Cruss74

I don't see any mention of the drinks cart in her post?

jimmc66

This story doesn't have a ring of any truth.

LordHamster

Having just gotten off of YET ANOTHER United flight where the pilot didn't turn off the seatbelt sign for the entire 2.5 hours (despite smooth sailing)... I can feel the lady's pain.

rickg523

In her story, she also says that AFTER her being refused to visit the lavatory, an FC stood up walked to the lav, in her words, right past a smiling FA. She also reports on the treatment she received after essentially being forced to urinate at her seat, including flight staff complaining that now she's made them call in hazmat to clean the area. Very nice and typically UA.
I'm puzzled by folks who spend the time composing posts that essentially say she's lying.
We're presented with a scenario and come to comment on it.
The question is fundamentally how much degradation should a customer expect if they choose or are unable to buy the carrier's premium offerings. What's interesting on a forum like this is the reactions of those of us who don't fly steerage especially when compared to the other 70-80% of flyers.
If the only point of a post is I don't think it happened, why comment at all?
The bottom line question given the story is do you think a Y ticket should have less access to hygienic facilities than a J? Because apparently this flight crew does.

notquiteaff

I'm puzzled by folks who spend the time composing posts that essentially say the FAs are lying.

I don't think that coach passengers should have less access to lavatories than premium class passengers. I think the same safety rules should apply to everyone on the plane.

I don't know what happened on this plane. I don't know if the passenger is lying or the FA or if it is a case of misunderstanding blown out of proportion. I wasn't there, I can't sort this out.

Not specific to this case, I do know that that adherence to FAA rules in general is a major part of what makes flying as safe as it is today. It wouldn't be if everyone got to choose which rules apply to them based on their "expertise" or level of inconvenience. Those who argue that passengers should be allowed to wander around the cabin during taxiing or final approach should lobby the FAA (with scientific data) to relax the rules, not ask for FAs to violate the rules and risk getting fined.

PTahCha

JakiChan

Sorry, that's in an additional post that's public and top of her profile.

Austin787

Different FAs?
Or the same FA who isn't consistent in treating passengers? Once on a flight, the seatbelt sign remained on the entire flight. The girl next to me gets up to go to the bathroom and the FA told her to sit down - she obeyed though she "really had to go" (her own words). But I noticed other people getting up to use the bathroom and that same FA said nothing to them. The girl eventually got back up and proceeded to the bathroom and the FA said nothing to her.

pinniped

I think for a lot of people, it represents part of a pattern.

I've been lied to many times by FAs and GAs. Outright, intentional lies. (This isn't even a United-specific thing.) Therefore, I'm biased to expect future lies. I guess this is a long way of saying I don't trust them, whereas I don't have any experience with (or reason to mistrust) the Pee Lady.

emcampbe

from the initial article linked, the wording from the story indicated she was told that she'd have to wait until the seat belt sign was off after landing. Believe that was from pax initial post. That's all I saw in there. A few posts into this thread, someone suggested plane was taxi-ing, but I didn't see that anywhere -I'm pretty sure it was speculation. My guess based on that wording is they were somewhere in the descent phase (if they were on the ground, it already would have been 'after landing'), but I see how someone could more broadly interpret it as somewhere between descent and at the gate parked - of which taxi is possible. Of course, the pax herself is now claiming this was mid-flight, and obviously there is no taxi at that point

Semantics aside, even if it was on taxi and the risk is minimal, the FAA rule still applies. This is still a safety rule. Someone deciding they don't think they should be following it is a risk to themselves, and potentially other pax, as well. There are lots of rules I don't like in this world, but I still try to follow them, even if I think some are stupid.

I agree if the woman has had a known condition with regards to her bladder, she should have proactively had a solution - even a non-ideal one. It turns out there is an easy and relatively inexpensive solution, which requires a simple trip to any drug store prior to departure. Given the pax' career as a nurse, you'd think she would have been aware of it, too. I'm leaning toward the side of the pax being unprepared for realities of air travel, and wanting someone to blame - and having an easy target given the ire against airlines in general, and specifically UA.

restlessinRNO

As usual in these (frequent) customer complaints, there is something UA could do to ameliorate the situation. There have been several threads about US airlines tendency to have the seatbelt sign on excessively. Of course there can be clear air turbulence, but there must be a balance.

DENviaLAX

While you may not "have any experience with (or reason to mistrust) the Pee Lady," do you have any experience with 'opportunistic' people trying to take advantage of a situation for their own benefit? While you may have had bad experiences with FAs and GAs previously, you also don't know the ones involved in this situation personally, as to accurately give your opinion on their credibility. Just, as you state, you don't know Pee Lady personally.

You're giving one party the benefit of the doubt because you don't have any personal experience with them, yet projecting past experiences on the other party (despite also not having any personal experiences with them). Seems a bit biased and unfair. Realistically this is a "my word vs your word" kind of situation, and it's impossible to judge what truly went on without any actual evidence.

pinniped

Agreed. It is biased and unfair. I implicitly distrust airlines, based on my own past experience.

If a brand-new airline is founded tomorrow, I'll distrust them too, based on that experience.

And yes, I give the passenger the benefit of the doubt, because I've seen how airlines treat passengers. Again, probably unfair without knowing all the details.

So you're right...all of these situations are influenced by preconceived expectations.

rickg523

I'm not saying ANYONE is lying. I approached this as I do every one of these stories - on the general underlying issue not the specific cases unless I see it myself.
The question I'm always asking is the same one Munoz himself addresses when he says "It happened because our corporate policies were placed ahead of our shared values. Our procedures got in the way of our employees doing what they know is right."
The issue of differential application of rules and regs in different cabins falls into this topic. Let's assume nothing.
Should a human being in Y be allowed the same lavatory access as one in F?
Is anyone going to say no? (well, I can already think of few who would )
And if we agree this should be the case, what should happen when it isn't?
Not on THIS flight in particular. On ANY flight.

tods27

According to her facebook post, this happened the same day as the UA3411 incident, she just hadn't posted the story until May 6 as she apparently wasn't happy with UAs response to her complaints (after the fact).

It is also very clear from her Facebook post that this was prior to final descent. She clearly mentions the FC passenger going to the bathroom during final.

I'm confused as to why an FA would ever hand someone a cup who just said they were going to pee in it. I can see the FA telling her that she can't get up when the seatbelt sign was on, but handing her cups? I would be very interested to hear the FA side of the story for comparison.

Given that this was a MESA plane, I'll have to assume it was an EMB170 as that's the only plane I'm aware of that has a lav in the front that MESA could conceivably fly. Unless the FC passenger walked all the way to the back on the plane on final. Could have been as simple as two FAs - one who's a hard*ss and another who is more accomodating.