No congregating by the Lavs
 

:confused: <rant> so after sitting through an all-too-standard "passengers must not congregate in vicinity of the lavatories" announcement, I thought to myself "why not?!"

a) because it keeps us pax safe (me in seat with seatbelt fastened)?
b) because it makes FAs nervous?
c) because the reinforced cockpit door is all too penetrable?
d) because there are already terrorists/evil-doers on board, they just haven't figured out who they are!?

not too big of a deal on a 2 hour domestic, but it's always nice to get out of my seat on a long and all-too-boring overwater segment. </rant>

There is nothing, NOTHING worse than this announcement. As much as I hate the frisking and the shoe carnival, this announcement makes my blood boil.

We are supposed to live in a democracy. My family members fled dictatorships to live in the United States because of rules like these.

One of my relatives from South America got very upset after hearing this announcement. She spoke with great emotion about her memories of being forbidden to "congregate" on her college campus.

Whether the rule is enforced or not, it is blatently un-American.

Many airlines have had the common sense to skip the announcement. It is time for the others to do the same.

An airline with respect for its passengers could still reserve the right to ask passengers to take their seats, but would offer a legitimate concern such as unexpected turbulence or interference with cabin service.

And we have the DHS/TSA to thank for this announcement. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Many flight crews are skipping it now a days, but I still hear it every once and awhile, in particular on overwater Intl flights w/US carriers.

SDF_Traveler

Southwest are the ones that I have noticed are anal about this, although they indicate that they can be no line outside the front lav and you must sit down until the front lav is free before you can approach it to use. They used to say it was a FAA regulation, but once when I asked a FA for the FAR that this rule pertained to, she could not find it and neither could the captain. They gave me some FARs that were not relevant to this particular announcement, so I guess it is not really a FAA regulation but a WN rule. On a couple of flight a week ago, I noticed that they had dropped this being a FAA regulation in their announcements.

I think that the whole thing is dumb, but don't forget what kind of society we live in this days - paranoia created by our elected officials in Washington.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Having flown back on AA from DFW to LGW yesterday, we did get the announcement, which really irritates me as well, the only thing i noticed was the captain making it clear he was forced to say it, and clearly not really meaning it.

Picture this. You are sitting in the middle of the plane and ya gotta go! So you wait as instructed for a PAX to come out so you can go. But faster and closer PAX rise up and take your turn.

We didn't have to even do this in kindergarten! I don't care, I am waiting by the lav!

So did i and many others and no flight attendant said a word!!

Whatever happened to that looney woman who thought that because Arab types were going to the loo & speaking a foreign language that they must be terrorists making a bomb?

I agree with everything you wrote, except this...Actually the United States is a Representative Republic. This is not a small difference, and it is essential to the peoples attitude regarding their government. I'm not griping at you, as nearly EVERYONE thinks the US is a Democracy, because that's what they were taught. Rather it is a gripe about the sad state of our educational establishment, that intentionally refuses to tell the truth about the founding principles of our nation.

Otherwise you are correct. It is an absolute outrage, and should NOT be tolerated by a free people.

...and to the Republic for which it stands...

"Terror in the Skies: Why 9/11 Could Happen Again"
 

But of course...she's written a book!

And she'll be happy if you buy a copy today!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846

I would really appreciate this announcement whenever I'm in seat 35C/H on UA 744. Exit row is great, but I DO mind people stepping on my foot. :p

Unless there the abridgement of such a right is necessary to serve a compelling government interest, and the least restrictive method is used. :D

Anyways, I'm annoyed at the fact that it's now a "TSA Requirement" that pax must use the lavs in their designated cabins. Is it really a TSA Reg?

I'm sorry, but if I'm in 10A (front row of Y may vary), and the rear lavs are taken, and I have an "in-flight emergency," I'm headed towards the F lav, plowing over the self-entitled F pax who challenges me :D

Snopes says it's false

Undercover federal air marshals on board a June 29 Northwest airlines flight from Detroit to LAX identified themselves after a passenger, "overreacted," to a group of middle-eastern men on board, federal officials and sources have told KFI NEWS.

