AS Flyer

Your posts are demeaning to FA's. FA's use their brains every day when dealing with people, such as yourself, who think rules are stupid and should only apply if you understand them. It takes a certain amount of brains to be able to stay one step ahead of the likes of you. Common sense is great, but rules are in place for reasons that aren't always apparent but still exist for good reasons. Some rules could probably be reevaluated but I'd rather take the word of the FAA then Joe Schmoe on the street who just doesn't particularly think the rules should apply to them.

soccerpapi

Can you please clarify Alaska Airlines policy regarding use of the First Class lavatory?

Thank you.

soccer

MagicCarpetRider

I can't quote policy, but this is what I know.

On Flights to/from Mexico or Canada, you must use the lav in the cabin in which you are seated in (TSA Directive). All other flights, it is suggested you use the lav in the cabin in which you are seated in (AS Policy). At no time can a line form at the FC Lav (I assume TSA). Line must start at Row 6 (fuzzy on origin.. TSA??).

FAA is more concerned about accessibility, smoking, fire protection, oxygen systems, and carry on's in Lavs (yes, carry-on's).

TSA will be handling security issues in this area. It would fall under TSA Directives and those can change often, depending on security threats.

AS Flyer

The policy specifically says that main cabin customers are requested to use the lavatory in the cabin of their seat assignment. It does not say required. and for the record, I'm all for the lav up front being much more exclusive. I should not that it is an Alaska Airlines policy, not an FAA policy or TSA policy, except in the case of inbound international flights, in which case it is TSA policy.

TennisNoob

Looking at the AS seat maps, it's kind of hard not to use the forward cabin's Bathroom when there isn't one in front of the main cabin.

makfan

** when the cart is in the aisle.

The rest of the time, you are requested to trek to the back per the airline's policy (and required to do so in inbound international flights per the TSA). Many other airlines only have lavatories in the back of the main cabin (American's 738s and MD80s come immediately to mind, as well as their new 321 transcon.)

By the way, while some of the procedures and policies are annoying, just read a couple of NTSB accident reports, where they talk about how the seats performed in such a way to minimize head injuries, or someone's seatbelt did this or that, etc, etc and maybe you will be more tolerant of having to put your seat in the upright position even when you are in the last row. You absolutely hope it never matters, but every once in a while it truly does. In the recent OZ 214 report, it appears had everyone worn their seatbelt, there might have been only 1 fatality (someone was hit in the head by the L4 door when it broke off). There were no permanent paralysis cases despite spinal fractures. Etc. Etc.

s0ssos

I disagree. TSA makes all these rules. Do you take them on blind faith?

I guess it depends on whether you believe in the government, that they "know best". I don't see why I should. If stuff doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense. Rarely is it cause somebody has a good reason that nobody knows about. More commonly it is cause there is no good reason and they don't want anybody to know that.

s0ssos

It always depends on how you take things. To keep everybody absolutely safe maybe they should put parachutes on airplanes. So when they get shot down (which apparently does happen) the people who can get out can survive.

Edgerfly

CDKing, with all due respect you came in the middle of a conversation and do not understand the context. Some others were arguing on pages 4-5 that a line at row 3 or 1 should be acceptable for the lavatory.

I was stating I thought it was a security risk, and a disservice to those sitting in FC.

SamuelS

TSA does not make all the rules, most of the "rules" relating to aircraft safety are FARs issued by the FAA. However specific to the bathroom issue, yes - there is a guideline from the TSA that on international flights arriving into the United States, passengers be advised to use the lavatory in their ticketed cabin only.

If you don't like the rules, then I guess - don't fly (or be prepared for the consequences). If you don't want to wear your seatbelt in your car - then don't drive (or be prepared to face the consequences). There are many laws or regulations pertaining to everything from air travel to driving and beyond, and I guess as part of a civilised law-abiding society we generally abide by them!

When it comes to the FARs though - these really are primarily for legitimate safety reasons. Such as - let's not have folks use the bathroom while the airplane is taxiing as the aircraft could make sudden movements, turns or stops which could cause someone to be injured, an issue that another poster made mention of up-thread here.

Put a different way, if you were driving down the road even at relatively low speeds such as 30mph, would you have your child not seat belted in?

The UK DOT indicates that “An unrestrained back seat passenger can kill the driver by slamming into the back of their head. - In a crash at 30mph, if you are unrestrained, you will hit the front seat, and anyone in it, with a force of between 30 and 60 times your own body weight.”

These regulations aren't in place to inconvenience people for the pure folly. There's usually sound safety reasoning behind them. As someone whom worked in aviation - including inflight safety - for several years in a previous life, I'm pretty familiar with most of the FARs and the reasoning behind them. There's actually very little that doesn't make sense when you understand the reasoning behind them. A common one is having your seat back in the upright position for landing. If quick egress in an evacuation is required, seats reclined can significantly impede the egress of passengers in the row behind. In addition, passengers behind a fully reclined seat would find it harder to adopt the recommended brace position. The list goes on, yet people scoff at the perceived FA "pettyness" for enforcing these types of rules, or - as suggested in a previous post - believe that the FAs don't have a brain for enforcing them.

I'm sorry if you don't trust "The Government" and/or that you think there is some secret conspiracy here.

thumbelina

I was mis"quoted"

I merely applauded the flight attendant for knowing the rules and where they stood and checking with the captain to be certain his interpretation of the rules held ie, seatbacks absolutely must be up and locked in the upright position IF
there is a passenger in the seat behind.

He used his "noggin" or common sense as someone else noted, obviously having studied the rules well, understanding why they were necessary for safety (the reason you gave) and realized that they did not hold if no passengers were in the row behind (the row consisted of two seats, neither occupied so there was noone who couldn't assume the correct position or get out of the aisle if needed in case of evacuation.

Even then, he did not take it upon himself to "go by the book," but showed the book (literally) to the pilot and got the pilot's take on it and his approval.

AS Flyer

What rules does the TSA make outside of security related rules? None, that's how many. Very few security rules actually directly affect you as a passenger once on board as far as that goes. The FAA makes up the vast majority of the rules pertaining to passengers on board and no, I don't take them on blind faith. During training we are given the background behind many of the rules so that we better understand why, for instance, your tray needs to be up for take-off and landing or why you should be belted in during take-off and landing or why the garbage cans are all required to have flaps that close on every airplane or why airplanes are still required to have ash-trays, despite smoking being not allowed on any U.S. airline. There's a reason behind every rule. You don't have to agree with the logic but, at least in the case of the FAA, there are extensive studies that stand behind that logic.

beckoa

Wirelessly posted (beckoa's BB: Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9810; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.11+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/7.1.0.694 Mobile Safari/534.11+)

Wow I didn't realize ash trays were still required. What is that for if you don't mind me asking?

alphaeagle

It's so if someone does decide to smoke anyway, they have somewhere to put it that doesn't contain flammable materials.

As for having your seatback in the upright position, it's not only for evacuation purposes. It's also because you have the best chance of survival/avoiding injury in the event of a crash when they are upright. They were designed that way. Some seat designs do allow reclining for takeoff and landing. I'm not sure if Virgin America first class seats are one of them, but most likely are if they allowed it.

SamuelS

In part, if someone were to be found to be smoking, there's an approved disposal mechanism.