Sewage flows down aisles of trans-Atlantic flight
Jun 21, 2007, 11:00 am
#91
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Programs: UA Platinum MM; DL Silver; IHG Diamond Ambassador; Hilton Gold; Marriott Gold
Posts: 24,249
And you know this how? Quotes from at least two different passengers on the plane contradict your statement.
I share your skepticism that any passenger's health was put in imminent danger. Nevertheless, CO's decision to operate a flight with inoperative and overflowing lavatories was both unsanitary and created an uncomfortable situation for the passengers.
While it is possible, albeit improbable, that a latex glove carrying passenger is the culprit, I think it is far more likely that the glove was deposited in the toiled by one of the persons cleaning the plane, who if not directly employed by CO, are nonetheless hired agents of the airline.
But regardless of the source of the glove in the toiliet, it certainly is CO's responsibility to keep its planes and their lavatories in working order, especially after the diversion and overnight in SNN, which should have afforded CO ample opportunity to correct the problem.
There were many more options than that. Most obviously, CO could have solved the problem in SNN following the overnight diversion, rather than only diagnosing it upon arrival at EWR. Failing that, CO could have dispatched another aircraft to operate the remainder of the flight. Equally obvious, CO could have chosen to re-route the passengers on other airlines, rather than forcing them to spend seven hours on a flight with an inadequate number of working lavatories and an apparently disgusting and unsanitary condition of the cabin with overflowing toilets.
It appears from passengers on board that the passengers were made aware of the lack of toilets on the flight prior to take-off. If people were so offended they could have simply gotten off, asked for refunds and/or found alternative arrangements to their destinations. Nobody was put in a situation that risked infection or their lives; despite people's apparent lust for compensation and blood.
Of course CO didn't take responsibility. I has not been determined that it was anyone at CO's fault that a rubber glove was flushed down the loo.
But regardless of the source of the glove in the toiliet, it certainly is CO's responsibility to keep its planes and their lavatories in working order, especially after the diversion and overnight in SNN, which should have afforded CO ample opportunity to correct the problem.
While they made evey reasonable effort to remedy the situation, the option was given to either continue onto EWR with no toilets, or not go at all.
Jun 21, 2007, 11:07 am
#92
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Jersey City, NJ USA
Posts: 975
No need to waste time with manifests. Latex gloves should leave DNA and fingerprint evidence. This sounds like a job for.....CSI: Commode.
Jun 21, 2007, 11:33 am
#93
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
Jun 21, 2007, 11:51 am
#94
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
For your next apology for CO, I might suggest you at least make sure it matches the official company line.
Jun 21, 2007, 11:55 am
#95
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: HKG
Programs: Priority Club Plat
Posts: 12,311
Funny. CO is telling the newspapers that the problem was fixed and that it re-surfaced during the flight from SNN. Do they have no clue what happened or are they lying to the papers? Is either option really acceptable?
For your next apology for CO, I might suggest you at least make sure it matches the official company line.
For your next apology for CO, I might suggest you at least make sure it matches the official company line.
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....6&postcount=18
He says they were told the lavatories were not fixed when they boarded the flight next day.
Jun 21, 2007, 12:11 pm
#96
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
I would trust this 1st hand report from a FTer. This is posted here several days BEFORE the media got hold of the story:
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....6&postcount=18
He says they were told the lavatories were not fixed when they boarded the flight next day.
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....6&postcount=18
He says they were told the lavatories were not fixed when they boarded the flight next day.
Jun 21, 2007, 1:04 pm
#97
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 402
And you know this how? Quotes from at least two different passengers on the plane contradict your statement.
I share your skepticism that any passenger's health was put in imminent danger. Nevertheless, CO's decision to operate a flight with inoperative and overflowing lavatories was both unsanitary and created an uncomfortable situation for the passengers.
While it is possible, albeit improbable, that a latex glove carrying passenger is the culprit, I think it is far more likely that the glove was deposited in the toiled by one of the persons cleaning the plane, who if not directly employed by CO, are nonetheless hired agents of the airline.
