Practical Travel Safety Issues - Has DHS done away with the rule about crossing cabins on US-bound int'l flights?

I remember on previous international flights to the US there being an announcement about remaining in your ticketed cabin. This wasn't an airline's individual rule about such, rather it was a "security related" regulation. On my last flight back to the US (BA from LHR) there was no such announcement. Furthermore, I was not only allowed to cross cabins, but practically encouraged to do so (I was seated in F and the self-serve snack station is in J, which means passing through the prem econ cabin).

So is the rule gone, is it just not enforced or is it different on a 747 because crossing cabins doesn't put you any closer or further from the flight deck?

Don't recall hearing that on my recent flight, but the flight map
was obviously off in a way it has never been in the last 15 years and
it was turned off for the last hour or so.

Yup, those terrorists aren't going to look at the scheduled arrival times
on the tickets (which are usually a good estimate), or maybe someone
assumes they can't read, I can't be sure.

Recently (last week) flew IAD-GRU & GRU-ORD. On the first flight, the purser just asked us to stay in our ticketed cabin, and not cross the various curtain (mostly for Y pax to not come into C/F).

On GRU-ORD, the Captain welcome us aboard, and then mentioned how it was an international security requirement for us to stay in our ticketed cabins..

As far as the map, I'm not sure what happened on your flights. Haven't heard of them being turned off early since the undie-bomber. All of my international flights in 2010/2011 have had map service the entire flight.

Feel like I'm slow, not picking up on the security risk of crossing cabins.

Feel like I'm slow, not picking up on the security risk of crossing cabins.

I suppose it's similar to TSA checking IDs, or some of the other security theater practices.

It is not yet gone. This was announced recently on an AMS-ATL Delta flight I took. Although, I am unable to understand the rationale behind such a crazy rule.

It is not yet gone. This was announced recently on an AMS-ATL Delta flight I took. Although, I am unable to understand the rationale behind such a crazy rule.

My guess is that the first class passengers don't want to mingle with the commoners, but that is just a guess... :D

My guess is that the first class passengers don't want to mingle with the commoners, but that is just a guess... :D

Well it's because the FC lavs are so much nicer, what, with the tile floors and chandeliers..:p

It was announced a few weeks ago on my SFO-SYD and SYD-LAX flights on UA.

Heck, they announced it on my LGA-ORD flight last week too.

Does such a federal regulation actually exist? :confused: Because of course it would make perfect sense in federal world. Forget the billions being stolen in fraud in federal programs. Forget the uninspected cargo being sent on planes every day. Forget the thousands of ramp workers who wander in and out of "secure" areas without inspection. Nope, we MUST keep coach hillbillies away from Business Class. THAT is the real threat to America!

This is VERY aggressively announced and enforced on US carriers on international flights to to the US. This--I believe--a TSA rule, not company policy. They always make some announcement: sometimes it's polite, sometimes ridiculously stern.

I have observed cabin crew have panic level aggression when a curtain is breached on US-bound flight.

On domestic flights, Continental asks that passengers use the lavatory in their ticketed cabin. American made it public that they would not have any rules about which lavatories passengers use--at least on domestic flights.

The only advantage I see is that it's nice to keep the business and first class lavatories available for passengers in those cabins, but I see no need for DEFCON-4 reactions, nor do I think that threatening announcements have any role (or value).

Of course there's no law against it, it's just an excuse for the airlines to use to try and keep coach passengers back in coach.

Hey, why should those guys who paid a lot more have to associate with the scum who only can afford coach? Just joking. I'm part of the scum. Actually I can afford more but seldom choose to go first class (unless its a cheap upgrade).

I just called TSA and they weren't able to find such a rule. Doesn't mean there isn't one. Could be the agent doesn't know where to look.

I've escalated the question.

TSA called back. They said they have no idea if there is such a rule and they have no way to find out.

I'm not making this up.

They said to call DHS, which I did. DHS transferred me to TSA. When I hung up and called back (reminding them that I told them TSA had sent me to them so don't do that again) the operator dumped me on some poor guy in records who was as confused as I as to why he should know.

Next I tried the Communications Department of TSA figuring their job was to, well, communicate. They refused to talk to me or even give me a contact for someone that would.

Finally I called the local office of the TSA. They at least offered to try and see if there is such a rule and if so what it is.

Stay tuned.

TSA called back. They said they have no idea if there is such a rule and they have no way to find out.

I'm not making this up.

They said to call DHS, which I did. DHS transferred me to TSA. When I hung up and called back (reminding them that I told them TSA had sent me to them so don't do that again) the operator dumped me on some poor guy in records who was as confused as I as to why he should know.

