Dr. HFH

Because unless the lavs on that particular aircraft were broken (in which case, perhaps it should have been taken out of service), it was nonsense. I have used lavs numerous times both before pushback and after landing without either probs or complaints from cabin crew.

FN-GM

So it turns out they are not taking the piss after all?

BearX220

Experience.

Any veteran flyer has seen cabin crews make up crazy "FAA regulations," nonexistent "cell phone signal detectors," fake assurances that "they know you're coming on the ground and they'll hold that connection for you," etc., etc. Cabin staff cultivate a rich culture of lies in order to pacify passengers, avoid difficult issues, or merely reduce their own workload. ("Sorry, the FAA prohibits me from serving coffee right now.") It is therefore reasonable to assume, when an FA claims a lav is unusable on the ground, that he or she is lying. If it was really inop for some technical reason, that would not be unheard of, but it would sure be a surprise. Spurious claims from FAs are anything but.

justhere

It's amazing how many people who weren't there and know little or nothing about how airplane lavatories work, know that the FA was BSing. Multiple assumptions, simple answer.

bse118

Exactly - the lavs were broken. Simplest and most-likely explanation.

I'd rather that the flight operate with lavs that work for the majority of flight; rather than cancel because they won't work for the short period of time the flight is on the ground.

(If the flight had cancelled because of this issue - we probably would have had a rant about AA cancelling a flight for lavs that wouldn't work on the ground)

Funny, I'm a "veteran flyer" and my experience tells me that if a FA says the lavs are INOP on the ground it's a maintenance issue.

Often1

Perhaps because OP did not ask why that was. The question was whether OP could use the lav and that did not call for a technical discussion which the FA wasn't qualified to deliver anyway.

Perhaps AA ought to equip its FA's with tablets which provide lengthy presentations on every aspect of carrier and aircraft operations and then stand there in the aisle with the passenger.

LarryJ

This is the procedure from the 737 minimum equipment list for an inoperative lavatory waste systems vacuum blower.

While some flight attendants may have significant technical knowledge, it is not a requirement for the job and many will not understand the "whys" behind a technical restrictions. The Captain will tell them about the restriction and that the lav doors must be locked on the ground and below 16,000' (the pilots are required to inform the F/As when the unlock then relock the doors in flight).

Passengers should not assume that an F/As inability to accurately explain a technical restriction is an indication of deception.

ATOBTTR

As was explained above in the thread, there are two different systems for flushing the lav. One is used on the ground. One is used once the aircraft is above 16,000 feet. The system that is used on the ground was broken so the lav will not be able to flush on the ground or until the aircraft was at a high enough altitude where the pressure differential system used to flush the lav would operate. But the lav will flush in the air once the other system is at an altitude where it can be used. I've been on flights where this has happened and we've been told we can't use the lav while the plane is on the ground or until we're above 16,000 ft.

Just because you don't understand or don't know something doesn't mean they're "BSing you" or that it's nonsense. This exact subject was debated in the DL forum about 1.5 years ago: Here’s A New One “the bathrooms do not work until 16,000 feet”

nikbruno

enviroian

Sounds like another example of another fought attendant pulling faux regulations out of their <bleep>.

ATOBTTR

Or it sounds like the pilots and FAs and MX crews actually know what they're talking about while passengers who think that just because they spend a lot of time on a plane that it must mean they know what they're talking about when they actually don't. Lavs have two systems for flushing. A vacuum pump for use on the ground and below ~16,000 feet and a system that uses a pressure differential to flush when the aircraft is above 16,000 ft. When the vacuum system that is used is broken, the lav won't flush properly on the ground. So the option is to not allow passengers to use the lav until the aircraft climbs to an altitude above the point where the pressure differential flushing system kicks in.

bse118

Sounds like another example of certain FTers wanting to rant...while ignoring reality and facts.

Did you read the thread? Plenty of completely rational and factual explanations for this...

ATOBTTR

Don't you know many FTers have flown millions of miles sitting in an ~31" by ~18" seat working on their laptop or watching movies or reading, so that time in the seat itself obviously makes them experts on the mechanics of how all the components on the aircraft that is on par with what the pilots, FAs, GA's, and MX techs who work on the plane and thus these FTers just know when pilots, FAs, GAs, and MX techs are lying about the technical aspects of the systems on the plane and operational aspects of running an airline?

gateH15

bse118

Easy: because you've never been on an aircraft that had this particular MX issue. It's uncommon - but it happens. Several other examples posted in this thread.

(Why have I driven several models of car but never had a tail light out?)