But regardless of the source of the glove in the toilet, it certainly is CO's responsibility to keep its planes and their lavatories in working order, especially after the diversion and overnight in SNN, which should have afforded CO ample opportunity to correct the problem.
There were many more options than that. Most obviously, CO could have solved the problem in SNN following the overnight diversion, rather than only diagnosing it upon arrival at EWR. Failing that, CO could have dispatched another aircraft to operate the remainder of the flight. Equally obvious, CO could have chosen to re-route the passengers on other airlines, rather than forcing them to spend seven hours on a flight with an inadequate number of working lavatories and an apparently disgusting and unsanitary condition of the cabin with overflowing toilets.
I share your skepticism that any passenger's health was put in imminent danger. Nevertheless, CO's decision to operate a flight with inoperative and overflowing lavatories was both unsanitary and created an uncomfortable situation for the passengers.
While it is possible, albeit improbable, that a latex glove carrying passenger is the culprit, I think it is far more likely that the glove was deposited in the toiled by one of the persons cleaning the plane, who if not directly employed by CO, are nonetheless hired agents of the airline.
But regardless of the source of the glove in the toilet, it certainly is CO's responsibility to keep its planes and their lavatories in working order, especially after the diversion and overnight in SNN, which should have afforded CO ample opportunity to correct the problem.
There were many more options than that. Most obviously, CO could have solved the problem in SNN following the overnight diversion, rather than only diagnosing it upon arrival at EWR. Failing that, CO could have dispatched another aircraft to operate the remainder of the flight. Equally obvious, CO could have chosen to re-route the passengers on other airlines, rather than forcing them to spend seven hours on a flight with an inadequate number of working lavatories and an apparently disgusting and unsanitary condition of the cabin with overflowing toilets.
Plus I'll say it again. The plane was not disgusting and unsanitary. The original mishap happened on the AMS-SNN leg. Upon arrival in SNN they tried to fix the problem. The airline never flew again with working toilets so tell me after servicing the aircraft, the loos somehow overflowed yet again after departure from SNN and everyone had to sit in stink for 7 hours. Please enlighten me as to how that happened, despite the complete contrary in passengers statements?
I'm sure if someone on that plane demanded to get off, CO would have been accommodating and arranged for transportation on other carriers. They weren't trapped. The cleared EU customs and immigration to enter Ireland the night before so there was no reason for them to get on the plane with non working toilets if they didn't want to.
Finally accusing the cleaning crew of doing it with no evidence whatsoever, to point to CO culpability. Nice rebuttal
pbarnette,
At least your consistent in your disgust for CO. I'll take the first hand account over the Dallas Morning News. Perhaps the quote was wrong, perhaps the CO spokesman got it wrong. I don't know, but clearly anything that CO did would have been an unacceptable response from you. So why bother arguing.
Jun 21, 2007, 1:36 pm
#98
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
pbarnette,
At least your consistent in your disgust for CO. I'll take the first hand account over the Dallas Morning News. Perhaps the quote was wrong, perhaps the CO spokesman got it wrong. I don't know, but clearly anything that CO did would have been an unacceptable response from you. So why bother arguing.
At least your consistent in your disgust for CO. I'll take the first hand account over the Dallas Morning News. Perhaps the quote was wrong, perhaps the CO spokesman got it wrong. I don't know, but clearly anything that CO did would have been an unacceptable response from you. So why bother arguing.
As for what would be an acceptable response: CO could issue something better than a half-a**ed non-apology (I would even take a half-a**ed apology), have the decency to get their story straight, offer some meaningful compensation other than vouchers (such as a full refund for all passengers), and not engage in crass behavior like offering one passenger $500 and another $110, such that it reeks of trying to spend as little as possible. I would hardly characterize this as anything too onerous. Indeed, it seems like basic damage control to me.
And finally, what is with all this discussion about "I'm sure if someone on that plane demanded to get off, CO would have been accommodating and arranged for transportation on other carriers."? I have seen no mention of this option being offered to any passengers, including in your preferred first-hand account. Indeed, that post mentioned contradictory statements from CO, and that the word that the loos were indeed out of service was provided relatively late in the game, close to boarding. Moreover, I would have to guess that, if CO did provide the option of alternate travel, they would have made sure this was mentioned in their responses to the media. And, if offered this, I'm sure someone would have accepted, yet again, there is no mention of this anywhere.