Next I tried the Communications Department of TSA figuring their job was to, well, communicate. They refused to talk to me or even give me a contact for someone that would.

Finally I called the local office of the TSA. They at least offered to try and see if there is such a rule and if so what it is.

Stay tuned.

Oy :rolleyes:

Oy :rolleyes:

He could make a Three Stooges episode out of normal procedures at the TSA/DHS. It appears all they do is make up new stupid rules, and then don't even bother to record or remember the rules they made up. Wait, that's what the employees do at the airports as well. I guess they do lead by example.

TSA called back. They said they have no idea if there is such a rule and they have no way to find out.

I'm not making this up.

They said to call DHS, which I did. DHS transferred me to TSA. When I hung up and called back (reminding them that I told them TSA had sent me to them so don't do that again) the operator dumped me on some poor guy in records who was as confused as I as to why he should know.

Next I tried the Communications Department of TSA figuring their job was to, well, communicate. They refused to talk to me or even give me a contact for someone that would.

Finally I called the local office of the TSA. They at least offered to try and see if there is such a rule and if so what it is.

Stay tuned.Bolding mine: Falls right in there with some TSO's making up rules on the spot-Really makes me feel safe :rolleyes:

He could make a Three Stooges episode out of normal procedures at the TSA/DHS. It appears all they do is make up new stupid rules, and then don't even bother to record or remember the rules they made up. Wait, that's what the employees do at the airports as well. I guess they do lead by example.Please do not insult The Trinity (aka The Stooges) by referring to them and the TSA in the same sentence ;)

I got a call back from the TSA Ombudsman this morning. He's researched and so far as he can tell there is not nor has there ever been a TSA rule requiring passengers to stay in their ticketed cabin.

There was at one time a rule requiring passengers to stay seated for the last hour of international inbound flights but that has been rescinded.

If people can report their experiences, especially recent ones (the last year or so) it would be most helpful since my new friend is going to keep at this and I'd particularly like to report what is being promulgated in the TSA's name.

Pilots have wide discretion as to how they run their ship but if they are representing that something is government directive when that is not the case its a whole different matter.

Either way I'm going to try and get to the bottom of this if possible.

I don't believe there is actually any law or FAA regulation regarding this; I've noticed that the announcements on this tend to say things like "security policy requires that...", and kind of make it sound like it's a government regulation as opposed to an airline rule.

Keep in mind that some "airline rules" can be in the Operations Specifications, signed off by the FAA, which would be something of a de facto government regulation.

From my experience, this announcement about staying in your ticketed cabin seems to be US airlines only. BA, AF, LH, NH do not make this announcement, UA, DL do. This isn't to say that the European airlines won't make an effort to keep you from moving up in the world, but they don't worry about First and Business wandering around coach.

Once I determine whether or not there is an actual DHS/TSA rule then I'll call the airlines and ask about their policies and whether they are internal or derived from a governmental directive and if so which one.

I think it would make more sense for the airlines to use the same language they use for fastened seat belts. They usually say something like, "It is Continental's policy that you remain seated with your seatbelt fastened even if the fasten seat belt sign is turned off."

Fair enough. The policy makes sense, protects passengers, and is presented as the airline's policy, not a reference to a non-existent law.

It would be just as easy to say, "It is Continental's policy that use the lavatory in your ticketed cabin." It's honest, enforceable, but it's not a lie.

I think all of us get equally frustrated by airline crew members who cite regulations that do not exist. The carrier is welcome to make its own policies and procedures, but they shouldn't imply that a law exists when it does not.

If we now have proof from the DHS that there is no law, I think we can safely complain to our respective airlines that they are attempting to enforce a fictitious law, and should change their announcements accordingly.

It ain't over yet. All the TSA Ombudsman has said is he hasn't found such a rule. Until he does further due diligence to confirm that I'd hold off from any final conclusion.

Also the issue I'm dealing with is broader than the use of rest rooms. The announcement I'm reacting to is one that prohibits any movement beyond one's own cabin.

What makes it an issue for me is that because of a lack of award space my family is likely to be book in both F and C. I'd like to understand if its really correct that if there is a problem with one of the kids we will be prohibited from contact with them. If its true an F passenger is barred from the C cabin that is a genuine problem for us.

The local office of the TSA called me back and says there is no such rule from TSA/DHS. However they suggested that flight security while onboard the airplane is also governed by the FAA and I should contact them to see if what pilots are announcing is derived from one of their directives.

The search continues...

