A Tale of Two (U. S.) Carriers
 

Apologies if this has been covered already (elsewhere):

Carrier #1: Stern announcement: "For 'security reasons' no line my form by forward galley. If the lavatory is occupied, you must remain in your seat, or wait at the rear of First Class!"

Carrier #2: No announcement - no problem with waiting by the FC lav for the occupant to exit.


Is there one rule for all carriers? Or does DHS have different "standards"?

Southwest Airlines used to make an announcement similar to #1 above, and say it was a FAA Rule. I was on a flight a couple of years ago, and I asked the FA which FAR it referred to. After thumbing through her book, and then going to the flight deck crew, they could not find a FAR that referenced it.

Bottom line is that it is an airline announcement, pure and simple, and nothing more. Just more rhetoric to control the passengers.

I think the FAA rule might be the one that says you have to comply with crew member instructions. It's sort of like when your Mom said, "because I say so".

There is no such regulation...different carriers make up their own announcements based on their level of paranoia, and some crew members who should have found other jobs long ago due to their PTSD issue always make up their own "enhanced" announcement.

The TSA has a rule (more of a preference than a regulation) that passengers remain in their ticketed cabin during international flights inbound to the US - because everyone knows terrorists only fly on international flights inbound to the US :rolleyes:

If you're asked not to use the F lav, it is appropriate to follow that instruction due to the fact it should be reserved for F pax only as a service/product issue - but beyond that, you're free to wait in line for the lav, especially at the rear or center of the Y cabin.

Which carrier made announcement #1?

The carriers were AS (1) and DL (2).

Many months ago, I had already pissed off an AS crew by bringing up that a group of non-revs was allowed to hang out near the galley in their post-vacation civvies, being exempt of course as they were above reproach. When I pushed it as to the perception issue by the other passengers, the non-revs went back to their seats rather than risk the possibility of my writing to AS regarding their in-flight behavior of being "above" directives they were supposedly required to comply with.

Oh I figured it was AS - they are one of the more paranoid carriers and crews - like they think any terrorist actually knows what Alaska Airlines is, or would use one of their puny 737s to inflict damage :rolleyes:

They did that "don't form a line" thing when I was flying them between SEA and KOA - and of course we all formed lines anyway and they never said a word about it.

If a cabin crew member has that sort of thing occupying their mind to that extent, they need to find another position at the airline (like on the ground) or go find another career. Enough is enough with this silliness.

WN is very serious about enforcing this "no line at the front lavatory" rule.

A while back, I thanked an Alaska FC FA for not enforcing that stupid directive. She replied, "Honestly, I just can't be bothered."

They do get uppity about it.

Reason # 3,814 for not flying WN

Flew a UA flight this afternoon, where the purser announced that it was a UA and TSA rule for people to use the lavs in their ticketed cabins. After we got up to 38,000ft, the purser let a # of Y pax use the lav in F... :rolleyes:

On my last AS flight I was in Y, only a couple of rows back from the F cabin. When the FA's were in the aisle with service, I just got up and walked straight to the F lav, and went in.

It all depends upon the exact language in the carriers' FAA Part 121 Operating Certificates = different rules (nuances) for different airlines.

I would think Southwest and Alaska would be less risky, not more?

I don't think AS is on any terrorist's hit list, nor would any self-respecting terrorist be caught flying WN...so I'd say less risky too.