I've seen plenty of folks on both sides of the fence, some think it's perfectly justifiable, others are personally offended by the notion of it. I also found this petition asking Randy Babbitt to re-install emergency oxygen in lavatories, chemical or not;
yeelep From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 632 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2695 times:
From what I've heard this may be a temporary measure. There is no reason that oxygen can't be provided in the lavs chemical or bottled, with the supply source inaccessible from inside the lav. Unfortunately this takes time to implement and its possible the authorities had information that led them to require the immediate removal. This whole deal is just a tempest in a teacup, no big deal. The chance of dieing in the lav due to decompression have to be infinitesimal, much more likely to be killed driving to the airport.
Because there was no comment period and limited implementation time. I have to think that there was creditable evidence that someone planned to use an oxygen generator for a purpose that it was not intended.
I'm sure they'd also be personally offended by the notion that intelligence was received that someone was going to use the generator to do bad things, and nothing was done about it, and they died or were injured because of it.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13793 posts, RR: 63
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2399 times:
Quoting 474218 (Reply 3): Because there was no comment period and limited implementation time. I have to think that there was creditable evidence that someone planned to use an oxygen generator for a purpose that it was not intended.
Without going into details for security reasons:
The contents of a chemical oxygen generator can be used, together with a widely available household good, which will not arouse suspicion and can be bought virtually everywhere, to make a powerful bomb. This type of bomb (with the oxygen generator content sourced through different sources), was used a lot by leftwing terrorists in Europe during the 1970s.
exFATboy From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2974 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2157 times:
As usual, the article on MSNBC makes this sound much worse than it actually is, complete with quotes from the moronic Kate Hanni ("we get reports of mid-air decompression events all the time" - 12 events in 10 years isn't "all the time", you insipid twit) and hyperbole from supposed "expert" Arthur Wolk saying "you've just killed those people" if there's a loss of pressurization and someone's in the lav.
Someone doesn't lose consciousness instantly when there's a loss of pressure, and a loss of pressure rarely means a [u]complete, instantaneous[/i] loss of oxygen in the cabin. A passenger in the lavatory during a pressure-loss event will have time to react and come out of the lav, and even if they can't make it all the way back to their seat, they'll be visible to the FAs who can then assist with portable oxygen.
While it'll be desirable to get the restrooms retrofitted with a new system as quickly as possible, this really isn't a major danger to passengers.