid (allowed for car seat or reclined), and barring one being available, they should have apologized to the recliner and refunded their seat because the safety of the baby is obviously more important than comfort, as frustrating as that might be for the recliner. That the airline handled it the way that it did and made an absolute hash of things AND refuses to properly compensate the mother is ridiculous.

 

[CornBurrito]

"Rabble rabble rabble I am going to type with caps and use buzzwords that I pulled from my ass and say something you didn't even say to show you my indignation and to not engage in discourse but to try and act like I am some smartass".

Oh sorry, I felt there was no room for rational discourse with you once you ignored the infants safety because of some (entirely fictional) LEGAL RIGHT to reclining.

 

[MikeDip]

Neither the mother nor the recliner are at fault here. Both correctly paid/booked the seats they wanted to accommodate the safety and comfort of their flight, but the airline took the mom's money for the extra safety she wanted and basically denied her that and screwed it up for both parties.

They should have offered the recliner or the mother a different seat that was suited to what they paid (allowed for car seat or reclined), and barring one being available, they should have apologized to the recliner and refunded their seat because the safety of the baby is obviously more important than comfort, as frustrating as that might be for the recliner. That the airline handled it the way that it did and made an absolute hash of things AND refuses to properly compensate the mother is ridiculous.

The airline literally had this kid in a seat against their own policy, and did not follow faa regulation to relocate them to a seat that was fine. Then they kinda wedged the seat in diagonally, which caused the baby to have trouble breathing and then the mother had to hold the kid the rest of the trip anyways after paying for the seat ticket.

This shouldn't be a recliner vs baby, this should be a what the fuck are you doing you silly airline

 

[arglebargle]

Not surprised at all to see this kind of shit from American Airlines.

This is basically the bottom line of all air travel stories. American is the worst.

 

[H.Protagonist]

The airline literally had this kid in a seat against their own policy, and did not follow faa regulation to relocate them to a seat that was fine. Then they kinda wedged the seat in diagonally, which caused the baby to have trouble breathing and then the mother had to hold the kid the rest of the trip anyways after paying for the seat ticket.

This shouldn't be a recliner vs baby, this should be a what the fuck are you doing you silly airline

Isn't that pretty much what I said? The airline is the one at fault.

 

[MikeDip]

Isn't that pretty much what I said? The airline is the one at fault.

Yes I am agreeing with you mate

 

[old]

That lady paid to be able to recline her chair. Your inability to use effective birth control (or willful contribution to the over population problem) doesn't give you the power to downgrade her ticket to "non-reclinable".

 

[Stinkles]

Something sounds off about this story.

 

[toneroni]

Wow at some of these posts.

 

[demon]

Parents should be able to safely secure their infants on planes, but passengers should also be able to recline their seats if they purchased reclinable seats and weren't told before purchasing that they're not reclinable seats. If the airline can't accommodate both then ultimately I say that's on the airline. Some people have legitimate back problems for crissakes, and those fucking seats can be brutal. But we're nothing more than cattle to them so what do they give a shit.

 

[Waikis]

That lady paid to be able to recline her chair. Your inability to use effective birth control (or willful contribution to the over population problem) doesn't give you the power to downgrade her ticket to "non-reclinable".

...bait?

 

[Madness]

Oh sorry, I felt there was no room for rational discourse with you once you ignored the infants safety because of some (entirely fictional) LEGAL RIGHT to reclining.

Again tales from your ass along with using caps to try and prove a point. I said the passenger who bought a ticket has as much right to recline and use her seat as anyone else. I said just having a child does not trump other people in an egalitarian society. It is a self interested world. Pretending like the baby was in mortal danger is ridiculous as is pretending the recliner is some horrible monster. Reminds me of the people who think their giant strollers and buggies should be given right of way on sidewalks etc.

 

[CornBurrito]

How many kids have been jolted out of arms and killed due to turbulence? I'm sorry but the other passenger also paid for a ticket and is legally allowed to recline. Just because you have a child doesn't mean you and the child are entitled over others.

You said legal.

 

[Primus]

Had no idea r/childfree had a GAF branch.