United: 4 toilets for 200+ economy passengers???
Jul 25, 2012, 1:36 pm
#46
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Southern, CA, USA
Programs: UA just 8800 mi short of Silver
Posts: 2,815
I forget which plane and airline I was on, but I chased a First Class passenger out of economy who wanted to use the lav (lav was in front of coach but behind the curtain)
Maybe you can get a free Depends if you pay $8 for the snack box
You also need to man up and tell the FA to get out of your way if its that urgent
Maybe you can get a free Depends if you pay $8 for the snack box
You also need to man up and tell the FA to get out of your way if its that urgent
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jul 25, 2012 at 2:07 pm Reason: merge
Jul 25, 2012, 2:40 pm
#47
Join Date: Apr 2012
Programs: United 1K, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 835
Unfortunately, you are correct. Quite a few years ago when I worked for FAA Medical, our group was tasked with determining the adequate/safe number of lavs for airliners...especially those flying on long intercontinental routes. Our studies indicated that there were not enough on most airlines...our recommendation (if I remember correctly
)was for the minimum of one lav for every 40 passengers. The airline industry caught wind of this study and applied tremendous pressure on the FAA and Congress to quash the study and report...which the FAA did!
When there was the CAB and the FAA, one agency was tasked with promoting aviation and the other with regulating it. Now we have one agency (FAA) responsible for both...can we say "conflict ..
)was for the minimum of one lav for every 40 passengers. The airline industry caught wind of this study and applied tremendous pressure on the FAA and Congress to quash the study and report...which the FAA did! When there was the CAB and the FAA, one agency was tasked with promoting aviation and the other with regulating it. Now we have one agency (FAA) responsible for both...can we say "conflict ..
Jul 25, 2012, 3:14 pm
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
6 lavs for 328 pax means 1 lav per 54 pax. That ratio is only slightly worse than the UA 764 with 1 lav per 50 pax.
Far worse is the UA 738, with 2 lavs for 144 pax, or 1 lav per 72 pax.
Of course, the 738 doesn't do TATL or TransPac, but it does plenty of 6-hour + Transcons or Hawaii flights which as no fun at all if you ever need to go...
Far worse is the UA 738, with 2 lavs for 144 pax, or 1 lav per 72 pax.
Of course, the 738 doesn't do TATL or TransPac, but it does plenty of 6-hour + Transcons or Hawaii flights which as no fun at all if you ever need to go...
Last edited by TWA Fan 1; Jul 25, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Jul 25, 2012, 3:22 pm
#49
Join Date: Sep 2005
Programs: AA EXP, AAirpass, & CK 2MM, MR Plat Premier, DL Plat, US Plat, UA RECOVERING GS
Posts: 2,620
American's new advertising campaign: "American Airlines: We know how often you potty"
Jul 25, 2012, 4:37 pm
#51
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California, GVA, SIN, LHR, BRU, CDG
Programs: UA LT GS 4.12MM (4.08MM BIS), AA EXP 1.86MM ,DL DM 1.1MM, HH LT Diamond, SPG Platinum
Posts: 1,182
The project I worked on was over 20 years ago...and the focus was not lav safety...rather it was concerning the safety of passengers and their hydration and elimination on long flights. More specifically, a number of early studies found an increase in kidney disease and bladder cancer in frequent international flyers. It was thought at the time that the lack of hydration and elimination was a causative factor. I have not been involved in aerospace/aviation medicine for many years, but my former colleagues tell me that things have not changed much...reports that question medical safety on airlines are quashed on a regular basis. Once again, there is a problem with the FAA being the primary supporter of commercial aviation and its chief regulator...a huge conflict!
Jul 25, 2012, 4:42 pm
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
Jul 25, 2012, 5:04 pm
#53
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K MM, Marriott Life Plat, various others of little note
Posts: 2,763
Ok, I've read the whole thread (not long) and I just find the entire discussion hilarious. I'm curious about the male to female ratio of those responding. Why? Women are used to waiting in lines for bathrooms. You guys run into a bathroom in all kinds of venues, baseball games, arenas, movie theatres, etc etc and we wait, and wait and do the potty dance. Wow, waiting for 1 or 2 people in front of you - what a schande! Two weeks ago in the Museum D'Orsay I waited 15 minutes to use one of 4 bathrooms. Hubby and son in and out in minutes.
Sorry, entire thread is just funny.
Sorry, entire thread is just funny.
Jul 25, 2012, 5:39 pm
#54
Join Date: Apr 2012
Programs: United 1K, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 835
The project I worked on was over 20 years ago...and the focus was not lav safety...rather it was concerning the safety of passengers and their hydration and elimination on long flights. More specifically, a number of early studies found an increase in kidney disease and bladder cancer in frequent international flyers. It was thought at the time that the lack of hydration and elimination was a causative factor. I have not been involved in aerospace/aviation medicine for many years, but my former colleagues tell me that things have not changed much...reports that question medical safety on airlines are quashed on a regular basis. Once again, there is a problem with the FAA being the primary supporter of commercial aviation and its chief regulator...a huge conflict!
