Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories  
User currently offlineDartland From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 643 posts, RR: 2
Posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4316 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Thought a.netters may be interested in reading this article from the Times business travel section --

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/business/06soff.html

Frankly, I find it ridiculous, as I'm sure most airliner enthusiasts would. To suggest that there needs to be LAWS in place that ensures planes have lavatories is ridiculous, as we know lavatory issues do happen from time to time but are still relatively rare.

Also, the author suggest that pilots are not the right people to make decisions to divert. Clearly he has NO clue about how the aviation world works (next time he is driving his family around, we should tell him that his 5-year old son should dictate all his driving procedures and see how he likes it!)

Enjoy -- comments welcome.

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1725 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4267 times:

747 with thirteen nonfunctional lavs?
Extremely unlikely unless it was the work of a vandal.

On the 744, the vacuum waste system is split into four separate systems, none of which only serve two lavs.

Tod


User currently offlinePiercey From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 2233 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4197 times:

Could this guy be any more not in the loop if he tried?

one good aviation media story = 20 bad ones.  Sad



Well I believe it all is coming to an end. Oh well, I guess we are gonna pretend.
User currently offlineJake056 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 291 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4151 times:

How the heck did the industry survive all these decades without Laws and regs governing a/c lavs??? Imagine, an actual area of life that has escaped regulation by the government!

If a carrier got a rep for flying with busted lavs, they'd be seeing a lot of empty seats as pax voted with their feet and visited the competition.


User currently offlineBHXFAOTIPYYC From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 1644 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4135 times:

I read it, but it's a crappy story.


Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21515 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4122 times:

how does a pax/lav ratio deal with a regulated issue? safety? no, it's just convenience, and laws should not regulate convenience of an airline. If it is more desirable for more lavs, airlines could add them and advertise: "more toilets throughout coach."

As for 2 of 14 working by the end of the flight, I doubt it is true, but even if it is, that's by THE END of the flight, not for the whole duration. So either wait for one of the 2, or if it isn't urgent, wait until you land. Shit happens.  Wink



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1725 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4051 times:

Quoting Jake056 (Reply 3):
flying with busted lavs, they'd be seeing a lot of empty seats

That's because you wouldn't want to sit down in them.
I recently saw some 763 with all the seatcovers removed.
The padding was somewhat beyond just stained.  yuck 

A bit off topic, but a quick count determined that the stain/seat ratio in Y was about the same as F. The only consistant difference was the stain locations seemed to be a bit further forward in F seats. yuck 

Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

Tod


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 38
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4033 times:

Quoting BHXFAOTIPYYC (Reply 4):
I read it, but it's a crappy story.

I think you forgot a smiley face.

I think it's a stinky story personally.  

[Edited 2005-12-06 22:48:46]


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineDAYflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4012 times:

Quoting Piercey (Reply 2):
one good aviation media story = 20 bad ones.



That about sums it up.



One Nation Under God
User currently offlineAbba From Denmark, joined Jun 2005, 1335 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3827 times:

Quoting Dartland (Thread starter):
(next time he is driving his family around, we should tell him that his 5-year old son should dictate all his driving procedures and see how he likes it!)

I do remember a few occations when certain calls from 5 year olds did in fact dictate my driving procedures.....  Angry

Abba


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9612 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3804 times:

It says that the lavatories failed after the halfway point in the flight. With lavatory issues, that far into the flight and in the middle of the Pacific, what is the pilot supposed to do? Do passengers really want to stop in the middle of the night in Fiji because not all of the lavatories are functioning properly? Things fail. As an engineer I am sorry to admit it, but things fail. It is always the goal to prevent premature failures, but goverment regulations aren't going to do much to solve a freak accident like this one.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineBohica From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 2691 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3746 times:

Now this is a s##tty thread.  Big grin

User currently offlineSemsem From Israel, joined Jul 2005, 1779 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3624 times:

The plane should have landed. 400 people with 2 toilets is "disgusting" and unhygenic.

