Rafabozzolla From Brazil, joined Apr 2000, 1165 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2249 times:
São Paulo's state consumer rights protection agency (Procon) is set to fine TAM for charging extra for first row and exit seats. According to the agency, the airline can only charge extra when there is a difference in the service offered. It argues that the extra space provided by such seats is not a perk since it is mandated by the law and safety regulations.
bj87 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 444 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2111 times:
Quoting Rafabozzolla (Thread starter): It argues that the extra space provided by such seats is not a perk since it is mandated by the law and safety regulations.
On one hand I think that is a valid point because the airline does not make an extra investment in order to offer this product. On the other hand the airline does have the option of putting you somewhere else with less room. So if you want to be the one with the extra room you can pay to have a guaranteed exit row seat.
nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4991 posts, RR: 38 Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2026 times:
Seems a bit daft really, the airline should be able to charge however they like - if people are prepared to pay it, then let them. The exit row seats offer more space, so they should be entitled to charge more if people want to choose to sit there.
However if a passenger is made to sit there, then they shouldnt be charged extra.
par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1832 times:
Quoting nighthawk (Reply 2): However if a passenger is made to sit there, then they shouldnt be charged extra.
So do you then block those seats off to ensure that only those willing to pay extra can select them along with putting up a disclaimer at booking that those who want the extra room must be healthy and not person's with an ailment such as a broken leg in a cast who require more leg room?
It's a safety issue which airlines may attempt to take advantage of, personally I say leave well enough alone, if you want to charge for extra leg room, put in some rows, once you go down that slope you can open up a whole can of worms. Example, there are folks who can sit in standard seats but require a seat belt extension, we are already charging some folks for extra seats if their size requires it, so how about charging for the seat belt extension?
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 1477 times:
way around this is offer these people a pre-takeoff beverage as part of the deal. Or something. Just a token item to dodge the "extra space is required by law so not something you can charge for" part of the ruling.
m404 From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2214 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1147 times:
One wonders if a US carrier that already charges for these seats could do it out of Brazil?
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
Sponsor Message: 
From Brazil, joined Apr 2000, 1165 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 444 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 4991 posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 5902 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3133 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
