SceneStealer7

Just got off a Continental flight from STL to EWR that was none too fun. It certainly wasn't the worst flight ever (as I saw from the recent Gate post that some pax would try to claim), but just lots of little things made it unpleasant. Two hour delay due to ATC, rude FA who acted as if she was being forced to work this job at gunpoint, pax sitting next to me who reeked... unpleasant, but not awful.

However, the one thing that puzzled me was that after boarding but before the cabin door closed, the FA made an announcement: "if you want to use the lavatory, please do so at this time. We are going to be having a passenger sitting in front of the door for the duration of the flight."

Um, what? Didn't JetBlue recently get in a lot of trouble for allegedly having a pax sit in the lav? I realize this situation was sitting outside the lav and not on the toilet or something, but it still surprised me. Is this common practice and I just haven't flown enough to witness it before? And even assuming that someone didn't mind sitting in a jump seat in front of the lav, is it legal to tell all the other pax that they can't use the lav for what was supposed to be a two hour (but ended up being three because we got delayed again before landing) flight?

johnathome

Isnt this an RJ with the lavatory in the back. I've always hated this flight because it has been a RJ for a very long flight. However, I've never had them say that you cant use the bathroom. In fact, I dont think there is a seat or jumpseat that blocks the lavatory. The FA's seat is in front.

SceneStealer7

Yes, it is an RJ with the lav in the back. Once we took off, I glanced back, and saw that they had somehow set up a seat in front of the lav so that the last row went all the way across the back of the plane. It wasn't technically a jump seat but it looked like one - not sure how they set it up, and I was in row 10 so I didn't get a close look.

AMF in NJ

The PDA site shows that the evening STL-EWR flight was canceled, so I guess they added a seat to accommodate an extra passenger. I remember hearing that for every 50 pax there needs to be an FA, so with 51 now, was there an extra FA? I wonder what the FAA regs are in a situation like this since there was an extra passenger and the lav was closed. I'm sure the person in that seat was glad to get home though.

OPFlyer

I hope you write a letter to CO concerning this flight.

FlyHigh74

Im pretty sure there is an additional jumpseat that pulls out of the wall in front of the lav. The person traveling on it may have been an off-duty F/A or other crewmember so an additional F/A wouldn't be required.

pptp

Don't know what was going on with this particular flight but I can tell you that RJ's have a jumpseat that folds up and slides away behind the last row of seats.

This would be treated as any other FA jumpseat and wouldn't be occupied by a PAX.

Xyzzy

I've been on an ERJ with that last-row jump seat occupied. They can certainly fold it back up in-flight to let people use the lav. I'm rather shocked that they told you the lav would not be available. That's really not acceptable IMHO.

Spence1097

Just doesn't seem right, but again when you step into an airport and onto an aircraft you've given up a majority of your rights. Apparently this is now extending to our right to use the facilities. Ouch, you better learn to hold it, or just carry a few quarters when they install a vending system so you can just gain access to the lav, and that's of course if nobody is sitting in a special jump seat blocking your way.

JPirkle

I've been on numerous full EWR-CLT flights where the jump seat was used by a off duty f/a. They werent happy about it either but they always moved to the working f/a jump seat in the front after take off. Thereby freeing the lav for use. Then before landing the off duty f/a returns to the lav seat and the working f/a takes back the front jump seat.

LukeSkywaiter

As stated above, it was the extra F/A jumpseat. I don't understand why this was cause for denying the use of the lav, as it is not a chore at all to quickly stow the seat if the need arises.

SceneStealer7

I didn't see the extra person move up to the front, but I wasn't paying close attention. That makes sense with the extra jumpseat though - it's what it looked like, but I was confused as to how they had gotten it in front of the lavatory door.

However, the FA clearly told us that we would not be able to use the lav in flight because of the extra person. I took advantage of the opportunity she presented when we boarded, and then stopped in the terminal before heading home. Normally it wouldn't have been a problem for a three hour flight, but the two hour delay meant two extra hours for drinks at the airport

rsnash

I think I would have insisted I needed to use the bathroom an hour into the flight regardless. Just to see what they would do. Sure, it's being a PITA, but what are they going to do? Make a passenger pee their pants? Would the FA act like an annoyed Mommy?

"I told you to pee before we left!"

respond in whiny voice: "But I didn't have to go then!"

johnathome

Just imagine if there were real toddlers on board, this would have been a real scene.

tlhanger

That just could not of happen a few years ago with me. I had a real medical condition that I had to use the bathroom at least once every hour. It was a pain for me too. But I am not alone with this condition. Any pax that pays to go somewhere should not have to tell their medical condition to everyone.