Community
Wiki Posts
Search

No toilets On UA SFO-SYD Flight in Y

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 19, 2012, 4:11 pm
  #16  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Jersey Shore/YYZ
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Plat, Hilton Diamond, Hertz PC
Posts: 12,521
Originally Posted by totorn
I was on the Friday night flight SFO-SYD.

BF users who stood to be the most inconvenienced were in rows 9-10, as Y customers would need to walk by to go to the BF loo. and I just happened to be in row 9 (aisle).

The problem arose well after takeoff. I started noticing things about 3.5 hours before landing. The crew was good at trying to keep things organized, and would direct traffic in and out of BF and try to keep the line that had been increasing behind the Y curtain moving. Sometimes they would even direct some PAX to the front loos as well, but tried to keep the traffic reasonable.

Actually, I think the crew did very well given the circumstances and the fact that there was not much they managed to do while in flight. Of course it doesn't compensate for the fact that this was massively inconvenient for Y customers, but given the fact that things happened in the second half of the flight it appears they did the best they could.

My personal opinion of course... and I have no idea whether this is just an accident, or something good maintenance could have prevented.

Upon landing there was an "appreciation" link and email in my mailbox from UA: I liked that.

Fly happy.
What was the offer.
aacharya is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2012, 5:30 pm
  #17  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Programs: LHSen UA1K VAGold QFSilv HHon Diamond ShangrilaJade Radisson Gold SPG Gold Marriott Gold Hertz Presi
Posts: 1,049
Originally Posted by colpuck
I have flown LAX-SYD and I know how the Y lavs end up at the end of the flight. This is a fairly serious issue.
I do the SYD-SFO vv or SYD-LAX vv runs several times a year in Y C and F Whichever class ur in the toilets are revolting by the end of the flight
UA aint no SQ where the SQ girls are constantly cleaning the lavs and emptying the rubbish receptacles - a stark comparison to UA's paper pouring out of the rubbish receptacles and urine drenched flooring
cbourl is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2012, 5:44 pm
  #18  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: EWR - Jersey Shore
Programs: UA Gold, *A Gold, HH Dia, Hertz #1 5*
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by cbourl
I do the SYD-SFO vv or SYD-LAX vv runs several times a year in Y C and F Whichever class ur in the toilets are revolting by the end of the flight
UA aint no SQ where the SQ girls are constantly cleaning the lavs and emptying the rubbish receptacles - a stark comparison to UA's paper pouring out of the rubbish receptacles and urine drenched flooring
And I always see pax walking into the lavs in bare feet or just socks. Yuch!!!
JerseySlime is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2012, 7:18 pm
  #19  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 19,506
Originally Posted by JerseySlime
And I always see pax walking into the lavs in bare feet or just socks. Yuch!!!
A foot is easier to clean than a shoe.
kale73 is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2012, 8:09 pm
  #20  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: EWR - Jersey Shore
Programs: UA Gold, *A Gold, HH Dia, Hertz #1 5*
Posts: 630
Originally Posted by kale73
A foot is easier to clean than a shoe.
Yeah, but I'd rather clean lav floor fluids off my shoe than off my foot.
JerseySlime is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2012, 8:27 pm
  #21  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SFO and OAK
Programs: FAF, Hyatt <>, SPG PLT
Posts: 2,240
Originally Posted by kale73
A foot is easier to clean than a shoe.
I don't think this is accurate from a biomechanical, anatomical or practical perspective
Beerman92 is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2012, 8:29 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,645
Originally Posted by cbourl
I do the SYD-SFO vv or SYD-LAX vv runs several times a year in Y C and F Whichever class ur in the toilets are revolting by the end of the flight
UA aint no SQ where the SQ girls are constantly cleaning the lavs and emptying the rubbish receptacles - a stark comparison to UA's paper pouring out of the rubbish receptacles and urine drenched flooring
Think about those SQ girls preparing meals after doing toilet cleaning. The upshot to the fact that sUA FAs never go near the lavs is they have cleaner hands.

What I really cannot understand is the people who walk on the urine drenched floor with socks!!!
FlyWorld is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2012, 8:55 pm
  #23  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: QFF Gold, Flying Blue, Enrich
Posts: 5,366
Originally Posted by mitchmu
Think about those SQ girls preparing meals after doing toilet cleaning. The upshot to the fact that sUA FAs never go near the lavs is they have cleaner hands.
I wouldn't count on that.
BadgerBoi is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2012, 8:58 pm
  #24  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Close to the beach
Programs: AA EP, UA 1K, DL GM, Tumlare Bussresor Super Class
Posts: 6,974
Originally Posted by mitchmu
Think about those SQ girls preparing meals after doing toilet cleaning. The upshot to the fact that sUA FAs never go near the lavs is they have cleaner hands.
Hey, those magazines and books can be dirty, you know...