There was a recent discussion in the Delta forum about cross-cabin visits, specifically with kids involved. Delta looks like it forbids up-visits from Y to C, due to the disruption factor, and one FA had a melt-down during a flight where there was repeated curtain-crossing going on. But the "official" word seems to be that C to Y down-visiting was fine.

On my last flight from MUC-ATL they did tell everyone to use their own ticketed cabin bathrooms.

Bathrooms and up-visits to a higher cabin I understand. Those are airline rules and have nothing to do with security.

But if anyone is on a flight where they announce passengers must remain in their own cabin or the like I'd very much appreciate hearing about it. At one point captains were claiming this was a mandated security rule. It seems to have been most common on international flights inbound to the US but not exclusive to those.

Simples, if all the passengers rush to the front/back the plane will become unbalanced and crash. That group of fat people who say they're going to a health farm? Terrorists the lot of them

The Ombudsman from DHS/TSA just called. After extensive research he has determined that the rule in question does not exist and never has existed. However he also made it clear that pilots and airlines have broad discretion to make their own rules. They just can't be untruthful as to who's rules they are.

He asked that I get back to him if I hear of this announcement being made going forward because the TSA takes a dim view of anyone misrepresenting their regulations.

So there you have it. If you've heard this on a recent trip let me know and I"ll pass it on.

This is VERY aggressively announced and enforced on US carriers on international flights to to the US. This--I believe--a TSA rule, not company policy. They always make some announcement: sometimes it's polite, sometimes ridiculously stern.

Although it is usually announced IME, I've rarely if ever seen it enforced.

And it's not a real rule, either.


I think it would make more sense for the airlines to use the same language they use for fastened seat belts. They usually say something like, "It is Continental's policy that you remain seated with your seatbelt fastened even if the fasten seat belt sign is turned off."

UA typically says, "Due to United security policy," or something to that effect--I've only very rarely heard it attributed to TSA, DHS, or FAA (and never yet on an international flight). Granted, the majority of my international travel to the US has been ex-FRA or ex-MUC, so I'm only speaking from a small statistical universe...

UA typically says, "Due to United security policy," or something to that effect--I've only very rarely heard it attributed to TSA, DHS, or FAA (and never yet on an international flight). Granted, the majority of my international travel to the US has been ex-FRA or ex-MUC, so I'm only speaking from a small statistical universe...

Just landed from IAD to AMS an hour ago. That's exactly what they announced. And on my flight from LHR-ORD last week, same exact wording.

The Ombudsman from DHS/TSA just called. ...

... because the TSA takes a dim view of anyone misrepresenting their regulations.



unless, of course, it is one of their own clerks.

I am probably a coward to risk it, but while I have a legal duty to obey orders of flight crew, does that duty disappear where they falsely attribute their legal authority and you are legally correct in that interpretation.

Just curious, does anyone know of a case where they enforced it in the opposite direction (parents in first class checking on their kids in coach)?

From my experience, this announcement about staying in your ticketed cabin seems to be US airlines only. BA, AF, LH, NH do not make this announcement, UA, DL do. This isn't to say that the European airlines won't make an effort to keep you from moving up in the world, but they don't worry about First and Business wandering around coach.


+1 This would appear to be USA airlines-centric.

I am probably a coward to risk it, but while I have a legal duty to obey orders of flight crew, does that duty disappear where they falsely attribute their legal authority and you are legally correct in that interpretation.

Just curious, does anyone know of a case where they enforced it in the opposite direction (parents in first class checking on their kids in coach)?

I believe the courts would give the airline/captain very broad discretion, but there are limits. If a crew member demanded you kill someone for no reason and you refused its highly unlikely a court would convict you of refusing to follow that order.

On a more reasonable note, the situation you describe, it's less clear. First, one needs to determine if it actually is a UA regulation. Which brings up the question of what actually is a UA rule or regulation. It is something formal, written down somewhere? Does it have to be part of a public document? Is it part of the customers contract with the airline? Alternately is what is going on something less formal or even a decision left to the pilot's discretion? The simple answer is we don't know.

As a practical matter one might ask why I or anyone else even cares. Why don't we just sit down, shut up and stay in our seats. There is actually a very good reason and it's exactly the one you noted. We are a family of 4 and its often not possible to get all of us award seats in one cabin. I'd like to make sure that if we split up and the kids are in need of assistance (including medical assistance) we aren't going to be at risk of getting forcibly subdued if we need to go help them.

That might seem an extreme worry but crews have been know to get extremely agitated when their instructions, particularly those they feel are related to security, are ignored. I can easily see where I need to get to my kid only to be told "stay seated sir or I am going to have to have you restrained." Sure its an overreaction and is nuts, but its not only possible, it's likely that is the position they would take. Now that I know this isn't a government regulation, I'll move on and talk to the airlines.

