dartland
Posts: 514
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:09 am

NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:25 am

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.
 
Tod
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:51 am

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:40 am

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
 
piercey
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 11:07 am

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:55 am

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.
 
jake056
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 7:41 am

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:06 am

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.
 
BHXFAOTIPYYC
Posts: 1442
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:47 am

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:08 am

I read it, but it's a crappy story.
Breakfast in BHX, lunch in FAO, dinner in TIP, baggage in YYC.
 
ikramerica
Posts: 13730
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:10 am

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.
 
Tod
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:51 am

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:44 am

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
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:47 am

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!!
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:51 am

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



That about sums it up.
One Nation Under God
 
abba
Posts: 1379
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 12:08 pm

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:50 am

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
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:59 am

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!
 
bohica
Posts: 2298
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 3:21 pm

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:57 pm

Now this is a s##tty thread.  Big grin
 
semsem
Posts: 1621
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:06 am

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:29 pm

The plane should have landed. 400 people with 2 toilets is "disgusting" and unhygenic.
 
aswissinmad
Posts: 125
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:56 pm

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:23 pm

I'm surprised no-one sued UA or Boeing  Wink
 
cricket
Posts: 2068
Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 8:23 pm

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:37 pm

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,
 
macc
Posts: 893
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 8:11 pm

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:49 pm

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
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:59 pm

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!
 
jumppilot
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 4:21 pm

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:29 am

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!
 
Tod
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 6:51 am

RE: NY Times Article On Airplane Lavatories

Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:05 am

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 777222LR, afriwing, ATLFlyer323, BobbyPSP, CIDFlyer, cuban8, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], PC12Fan, PlymSpotter, QF64, reidar76, rutankrd, Someone83, SRQKEF, StTim, VirginFlyer, Yahoo [Bot] and 309 guests