User currently offlineASWISSinMAD From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 148 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3499 times:

I'm surprised no-one sued UA or Boeing  Wink

User currently offlineCricket From India, joined Aug 2005, 2967 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3475 times:

While I love flying and don't particularly like airline toilets - if someone has to go - they have to go and a 747 with 13/15 toilets not working is a good story in my opinion - an as usual the a.net 'reporters are evil' crap has begun because someone has pointed out a deficiency in an airline. Passengers have a right to know that there is no legal requirements for loos on a plane. Its surprising that those in the airline industry attack the reporter while many outside the industry think the story is appropriate.
And despite Jayson Blair and what not, the NYT is by far and away the most respected American media organisation and whatever they write carries a lot of weight.



A300B2/B4/6R, A313, A319/320/321, A333, A343, A388, 737-2/3/4/7/8/9, 747-3/4, 772/2E/2L/3, E170/190, F70, CR2/7, 146-3,
User currently offlineMacc From Austria, joined Nov 2004, 1038 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3458 times:

left aside if 13/15 not working is actually true or not, the article isnt as bad as stated above. at least its not a bashing of any airline or manufacturer.
the only argument which i do not support is that pilots shouldnt be entrusted to the decision of a diversion.

on this point the article misses a discussion of company policies regarding the lavs. furthermore, authorities should impose laws for airliners to grant a certain minimum of lav supply. it has to be a part of the whole service pax are paying for.

2cents



I exchanged political frustration with sexual boredom. better spoil a girl than the world
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9612 posts, RR: 52
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3333 times:

One important fault of the article is that it doesn't point out when in the flight the lavatories failed. It says that they began failing half way into the flight. So maybe one or two went at first and others began to catch up. It might be that the plane was one a few hours or less out when up to 13 of them were gone. At that point you are so close to SYD where there is 747 maintenance available that it might be smartest to continue on. It's not like they were flying over populated areas where they could just make a stop. Diverting when over the middle of the Pacific would have probably put them in some small airport like Fiji that probably won't be able to do a quick fix and would leave all those passengers stuck with no where to go until UA could arrange alternate transportation which could easily take over 24 hours. What is worse? Getting stranded in a small airport with poor facilities on its own and not likely to have enough hotel rooms available on such short notice, or flying on to the destination?


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineJumppilot From United States of America, joined May 2005, 90 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3292 times:

If people base their opinions and get their facts from the NYT then this country is in trouble. They write alot of BS. They are wrong.....alot! Nobody here challenges them. Instead, they just get their news from another source. Next article we'll see "Nonfuctional lavs divert airliners....pax riot"  duck 


pull back to go up, pull way back to go down!
User currently offlineTod From Denmark, joined Aug 2004, 1725 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 3208 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 16):
Getting stranded in a small airport with poor facilities on its own and not likely to have enough hotel rooms available on such short notice

And would the lav/pax ratio be any better on the ground?

I've been pondering this for the last 24 hours (well maybe not the whole 24) and still puzzled by how you could get a 13 out of 15 failure ratio on a UA744.
I would be interesting to me (yeah I know - get a life) to know which lavs did not fail. Most of the senarios I can conjur up would start with multiple pluggings followed by 3 of the 4 tanks maxing out.

Tod


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
NY Times Article On EAS Subsidies posted Fri Oct 6 2006 06:41:11 by FATFlyer
NY Times Article On Plane Spotting In New York posted Sun Aug 10 2003 00:22:38 by JBLUA320
Excellent NY Times Article On US & European LCCs posted Tue Jul 22 2003 21:30:24 by STT757
Seattle Times Article On Airbus' New Leader posted Sun Aug 6 2006 09:48:08 by HikesWithEyes
NY Times Article: Airlines Cutting Seats posted Tue Mar 29 2005 08:59:19 by GothamSpotter
7 Oct. NY Times Article - Future Of Air Travel posted Tue Oct 7 2003 15:56:19 by TWFirst
NY Times Article B6 Vs WN In California posted Fri Oct 11 2002 18:01:55 by LoneStarMike
NY Times Article About Jackson Hole's Airport posted Wed Aug 28 2002 03:03:33 by STT757
NY Times Article: SIA Outlook posted Fri Sep 28 2001 23:24:57 by Singapore_Air
NY Times Reports On Transat Aftermath posted Mon Sep 10 2001 21:14:46 by Heavymetal