It sounds like UA is the one most commonly mentioned as making this announcement. Can anyone tell me if they've heard it anywhere else?

Just landed from IAD to AMS an hour ago. That's exactly what they announced. And on my flight from LHR-ORD last week, same exact wording.

Agreed. And I've had six UA/F international segments in the past few months, and on each flight, on multiple occasions, done a few "laps" around the plane to keep the blood flowing. No one said a word. On one flight I specifically asked an FA if I could do so, and she said, "You paid for F (well, I paid for C :D ) and it's your plane. Have a good stroll."

It sounds like UA is the one most commonly mentioned as making this announcement. Can anyone tell me if they've heard it anywhere else?

AA and DL. It's been a couple of months, so I don't recall whether it was stated to be a federal regulation or an airline one. I DO know that I've heard a "use only the lavs in your ticketed cabin" announcement twice recently on AA transcons.

AA and DL. It's been a couple of months, so I don't recall whether it was stated to be a federal regulation or an airline one. I DO know that I've heard a "use only the lavs in your ticketed cabin" announcement twice recently on AA transcons.

Where these Domestic or Intl flights? If the latter do you remember if it was only on the inbound to the US?

Any reports that can identify whether the announcement said the rule was government mandated (however worded), airline policy or no indication would be much appreciated.

I've only heard this announced as "Due to FAA policies." Never been attributed to TSA or DHS.

I've only heard this announced as "Due to FAA policies." Never been attributed to TSA or DHS.

Can you tell me more? International or domestic flight? If the former inbound to USA? Which airline? How long ago?

There is no evidence that there is a FAR regarding this either. If you are pretty sure they reference FAA then I'll call them next (although the TSA guy says he checked FAA rules too and couldn't find a thing).

Anyone else ever heard an this rule attributed to the FAA?

Can you tell me more? International or domestic flight? If the former inbound to USA? Which airline? How long ago?

There is no evidence that there is a FAR regarding this either. If you are pretty sure they reference FAA then I'll call them next (although the TSA guy says he checked FAA rules too and couldn't find a thing).

Anyone else ever heard an this rule attributed to the FAA?

I seem to remember there being a thread about this in the AA forum about this. The consensus seemed to be that there's no rule about this, but each airline can create certain rules which they submit to the FAA as part of their regular plans, which the FAA signs off on. At that point, the rules take the effect of FAA rules, even if they aren't. The FAs mistakenly call them FAA rules for one of two reasons: Either because they don't know better, or to make them sound more important.

This has happened on both international and domestic, but not every flight.

Usually, I hear a much simpler "We request that Y pax not use the F/C lavs."

Originally Posted by Global_Hi_Flyer View Post
AA and DL. It's been a couple of months, so I don't recall whether it was stated to be a federal regulation or an airline one. I DO know that I've heard a "use only the lavs in your ticketed cabin" announcement twice recently on AA transcons.Where these Domestic or Intl flights? If the latter do you remember if it was only on the inbound to the US?

Any reports that can identify whether the announcement said the rule was government mandated (however worded), airline policy or no indication would be much appreciated.

I've heard it on inbound international flights (Intl->US) on AA and DL.

The most recent AA events were domestic transcons.

I do not recall whether they indicated Federal law or airline policy.

I've heard it on inbound international flights (Intl->US) on AA and DL.

The most recent AA events were domestic transcons.

I do not recall whether they indicated Federal law or airline policy.


Thanks. I'll start with UA and see if I can get an answer as to whether this is an official rule (whatever that might mean). I'll also try and find out if there really is a process whereby the airlines file their rules with the FAA.

Given I have yet to hear any announcement like this on any LH flights and that TSA denies any such rule than I think we can safely say this is not a government regulation.

Any other reports with details as to what exactly is said would be much appreciated.

Last spring when I flew to LHR on DL, the flight to London they made no announcements and left the curtains open, but on the flight back to ATL they closed the curtains and made an announcement about Homeland Security requiring passengers stay in their ticketed cabin on flights to the US. There was even a little sign on the curtain stating the same thing.

Wow. If anyone happens to be on a flight with a sign like that perhaps you could take a picture. I'm sure my contact at TSA would be most interested in that.

The consensus seemed to be that there's no rule about this, but each airline can create certain rules which they submit to the FAA as part of their regular plans, which the FAA signs off on.

Those are known as Operations Specifications, and are a de facto FAA regulation.

Those are known as Operations Specifications, and are a de facto FAA regulation.