The passenger, later identified as Annie Jacobsen, was in danger of panicking other passengers and creating a larger problem on the plane, according to a source close to the secretive federal protective service...

...The source said the air marshals on the flight were partially concerned Jacobsen’s actions could have been an effort by terrorists or attackers to create a disturbance on the plane to force the agents to identify themselves.

Sounds like the gene pool needs a little extra chlorine... :p

Seriously... Ms. Jacobsen needs to be put on the "no-fly list" herself. How typical of a "cry wolf" situation is this?!

I’ve noticed this too. My travels lately have been divided between DL and WN. Never hear the lav announcement on DL and ALWAYS hear it on WN.
My take on the no lines at the lav thing is that it’s pilot driven at least on WN. I notice that the pilots many times repeat the warning just after the FA’s have already announced it.
I’m thinking the pilots want to be able to jump into the lav....although they’re not supposed to be leaving the cockpit.....without having to deal with a long line.
They used to turn on the seat belt sign to free up the lav. Nowadays it’s the “no lines at the lav” law.

Maybe, the "authorities" will decide to hand out a fixed amount of bathroom passes like in some schools. :eek: (... and then the games and fights over the "passes" begin. :D ) And how long until there is a ticketing system for plane bathrooms? Take your number and wait your turn in your seat? And if you don't get in there fast enough and lock the door X seconds after your number is displayed/announced, then you're out of luck.

AA and NW still have at least some pilots making the lock-down-type announcements. Outside of the US, I never have to put up with this.

Do the cockpit or cabin crew play games with the seatbelt announcements in order to lockdown the plane or bathroom faster?

I honestly believe that pilots leave the seatbelt light on longer than necessary to lockdown the plane. I also think that on shorter flights by doing this, at least on DL, they avoid the FAs having to do their drink service. I doubt any airline personnel will confess to this, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it usually is a duck.

I think the requirement to comply with crewmember instructions (part 135.117) would cover this ,as it is an instruction related to the perceived safety of the plane. Whether you agree with it or not, it is a reasonable request IMHO.

- Tim

I've ignored the seatbelt light ever since it became obvious that it doesn't mean anything. Evidence:

- They tell you to have your seat buckled when you are sitting regardless.
- They never stop you when you have to go to the lavatory when it is on.

Seatbelt indicators are just pretty lights. They don't mean anything any more.

So true, so often. Unfortunately this bad habit of not turning off the seatbelt indicator has been taken to a new art form by at least one Alitalia crew. When they are doing food service, they make sure that the light is on. They do the same thing to keep the forward bathroom for themselves after they unlock it (which sometimes only happens after the resting crew or the occassional AZ equivalent of a "FAM" gets in there to change into/out of pajamas first).

It is not at all reasonable. At least not until the FA starts to hand out lavatory passes. I would hate to be in a cabin if everybody followed this stupid rule. Can you imagine the smell?

Maybe they should have an onboard security checkpoint near the washrooms. It's annoying if you have to go through secondary just to go to the bathroom, but--well--it's all in the name of security.

I think it would then be appropriate to have another checkpoint required to re-enter the cabin.

If anything, the checkpoint will serve as a deterrent to those who might consider standing up, walking, or using the bathroom on a commercial flight.

Wouldn't be the first time people stripped for "screening" in the lav...

I can see both sides of the point of not having a line at the lavs. Maybe it isn't a security issue afterall.

On one hand, when you have to go, you have to go. Not only is it not easy to run down an airplane aisle, it would also probably cause some attention. Definitely better to be able to stand near the lav and wait your turn.

On the other hand, how long of a line is too long? Two people, four people, a half dozen? Look at from the passenger who is sitting in the aisle seats near the lav point of view. When you are sitting, you are basically at rear-end level. Do you you want someone's butt in your face continually throughout your flight? Especially if they are having bathroom issues. Also, there is the hair pulling. Not that this is done intentionally, but people seem to place their hands on seat tops which inadvertently causes hair pulling, which is also something that doesn't make for a very pleasant flight.

While you are sorta on target, nearly all commercial airplanes in the USA are operated under part 121, not part 135.