* This is not meant to impugn the credibility of the poster with the first-hand account, just draw attention to a choice of sources that doesn't pass the muster of middle-school forensics.
Jun 21, 2007, 4:37 pm
#99
Join Date: Nov 2006
Programs: AAdvantage EXP
Posts: 1,482
****OFF TOPIC
It's part of our litiginous society. If the bathroom overflowed while you were hosting a dinner party, what would you do? (a) cancel the party? (b) fix the problem? (c) make light of it? (d) offer $50 bucks to each offended guest?
What does everyone want...a 100% guarantee 100% of the time? Would you be willing to offer that in your own life?
*****RETURN TO TOPIC
It's part of our litiginous society. If the bathroom overflowed while you were hosting a dinner party, what would you do? (a) cancel the party? (b) fix the problem? (c) make light of it? (d) offer $50 bucks to each offended guest?
What does everyone want...a 100% guarantee 100% of the time? Would you be willing to offer that in your own life?
*****RETURN TO TOPIC
The difference between this and a dinner party at my house (apart from the excellent food served at simongr house 
) is that I dont charge people for dinner at my house.I agree that we do live in an overly litigious society and I dont think anyone should be sueing CO for millions as the impact on them personally would in most instances not have a million $ cost for them.
Jun 21, 2007, 9:50 pm
#100
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: CLE
Programs: CO Gold - 1MM, IC Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 1,644
More Leno jokes on this tonight.....
He reported COs new slogan..."There's something fecal in the air"
I am extremely surprised CO marketing or mngmt has not tried to control this better with a response of full refunds to the pax (no matter whats true or not) or some other announcement. This is getting out of hand IMHO.
He reported COs new slogan..."There's something fecal in the air"
I am extremely surprised CO marketing or mngmt has not tried to control this better with a response of full refunds to the pax (no matter whats true or not) or some other announcement. This is getting out of hand IMHO.
Jun 22, 2007, 5:46 am
#101
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles, California
Programs: United, American, Delta, Hyatt, Hilton, Hertz, Marriott
Posts: 14,805
Jun 22, 2007, 6:05 am
#102
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: lax
Posts: 3,888
None of the cabin crew wants to wade through that **ite during a flight, so you can look elsewhere.
Jun 22, 2007, 6:10 am
#103
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: JZRO
Posts: 9,169
Much a Doo Doo About Nothing
Jun 22, 2007, 8:11 am
#104
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Finally back in Boston after escaping from New York
Posts: 13,644
Okay, could the doctors please stop posting now? I'm afraid to eat, go outside, get on an airplane, etc. 
Mike
Mike
Well, first of all, let me say that the situation that occured is highly disgusting, and I hope it never happens again. They [all airlines] need to take a really hard look at ways to prevent incidents such as these from happening.
As for "becoming ill", my degree is in microbiology, so I'll share my opinions/thoughts:
-- urine is 100% sterile, and can not cause illness whatsoever (even if drank, which some people actually claim is a health benefit); except for people with UTIs or blood in it; and actually being exposed to an open wound or sore
-- just for reference as well, even if some amount of pathogenic bacteria (or viruses, or even HIV) enter an open sore, and get into your blood, the one-time risk of becoming infected/catching something is also low
-- when flying and in close proximity to a large number of people in a plane, you are exposed to many viruses and bacteria that are capable of transmission just by breathing. You can't breath in fecal matter.
-- unless you have an open wound, and/or ingest orally, large amounts of fecal matter, it probably won't cause illness anyway. Again, even if it were ingested orally and/or in an open wound.