Do you know if they are published publicly and if so if they might be available online?

As I mentioned my contact at DHS said he searched all the databases he had including those of the FAA and didn't find anything but he might have not known to search these.

What's current regulation for US-bound flights.

What's current regulation for US-bound flights.

Stupid directive still in force. :td:

I just asked a flight attendant friend about this. They were all told that it's the law on any inbound international flight to the US. His understanding was that it only applied to the most forward cabin (i.e. closest to the flight deck.)

I have always heard it on every US airline flying to the US, and I have seen the enforcement be exceptionally harsh and rapid.

United has made it consistent on all flights with their announcement about remaining in the cabin in which you are seated, "and we thank you for respecting this arrangement." They always say that "it is United's policy," and do not cite a law. Fair enough, let it be United's policy. I'll hear this announcement on my next domestic flight (in a couple of hours.)

I have never heard it on a foreign carrier, including Air Canada.

I'm not entirely against the policy in terms of keeping foot traffic reduction. But there are snags: when families are separated, they should be able to see one another on long flights. Likewise, sometimes carts, aircraft configuration, or broken equipment mean that passengers in an aft cabin should be allowed to go to a forward cabin and vice versa.

The "no congregating in aisles and near lavatories" is the one that upsets me. My stepmother, having grown up in a dictatorship, finds this offensive. It is the exact language used by the repressive government when she was a teenager and young adult. "Why did I move to the United States?" she asks. I have never seen this rule enforced, and it has an unduly totalitarian tone. I think that the airlines could easily "break up a crowd" without announcing this "policy."

If these rules were actually institutionalized or legal requirements, why aren't they in the safety videos?

Furthermore, most passengers are unfamiliar with the "lavatory occupied" sign, so they just get up, unaware if the lavatories are in use. I can't blame them. That sign isn't always conspicuous.

The worst are the overzealous ad-lib security announcements. I've heard pilots say things to the effect of "If you see something, say something." Oh please. Passengers have long wised up to that one. It made it sound like the pilot was loading his gun, preparing for a fight.

Tel Aviv also has a "30-minute rule," which I have seen enforced by United and Delta after about 2007, but not by El Al. I've never seen it enforced (nobody is going to divert to Damascus). I always think they should say who came up with the idea. Is it Israeli law (like the additional gate screening for US to Israel flights?) Is it airline policy? Or is it of apocryphal origin?

I have always heard it on every US airline flying to the US, and I have seen the enforcement be exceptionally harsh and rapid.



Could you provide further details on the enforcement?

Yes, I watched a grey-haired woman come to the forward cabin on a United 777 from CDG to EWR. She was clearly going to talk to a family member. Two flight attendants came rushing out of the front galley and escorted her back to the "B" cabin. They scolded her in the process... it was a bewildering display of paranoia.

I suspect this 'rule' is franticly enforced on US carriers while European seem more relaxed about it.

Yes, I watched a grey-haired woman come to the forward cabin on a United 777 from CDG to EWR. She was clearly going to talk to a family member. Two flight attendants came rushing out of the front galley and escorted her back to the "B" cabin. They scolded her in the process... it was a bewildering display of paranoia.
The policy under discussion not withstanding, isn't there almost always a "sanctity of first class" rule in effect in terms of non first-class passengers "visiting"?

Could you provide further details on the enforcement?

Last year, i went to use the rear J lav. Someone in Y tried to rush in before me. FA told him, he had to use one of the coach lavs. The passenger argued that it was not a rule and would not turn back. FA ended up body blocking him (FA was a big guy) and forced him away from the lav. Didn't push him but due to his size the passenger had no choice but to move back.

What was really odd was after i exited the lav i noticed the FA brough the guy up front of J to speak with the purser. Not sure why the purser didnt go back to Y if it was such an issue with the guy coming into J.

I suspect this 'rule' is franticly enforced on US carriers while European seem more relaxed about it.

Unfortunately even non-US carriers announce this stupid "rule". Some of them are at least ok with premium class passengers visiting the lower cabin(s).

Two weeks ago, I flew from LHR to SEA on BA; I was in J, husband in Y. (I was flying on business...) I need a cane to walk and even then it is difficult right now due to broken ankle surgery. Unfortunately, somehow my pain meds ended up in my husband's carry-on where I couldn't get them. I was aware of the "stay in your cabin" rule so I asked one of the FA's if she could get my meds for me.

To my surprise, about ten minutes later my husband arrived at my seat, meds in hand. We chatted a minute or so, then he went back to steerage.

So, at least occasionally, common sense can override the rule.