cbourl

http://www.australianfrequentflyer.c...tml#post714947
See this post very interesting
http://www.australianfrequentflyer.c...tml#post714947

aacharya

Not that interesting, honestly.

The other option would've been to cancel the flight.

I do have an issue with the relatively low compensation offer, if the upgrade is not a GPU.

thomwithanh

Reprehensible and unacceptable that they would fly a plane with no toilets. This needs to be reported to DOT...

mre5765

RTA. The Y pax were directed to the J lavs.

The lower deck J pax have a beef here.

PV_Premier

There is not enough information in the referenced thread to make a judgement. 2nd hand information, no knowledge of whether the issue occurred in flight or prior to departure.

We can all agree that if it occurred prior to departure or very shortly thereafter the plane shouldn't have flown. If it was halfway there, what are the options...turn back or keep going, or divert to HNL or elsewhere and try to get another bird in there. None of the options are great in that scenario, as it's a long way and a lot of water.

lhrsfo

Which precisely encapsulates the issue!

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.

aacharya

But this is a thread to another FF forum with scant information, and I mean scant. What's really there of note to comment on?

JerseySlime

Just not enough of the smelly blue water

Ari

I have flown LAX-SYD and I know how the J lavs end up at the end of the flight. I can't imagine how the Y ones are at the end of the flight!

drewguy

I find it remarkable that this report comes via another forum reporting on an FB post. How could an SFO-SYD UA flight without toilets escape a direct FTC report filed within minutes of landing?

Jorgen

Because for the first few minutes after landing, everybody was busy rushing for the loo at SYD

Ari

If the post is accurate, I'd expect some media mention in the next 48 hours. UA is stingy with compensation right now, so a report of an offer of compensation does make it likely that UA screwed up.

MSPeconomist

Does anyone know the number of passengers and toilets in each cabin class in this aircraft. So few toilets for so many passengers on a long flight sounds like a health issue to me. I would think that some toilet ratio is required.

However, if the problem arose well after takeoff, I can understand the decision not to return or divert. If UA knew before boarding, I'm surprised that they could operate the flight this way. I wonder whether the lack of toilets was announced in the gate area, as I've seen happen--for example on US--when it is know in advance that there will be fewer than the usual number of operable toilets.

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.