-- small amounts of fecal matter are often found in anything and ingested daily by the majority of the population. Even rat fecal matter in your flour (there's a ppm allowance)
-- getting anything on intact skin won't allow bacteria to enter your blood stream
-- the vast majority of bacteria in fecal matter is harmless and would not make you ill anyway, even if ingested. The risk is very low. This would be E. coli, which is counted in the lab by CFUs, to measure the amount of fecal matter in a substance (pond, ocean, whatever); the vast majority of these strains are not pathogenic either. There could be some other parasites or what not, but you'd have to literally be playing with the raw sewage [AND actually get ill]
-- the most illness that almost anyone could claim would be mental, from having to deal with the smell/stress/anxiety of becoming ill. I would say the probability of someone getting sick *specifically* because of this incident is lower than a meteor hitting CO's headquarters in Houston.
Crap happens, and thankfully from what I've read, most people on the flight understood it and dealt with it. There's really no need for "millions" of dollars of lawsuits. It was a pain in the butt to deal with, for sure, but not really a public health risk of extremes that some arbitrarily assume.
As for "becoming ill", my degree is in microbiology, so I'll share my opinions/thoughts:
-- urine is 100% sterile, and can not cause illness whatsoever (even if drank, which some people actually claim is a health benefit); except for people with UTIs or blood in it; and actually being exposed to an open wound or sore
-- just for reference as well, even if some amount of pathogenic bacteria (or viruses, or even HIV) enter an open sore, and get into your blood, the one-time risk of becoming infected/catching something is also low
-- when flying and in close proximity to a large number of people in a plane, you are exposed to many viruses and bacteria that are capable of transmission just by breathing. You can't breath in fecal matter.
-- unless you have an open wound, and/or ingest orally, large amounts of fecal matter, it probably won't cause illness anyway. Again, even if it were ingested orally and/or in an open wound.
-- small amounts of fecal matter are often found in anything and ingested daily by the majority of the population. Even rat fecal matter in your flour (there's a ppm allowance)
-- getting anything on intact skin won't allow bacteria to enter your blood stream
-- the vast majority of bacteria in fecal matter is harmless and would not make you ill anyway, even if ingested. The risk is very low. This would be E. coli, which is counted in the lab by CFUs, to measure the amount of fecal matter in a substance (pond, ocean, whatever); the vast majority of these strains are not pathogenic either. There could be some other parasites or what not, but you'd have to literally be playing with the raw sewage [AND actually get ill]
-- the most illness that almost anyone could claim would be mental, from having to deal with the smell/stress/anxiety of becoming ill. I would say the probability of someone getting sick *specifically* because of this incident is lower than a meteor hitting CO's headquarters in Houston.
Crap happens, and thankfully from what I've read, most people on the flight understood it and dealt with it. There's really no need for "millions" of dollars of lawsuits. It was a pain in the butt to deal with, for sure, but not really a public health risk of extremes that some arbitrarily assume.
Well, from a medical standpoint...the treated wastewater had almost as many microbes as the pillow, the seat and the armrests...not to mention the personal TV units in BF. Another hyped story that misses the whole point. They can't report on real stuff (too boring)...they have to go for the "scary" stuff.
Like anything to do with aviation...the more sensational the media can make it..they run with it.
If the media REALLY wanted to do us a favor...they'd find something frightfully dangerous and sensational about 17.2 inch wide seats with 31 and 32 inch pitches on flights over 30 minutes.
I can assure you ..as a physician...that more people were inconvenienced health wise by the seat pitch and the arm rests than the "raw sewage".
Final question.....How many people on that plane could pass a lie detector test stating that they washed their hands after going to the bathroom anyway?!?
Like anything to do with aviation...the more sensational the media can make it..they run with it.
If the media REALLY wanted to do us a favor...they'd find something frightfully dangerous and sensational about 17.2 inch wide seats with 31 and 32 inch pitches on flights over 30 minutes.
I can assure you ..as a physician...that more people were inconvenienced health wise by the seat pitch and the arm rests than the "raw sewage".
Final question.....How many people on that plane could pass a lie detector test stating that they washed their hands after going to the bathroom anyway?!?
Jun 22, 2007, 8:20 am
#105
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: DEN
Programs: UA MM Plat; AA MM Gold; HHonors Diamond
Posts: 15,866
Hey all...read post 36 (at least) here:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...=703775&page=3
Seems like an awful lot of wailing and gnashing in this thread.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...=703775&page=3
Seems like an awful lot of wailing and gnashing in this thread.