Inoperable Toilets on plane departing LHR
May 14, 2017, 8:05 am
#46
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Sin, HKG
Programs: SQ, BA CCR GGL
Posts: 626
Don't doubt you personally CiHY but I have had a policy of bringing in a bottle both to brush teeth and push down the bin contents. At the end of 13 hour flights the WCs are usually not in a great condition.
May 29, 2017, 6:07 pm
#47
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil and Porto, Portugal
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, LH FTL, FB Gold, LATAM Black Signature
Posts: 554
UPDATE FROM BA
So I got a call (!!) from BA regarding my complaint.
The lady said that they were indeed aware of the situation and that scores of people complained about it, which made them reach out to the department in question and check the file on what the CSD of the flight had described the situation to be like.
She pointed out that I was wrong about the number of toilets inoperable on the flight. It was not 2 toilets. It was actually FOUR toilets.
She said she agreed with me that it was dispicable to say the least, but the decision to fly the aircraft anyway was signed by someone very high up on BA and so they did.
They agreed I was more than right to complain, gave me the traditional 10,000 Avios recovery gesture and said that they had picked up my complaint to be sent to Management as it was the most itemized report of what went on during the flight - which means I might get contacted by BA again (righhhht, I am so expecting that).
BA apologists will say it is normal to operate a flight with half the lavs not working, right? ;-)
So I got a call (!!) from BA regarding my complaint.
The lady said that they were indeed aware of the situation and that scores of people complained about it, which made them reach out to the department in question and check the file on what the CSD of the flight had described the situation to be like.
She pointed out that I was wrong about the number of toilets inoperable on the flight. It was not 2 toilets. It was actually FOUR toilets.
She said she agreed with me that it was dispicable to say the least, but the decision to fly the aircraft anyway was signed by someone very high up on BA and so they did.
They agreed I was more than right to complain, gave me the traditional 10,000 Avios recovery gesture and said that they had picked up my complaint to be sent to Management as it was the most itemized report of what went on during the flight - which means I might get contacted by BA again (righhhht, I am so expecting that).
BA apologists will say it is normal to operate a flight with half the lavs not working, right? ;-)
May 30, 2017, 3:14 pm
#50
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,775
I think this aircraft was flying around for a week or so with this problem and the planners were trying their best to utilise it on routes with light loads as much as possible. If it's the aeroplane I think it is, there was a significant leak in the forward hold which would have required a stripdown to fix so the toilets' water supply was isolated. (This happens sometimes and has led on many occasions to the poor loading staff being falsely accused of piddling - or worse - in the hold!)
Whilst it may seem a long time on the ground, you have to remember 3 hours is required to turnaround the aeroplane (unload/load, clean, de-cater/cater, fuel) without carrying out any additional work. The engineers will have given an estimate of the time required to fix and the decision made to leave it until the next major overhaul (someone will have looked at the schedule and decided whether that's reasonable or not).
Sorry it was a horrible experience and a full flight - but I think it would have been worse to have cancelled it.
Whilst it may seem a long time on the ground, you have to remember 3 hours is required to turnaround the aeroplane (unload/load, clean, de-cater/cater, fuel) without carrying out any additional work. The engineers will have given an estimate of the time required to fix and the decision made to leave it until the next major overhaul (someone will have looked at the schedule and decided whether that's reasonable or not).
Sorry it was a horrible experience and a full flight - but I think it would have been worse to have cancelled it.
May 30, 2017, 8:21 pm
#51
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil and Porto, Portugal
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, LH FTL, FB Gold, LATAM Black Signature
Posts: 554
May 30, 2017, 8:25 pm
#52
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil and Porto, Portugal
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, LH FTL, FB Gold, LATAM Black Signature
Posts: 554
I think this aircraft was flying around for a week or so with this problem and the planners were trying their best to utilise it on routes with light loads as much as possible. If it's the aeroplane I think it is, there was a significant leak in the forward hold which would have required a stripdown to fix so the toilets' water supply was isolated. (This happens sometimes and has led on many occasions to the poor loading staff being falsely accused of piddling - or worse - in the hold!)
Whilst it may seem a long time on the ground, you have to remember 3 hours is required to turnaround the aeroplane (unload/load, clean, de-cater/cater, fuel) without carrying out any additional work. The engineers will have given an estimate of the time required to fix and the decision made to leave it until the next major overhaul (someone will have looked at the schedule and decided whether that's reasonable or not).
Sorry it was a horrible experience and a full flight - but I think it would have been worse to have cancelled it.
Whilst it may seem a long time on the ground, you have to remember 3 hours is required to turnaround the aeroplane (unload/load, clean, de-cater/cater, fuel) without carrying out any additional work. The engineers will have given an estimate of the time required to fix and the decision made to leave it until the next major overhaul (someone will have looked at the schedule and decided whether that's reasonable or not).
Sorry it was a horrible experience and a full flight - but I think it would have been worse to have cancelled it.
Even the ones that might have had issues, I think it is hard to picture one aircraft which would be more disruptive to passangers.
4 non-working toilets on a 12 hours flight.
May 31, 2017, 3:04 am
#53
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,775
It is very rare that we have spare aircraft, I assure you. When one goes tech, another is found by "stealing one from another service" and then cascading onwards. FT'ers may have heard the reason "waiting for first available aircraft" or "Late Inbound Aircraft" given as the reason for a delay when we're playing catch up. When the engineers announce the tech aircraft is fixed, then happy days - suddenly we have a spare!
May 31, 2017, 8:29 am
#55
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sao Paulo, Brazil and Porto, Portugal
Programs: AA Executive Platinum, LH FTL, FB Gold, LATAM Black Signature
Posts: 554
It is very rare that we have spare aircraft, I assure you. When one goes tech, another is found by "stealing one from another service" and then cascading onwards. FT'ers may have heard the reason "waiting for first available aircraft" or "Late Inbound Aircraft" given as the reason for a delay when we're playing catch up. When the engineers announce the tech aircraft is fixed, then happy days - suddenly we have a spare!