daph
Dec 6, 05, 3:44 pm
Perhaps this article from the NY Times is on one of the FT forums but I couldn't find it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/business/06soff.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/06/business/06soff.html
Newsstand - Bathroom problems on American
View Full Version : Bathroom problems on American
daph
Dec 6, 05, 3:53 pm
Sorry, this article also first mentions UA!
WHBM
Dec 6, 05, 5:43 pm
The article seems to think the toilets become out of order due to some mechanical malfunction. This is actually quite rare.
The principal reason they are out of action is because the receiving sewage tank is full, and the reason for this happening is usually because the ground crews have not pumped it out completely, or at all, before departure.
The style of equipment normally fitted to aircraft nowadays shuts the facility down automatically as the tank approaches full. Of course, once one is out of service the others fill more rapidly than usual.
It's like running out of toilet paper in them too. That's simply because the airline has not provided enough to start with.
The principal reason they are out of action is because the receiving sewage tank is full, and the reason for this happening is usually because the ground crews have not pumped it out completely, or at all, before departure.
The style of equipment normally fitted to aircraft nowadays shuts the facility down automatically as the tank approaches full. Of course, once one is out of service the others fill more rapidly than usual.
It's like running out of toilet paper in them too. That's simply because the airline has not provided enough to start with.
SDF_Traveler
Dec 6, 05, 6:24 pm
Sorry, this article also first mentions UA!
Yikes, only two working lavs on a UA 747-400 from LAX-SYD about midway through the flight!
In many respects I believe the pilot should have diverted to NAN to get the situation fixed, but that may also put the crew over their hours and turn into an even bigger disaster depending on the nature of the problem and how long it would take to be fixed.
By the time the flight reaches NAN, you're still looking at about 4 hours to go, IIRC (I flew LAX-NAN-SYD back in the mid-90's when QF operated via NAN with a 743-Combi). With a good 4 hours to go and only two lavs on a 747-400, it is clearly insufficient given the size of the plane and the number of passengers on-board. On a flight of this length, it's also important to stay hydrated and drink lots of water (the human body dehydrates when in a cabin pressurized at 8000 ft with low humidity).
On the other side of the coin, there were probably passengers that wanted to get to SYD and on-time for connections. The UA flight from SFO to SYD continues onto MEL and it is timed to connect with LAX-SYD so passengers may connect to MEL. I believe it would have been in the best interest of the passengers and their health to divert to NAN to get the problem corrected.
In the case of AA, an INOP lav on an RJ would be a nightmare - especially on a longer RJ flight, but thankfully most RJ flights are short in duration (under 2 hours).
SDF_Traveler
Yikes, only two working lavs on a UA 747-400 from LAX-SYD about midway through the flight!
In many respects I believe the pilot should have diverted to NAN to get the situation fixed, but that may also put the crew over their hours and turn into an even bigger disaster depending on the nature of the problem and how long it would take to be fixed.
By the time the flight reaches NAN, you're still looking at about 4 hours to go, IIRC (I flew LAX-NAN-SYD back in the mid-90's when QF operated via NAN with a 743-Combi). With a good 4 hours to go and only two lavs on a 747-400, it is clearly insufficient given the size of the plane and the number of passengers on-board. On a flight of this length, it's also important to stay hydrated and drink lots of water (the human body dehydrates when in a cabin pressurized at 8000 ft with low humidity).
On the other side of the coin, there were probably passengers that wanted to get to SYD and on-time for connections. The UA flight from SFO to SYD continues onto MEL and it is timed to connect with LAX-SYD so passengers may connect to MEL. I believe it would have been in the best interest of the passengers and their health to divert to NAN to get the problem corrected.
In the case of AA, an INOP lav on an RJ would be a nightmare - especially on a longer RJ flight, but thankfully most RJ flights are short in duration (under 2 hours).
SDF_Traveler
tom911
Dec 6, 05, 11:29 pm
Perhaps this article from the NY Times is on one of the FT forums but I couldn't find it.
I posted this about 24 hours ago on Newsstand, and then it was reposted again this morning dy doc. Are you looking real hard? They're just a couple below yours. :D
I posted this about 24 hours ago on Newsstand, and then it was reposted again this morning dy doc. Are you looking real hard? They're just a couple below yours. :D