If they offer compensation to people because passengers has to share the J class lavs, shouldn't they also offer money to people who don't use the lavs? I mean, if not being able to use the lavs in your class is grounds for compensation, not using the lav at all should be rewarded.

Last edited by iluv2fly; Nov 19, 2012 at 9:15 pm Reason: merge
Vunder31 is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2012, 9:55 pm
  #25  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Vunder31
Hey, those magazines and books can be dirty, you know...

If they offer compensation to people because passengers has to share the J class lavs, shouldn't they also offer money to people who don't use the lavs? I mean, if not being able to use the lavs in your class is grounds for compensation, not using the lav at all should be rewarded.
You know that makes 0 sense.

Anyway the issue at hand wouldn't be only the bathroom sharing but loads of Y pax coming through & disturbing the cabin
HumbleBee is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2012, 10:13 pm
  #26  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,693
Originally Posted by thomwithanh
Reprehensible and unacceptable that they would fly a plane with no toilets. This needs to be reported to DOT...
1) Not what they did.
2) Why? What DOT reg?
mduell is online now  
Old Nov 19, 2012, 10:24 pm
  #27  
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: IAH
Programs: *AG, Choice Privileges Elite Diamond, SPG Gold, La Quinta Returns Gold, Wyndham Rewards Gold
Posts: 466
Hey....it's OK....This is a really short flight, right?

Like my junior high school bus driver said to us, whenever one of us said we had to take a leak: "Just tie a rubber band around it, kid!"
LEONIDES is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2012, 10:50 pm
  #28  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: SFO and OAK
Programs: FAF, Hyatt <>, SPG PLT
Posts: 2,240
Originally Posted by HumbleBee
You know that makes 0 sense.

Anyway the issue at hand wouldn't be only the bathroom sharing but loads of Y pax coming through & disturbing the cabin
Agree.
Beerman92 is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2012, 11:07 pm
  #29  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Close to the beach
Programs: AA EP, UA 1K, DL GM, Tumlare Bussresor Super Class
Posts: 6,974
Originally Posted by HumbleBee
You know that makes 0 sense.

Anyway the issue at hand wouldn't be only the bathroom sharing but loads of Y pax coming through & disturbing the cabin
Aaaaawwww, more people... Oh, the horror....
Seriously, how entitled do you think you are?

If not having the expected access to restrooms justifies compensation, having the expected access must be worth worth a certain amount. If passengers do not use the lavs, they should be entitled to compensation. If not, neither should people get compensation if they don't have the expected access.
Vunder31 is offline  
Old Nov 19, 2012, 11:16 pm
  #30  
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,393
Originally Posted by Vunder31
Aaaaawwww, more people... Oh, the horror....
Seriously, how entitled do you think you are?
Are you kidding me? Business cost 3* coach because people buying it need a better flying experience. And 200 Y passengers trumping up and down the aisles is a severe disruption. I am 100% entitled to what I paid for.

I'm not connoting the Y pax should pee in a cup, G-D forbid, but UA failed to deliver on the C product and compensation is in order.
Originally Posted by Vunder31
If not having the expected access to restrooms justifies compensation, having the expected access must be worth worth a certain amount. If passengers do not use the lavs, they should be entitled to compensation. If not, neither should people get compensation if they don't have the expected access.
I thought you were kidding the first time - but heres the flaw in your 'logic'. Suppose UA offers a meal onboard. If they fail to provide that service, they are in breach of contract (well, maybe not exactly but they didn't deliver what you paid for), if you fail to consume something you paid for - too bad.



What youre saying basically is, since a steak cost $100, if a patron eats only half his steak, he is entitled to $50 compensation... just like if the restaurant only serves half the steak they must refund $50.


The difference is very simple. UA is obligated to provide a separate business class cabin, including lavatories. Failure to deliver is ground for refund, but not failure to consume.



BTW, it's not like the world came apart because a certain flight didn't work out 100% well. I very rarely complain myself, and would not of even if I had been on that flight. I'm now staying in a 5* Manhattan hotel which hasn't been cleaned all day, yet unsure if I will complain about it. But I recognize UA failed here, and think it is only right to compensate.

Last edited by HumbleBee; Nov 19, 2012 at 11:21 pm
HumbleBee is offline  


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.