My question is, Who likes standing by the lav's? There is nothing inviting, or pleasant about it. I would rather sit like a jack in the box, ready to "spring" up and take my chances being beat to the punch than stand next to that foul, odor producing, "blue fog" area. Of course it could be those same people who I see running up the aisle very quickly and happily in their bare feet, or socks are the same ones who love to "congregate" up there. :p

Just a little levity.

When you are seated in the middle of the middle on a 777 or a 767 there is no "spring up" and go to the lav. You line up or you will forever miss your chance. And after an 11 hour flight, it's going to be wet and smelly.

Oh get over yourself already, Congress/TSA has nothing to do with it. It's a private airline, they own the planes and they get to make the lav rules. If you don't like the no congregating rule, don't fly on that airline...vote with your wallet.

I agree with gofast. Your right to assemble has absoulutely zero merit when you are on someone's private property. In this case an airliner owned by a company. I am sure in the little print somewhere (or even the caveat in the safety video/announcement that say's to listen to the flight crew's instructions) that a passenger has to abide by what the airline decides they want done on their aircraft.

Having been around aviation for awhile (even pre 9-11) I know that FAA Flight Standards and or Cabin Crew inspectors would be all over this if it was a reg and airlines were hit and miss with it. As a FAM I fly all the airlines, and I can say that not every airline delivers this message.

The problem is not with the airline making the rules; the problem is with the airline falsely claiming that it is a TSA rule. Airlines love to do this -- they blame it on security, they blame it on the FAA, they blame it on the TSA -- all to make someone else take the blame for their irrational policies and to cow passengers into meek compliance.

Moo. (Translation - I totally agree.)

Do not see the safety issue of standing by the loo - - but on the times I had those exit row seat in Y I wish that floks were not milling around bumping into my feet. I think there is a BIG issue with 'rules' and their enforcement. I do most of my travel outside the usa and would love to see people made to sit in their seats until the plane stops taxiing - Often wonder why airlines do not restrict or ban travels who cannot or will not follow rules. Granted some rules seem unwarranted, but when you purchase a ticket are you not entering into a 'contract' to abide by the rules of the carrier?
I think planes would be a good place to try to bring civility and courtesy back into travel and everyday life. Heck - if travellers behaved better, maybe service from FA's would improve as a result?

I don't especially like passengers milling about the galleys or exit rows either. That's not the problem.

I think that the airlines can deal with their concerns with subtlety and class. If a crew member is irritated that passengers are milling around, he or she can politely ask passengers to take their seats because they're getting in the way. That would be an appropriate and sensible statement.

Instead, the airlines have the nerve to use security as a crutch... a justification for just about any action.

I would be much more open to a flight attendant who said, "You know, we would prefer if you didn't walk through the galley. It's kind of like our 'office,' so we like to keep this space to ourselves." That would be an honest, polite, and sincere statement. Leave security out of it--it's condescending and unwelcome.

I'm sure you would be nice to a flight attendant. But you will inevitably come across those that state "I pay your salary, I can walk anywhere I want". Since everyone will not listen to reason, the rules have to be uniform for everyone.

But they aren't. On a flight last week, I saw a well-dressed man go up and wait by the lavatory, chatting with the FA. A half hour later, a woman went up and she was given the "no congregating message" and returned to her seat.

I saw much the same this week too. FA tells passengers waiting for the restroom to not congregate and return to their seats. A bit later, a different "bunch" of passengers show up in the same place doing the same thing but are chatting with the FAs. No mention of the "no congregating" rule.

It's all like the headrest rule, arbitrarily set and applied.

I actually inquired with a pilot about the no congregating announcement when it first came into place post-flight. He told me it was a TSA/DHS thing and they're wanting all airlines which fly into the US to do this. At about the same time I recall reading an article about Qantas not being happy with the mandate & not wanting to enforce it.

As such, I don't know how TSA/DHS "official" it is being that some do this, some don't. I find it most often when on a US carrier taking a flight back to the United States these days; announcement is always made from the flight deck (pilots) and not the FA's -- just as the pilot would always make the "no pee" (standup) announcement prior to pushback out of DCA on my few DCA flights.


SDF_Traveler