Yes, the conflict of interest is the problem.
Jul 25, 2012, 6:53 pm
#55
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: out my front door 60 min prior to IAH flight until they increased the check in time to 45 min
Programs: CO Platinum or UA 1K for so long, now almost 2MM
Posts: 322
Jul 25, 2012, 7:00 pm
#56
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DCA
Programs: UA LT 1K, AA EXP, Bonvoy LT Titan, Avis PC, Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,660
There was an extensive thread on this subject last year. Basically UA went from 8 restrooms to 6 restrooms and increased the number of BF seats from 35 to 39, along with adding E+.
Two of the 6 Y restrooms were then made the 2 BF restrooms. Lots of complaints at that time.
Two of the 6 Y restrooms were then made the 2 BF restrooms. Lots of complaints at that time.
Jul 25, 2012, 8:08 pm
#57
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,290
It looks like UA's reconfigured 764 has only 3 lavatories for 203 coach, a 68:1 ratio. 
And 2 for the 39 BusinessFirst seats (20:1) is really awful too, especially on a redeye when everyone is changing out of PJs, brushing teeth and freshening up before landing. The pmCO 772 used to have 4 lavs for 48 seats before they put the flat beds in, or 12:1 which was pretty good.
And 2 for the 39 BusinessFirst seats (20:1) is really awful too, especially on a redeye when everyone is changing out of PJs, brushing teeth and freshening up before landing. The pmCO 772 used to have 4 lavs for 48 seats before they put the flat beds in, or 12:1 which was pretty good.
Jul 25, 2012, 8:33 pm
#58
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SUV
Programs: UA *G MM
Posts: 7,025
UA should use a thick curtain with a sign "business class only" like they do on SK or at least the sign. Usually they don't enforce "poaching" into C class opn the 767, which is problematic because they will always stop C class pax from going to F (because it's next to the cockpit), but not Y to C. I have intervened in the past and told Y passengers lined up to use the C bathroom that they can't use it. I have even seen them line up in the Y cabin to use the C bathroom......
Security and bathrooms is a lame excuse. They should be upfront and say that it is policy, basta. That a Y class passenger uses a toilet in the middle of the plane 10 steps in front is a "security" issue is complete bunk.
Security and bathrooms is a lame excuse. They should be upfront and say that it is policy, basta. That a Y class passenger uses a toilet in the middle of the plane 10 steps in front is a "security" issue is complete bunk.
Jul 26, 2012, 12:12 am
#59
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,752
Hmmm.
I was on CX on a 777-300ER from HKG to LAX earlier this week. Six seats and two lavatories in F.
For some reason, I never had to wait. Go figure.
I was on CX on a 777-300ER from HKG to LAX earlier this week. Six seats and two lavatories in F.
For some reason, I never had to wait. Go figure.
Jul 27, 2012, 8:12 pm
#60
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Redwood City, CA USA (SFO/SJC)
Programs: 1K 2010, 1P in 2011, Plat for 2012,13,14,15 & 2016. Gold in 17 & 18, Plat since
Posts: 8,826
There's something to be said for personal responsibility. As in, if you're a middle-aged guy with reduced capacity, book a seat not too far from the lav. Avoid middle & window seats. Seriously.
Sure, it would be great if planes had more lavs, but generally, it works out fine, as long as none are out of comission and there's not much turbulence.
Having said that, it still surprises me that lavs don't end up on an MEL; technically, a plane can fly with no operative bathrooms??? I've been on more than one flight that was held up at the gate for some time, while the pilots and ground crew work out whether a or multiple toilets can be fixed or not, and then whether it makes sense to fly transcon with only two of four working. The discretion allowed by not having them on the MEL is probably a bad thing, not good.
A possibly not good idea for those who have to hit the lav frequently- eat lots of very salty food. Causes you to retain water, rather than get rid of it. ^ May also put your blood pressure through the roof.
Sure, it would be great if planes had more lavs, but generally, it works out fine, as long as none are out of comission and there's not much turbulence.
Having said that, it still surprises me that lavs don't end up on an MEL; technically, a plane can fly with no operative bathrooms??? I've been on more than one flight that was held up at the gate for some time, while the pilots and ground crew work out whether a or multiple toilets can be fixed or not, and then whether it makes sense to fly transcon with only two of four working. The discretion allowed by not having them on the MEL is probably a bad thing, not good.
A possibly not good idea for those who have to hit the lav frequently- eat lots of very salty food. Causes you to retain water, rather than get rid of it. ^ May also put your blood pressure through the roof.