This nonsese was exactly the reason I wrote that letter to AA a few months back.

I welcome the new policy. Even if it is supposedly only for security purposes, I applaud it for allow me to use the damn restroom on S80s/737s!

-jd

---------------------------------------
Gee--I hope that I never get to the point sitting in an upgraded fc seat that I would begrudge anybody on the plane using the fc lav--

Doesn't sound like a very caring society when we get to that point....

:(

I don't think it's about begrudging anyone. It's more a matter of the situation the posted I replied to described: That FAs don't let you stand and wait by the lav, but the Y cabin use to line up at the barrier between F and Y meaning the second the F lav door opened the Y pax was already on their way up to use the lav.

There were times I would have to wait, as the other posted mentioned, 45 minutes for this nonsense to stop.

It wasn't like it was an "emergency pee" situation, these people were just too lazy to walk to the back!

-jd

----------------------------------------

OK--I wasn't on your flight so I cannot speak to the events that occurred. I have never had a flight where the overall usage of the lavatory by other passengers created a problem that I could tell--certainly not for me.

I just can't imagine a situation short of a lavatory just flat out being out of order where I would write a letter to an airline complaining about lavatory usage during a flight.

Ok, so does this mean the mile-high club has disbanded?? Wouldn't it be "congregating" if two were to slip into one lav?? What would happen in this case??

Just to put in my experiences, I have just finished a trip (PHX-LAX-JFK-LAX-PHX) on HP and never did I hear that announcement, or anything like it. Actually, it was not even mentioned like it used to be about the lavs in the back being for coach and one in first for the first class pax, like they used to make.

Uhm... Turbulance perhaps? :D

-----------------------------------------

Well--I know it was posted earlier in this thread about the whole cabin crossing thing being the LAW--but I would think something like that would be listed on either FAA or TSA websites like all those other restrictions that are listed for passengers.

Maybe its an interpretation of a rule--but I am still looking on line for this new "secret" rule about cross cabin urination.....

Well, there is always the "federal law states you must comply with all crew member instructions."

Pee in the back of the plane. It isn't safe when two or three people congregate up front. As a pax, it is a PITA to constantly hear the FA's remind people of this. I can't argue with this one too much.

Now, if they'd also get rid of the no Pee rule for 30 minutes out of DCA, that'd be good. They could keep it at 15 minutes for flights approaching DCA, but flights leaving? I'd like to hear the rationale on this one.

Congregating--whatever that means--isn't the question--its the "stay in your own cabin or else" part that I am shaking my head about---

I assume the 30 minute "no fly and pee" rule applies to fc as well as coach at DCA....?

Yes it does.

But not to flights out of Dulles. And funny thing is: on flights departing DCA northbound and headed northwest or west, you nearly always see Dulles airport out the window within 5 minutes of takeoff.

I decided to revive this subject, because every time I hear the obnoxious AA announcement claiming this "rule", it eats away at me a little more. The reason this has me so ticked off is not because I want to cross-cabin lavatory hop, but because I feel like I'm being lied to at the start of every single AA flight. For example:

The announcement is very carefully worded so that it's not directly attributable to a government agency, but rather implied. They might say "due to ongoing TSA safety concerns, passengers ticketed in the main cabin are required to use the restrooms in the main cabin..." So (in this example) it's not a TSA "rule" per se but rather that it's a "rule" related to "TSA safety concerns". The source for the "rule" changes with every flight as well. Sometimes the TSA is inferred, sometimes the FAA, sometimes AA policy, sometimes it's "flight regulations", etc.

However a recent flight from DFW to AUS on AA pushed me over the edge. First the pilot gets on and says the usual deal about how we can't use lavs outside our ticketed cabin due to "TSA regulations." Next, he adds that in fact, since the flight to AUS is so short that he'd prefer none of us to use the lavs at all and that we should stay in our seats the whole flight. About 5 minutes into the 27-minute flight, the FA announces that they have no running water on the plane and the *real* reason they don't want us using the lavs is because there is nothing to wash or flush with (although they have bottled water for pax to use in case of an emergency bathroom run).

The above experience frosted me so much that I actually decided to go for the really longshot odds and emailed the FAA and the TSA about this. Both agencies replied over a few days that they had no knowledge of any such rule forbidding the use of a lav outside a passenger's ticketed cabin.

So what I'd like to know is has anyone tested the above rule? Do we have the right to use a lav in another cabin assuming there is no line/congregation? What exactly are my rights to use another lav? Anyone have any additional insight or updates on this?

Thanks,
IAHRW

Isn't there always the catch-all rule: You have to follow the flight crew instructions. That's an FAA rule, IIRC, and they can always get you on that.

But I agree, it's a stupid rule and not all airlies have it (maybe it's just an AA rule, I don't know).

Flying AMS - IAD on KL, the pilot asked people not to congregate around the lavs or galleys. A friend flying SA, ATL-JNB was threatened with arrest when he waited for the lav in the galley area.

Next time you hear this is a TSA Regulation on a flight, ask the FA to give you the exact TSA Regulation reference. This usually floors them and they will rush off and ask the captain. That should be interesting.

I did this once on a Southwest Flight when the captain referred to a bogus FAA regulation in regards to not forming a line at the front lavatory. This caused the FA to go to the captain and she came back with some FAR references. When I looked them up they had nothing to do with not forming lines at the front lavatory. To my knowledge there is no such FAA regulation.

I think that some flight crews do not credit their passengers with any intelligence and think that mentioning the words TSA and/or FAA regulations allows them to say anything they choose, and we should all quake in our shoes.

Isn't there some FAA or Health and Human Services rule that forbids the dispatch of aircraft over a certain capacity that has no functioning heads?

I'd hate to be on the that DFW to AUS flight if something happened to cause the aircraft to be held on the tarmac away from stairs/jetways for many hours. Ask the NW board...it has happened!