Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Discontinued Programs/Partners > United Mileage Plus (Pre-Merger)
Reload this Page >

ua947 iad-lax 2/24/10: 777x3 with 8 out 10 lavs inop due to no water

ua947 iad-lax 2/24/10: 777x3 with 8 out 10 lavs inop due to no water

 
Old Feb 25, 10, 11:50 am
  #1  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO, CDG, PBI
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,496
Angry ua947 iad-lax 2/24/10: 777x3 with 8 out 10 lavs inop due to no water

like the title says.....

the original aircraft was supposed to be the 777 (ww2) which came in from muc but as i was walking to the gate, there was a gate change announcement so thinking a downguage and possible bump, i hot footed over to the new gate only to find out all that happened was a change of 777x3's

little did i now.....

all kinds of ua folks are running in and out of the a/c and then both the g/a and the purser make the following announcement: (summarizing) "for those of you about to board untied flight 947 to los angeles, we want to apologize that only 2 of the lavatories on the aircraft have running water but there will be ample supplies of hand sanitizer on board"

turns out not only was it no water in 8 out the 10 heads (only the 2 aft ones worked) but the aft galley was the only one which had running water for coffee tea and etc

wait, it gets better......
turns out that my was a "replacement aircraft" ua950 from ord and sorry, but this a/c was a dog, filthy and there were numerous "inops" other than the lavs-namely lights, fans and seats-including my seat which not only had a broken headrest, it would recline nor would the leg rest extend (adn of course the flight was full )

wait it gets better.....
it's a good thing i ordered a special meal catering stocked only one meal choice for both f and c and there were a lot of unhappy hungry pax

but kudos the crew of f/a's ^. they were great in handling this and really busted their butts to make a crappy situation bearable and i wrote a very nice (and detailed) letter to the crew and gave it to the purser expressing my thanks for the great job they did and that others should be ashamed for not only putting pax in a situation like that but to expect employees to work an aircraft that should have been pulled from service
goalie is offline  
Old Feb 25, 10, 11:57 am
  #2  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Programs: UA 1k Million Miler
Posts: 348
One meal choice (i.e no meal choice) has been the standard on this flight for at least 6 months.
n9536j is offline  
Old Feb 25, 10, 1:35 pm
  #3  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Programs: UALifetimePremierGold, Marriott LifetimeTitanium
Posts: 67,134
Regardless of the meal, sounds like the plane shouldn't have flown if there were that many issues. OVMV. Cheers.
SkiAdcock is offline  
Old Feb 25, 10, 1:48 pm
  #4  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ravens Country
Programs: UA-1K, Marriott-Gold, SPG-Gold, IC RA/Plat, Amtrak Select
Posts: 3,887
I agree, they should have used a different plane such as a 767 or even 747. Of if they had to cancel the whole flight.

by 777x3 you mean a 2 cabin 777 or 3 cabin 777???
Benny8444 is offline  
Old Feb 25, 10, 2:15 pm
  #5  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO, CDG, PBI
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,496
Originally Posted by SkiAdcock View Post
Regardless of the meal, sounds like the plane shouldn't have flown if there were that many issues. OVMV. Cheers.
agreed (and so did the g/a and purser who were "venting" as we chatted)

Originally Posted by Benny8444 View Post
I agree, they should have used a different plane such as a 767 or even 747. Of if they had to cancel the whole flight.

by 777x3 you mean a 2 cabin 777 or 3 cabin 777???
777x3 is my shorthand for a 3 cabin and this was the ww2 version
goalie is offline  
Old Feb 25, 10, 2:18 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Programs: Elite on: UA and HH
Posts: 350
It sounds like a 3-cabin since he cited same meal choice for both F and C, meaning 3 class-cabin.

Can they fly an airplane with only 2 lavatories working? What's the FAA rule? One minimum working lav and you're OK to fly? If I were the FA on the flight, I'd do a numbering system or something to that effect so that passengers don't have to stand in the aisles a long time to use the lav. I can't imagine how much the chaos and discomfort there were on that flight!
F23Coupe is offline  
Old Feb 25, 10, 2:36 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LAX
Programs: UA 1K; AA Exec Plat; DL Silver
Posts: 402
Were the lavs completely out of service, or were they working but just no water in the sink?
twoaisleplane is offline  
Old Feb 25, 10, 2:58 pm
  #8  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K, HHonors Diamond, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 194
Hopefully the f/a's passed out some of the "we apologize cards"
windchill is offline  
Old Feb 25, 10, 2:58 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: SFO
Posts: 310
This sounds absolutely brutal.

Though as window sitter, I almost always use the restroom before a flight so I don't have to use the lav, even for transcon flights.

And when they start passing around the drinks, I usually take the soda can and put it in my backpack, saving it for later when I put it in the hotel fridge. Instead, I just drink the smaller glass of water they pass out after the main refreshment service.
ifly153 is offline  
Old Feb 25, 10, 3:05 pm
  #10  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 316
Originally Posted by twoaisleplane View Post
Were the lavs completely out of service, or were they working but just no water in the sink?
If the problem was the water supply, the toilets probably still worked since the 777s use vacuum flush.
AADC10 is offline  
Old Feb 25, 10, 3:15 pm
  #11  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO, CDG, PBI
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,496
Originally Posted by windchill View Post
Hopefully the f/a's passed out some of the "we apologize cards"
they did and i got 2. one for the lav issue and one for a busted headrest.

Originally Posted by AADC10 View Post
Originally Posted by twoaisleplane View Post
Were the lavs completely out of service, or were they working but just no water in the sink?
If the problem was the water supply, the toilets probably still worked since the 777s use vacuum flush.
correct-the lavs were inop due to no water for the sinks except for the 2 working heads located by the aft galley and only the aft galley had any running water so all the coffee and etc was brought up from the back
goalie is offline  
Old Feb 25, 10, 3:45 pm
  #12  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: CVG
Programs: UA Silver, AA, DL, Marriott Silver
Posts: 11,981
Originally Posted by F23Coupe View Post
Can they fly an airplane with only 2 lavatories working? What's the FAA rule? One minimum working lav and you're OK to fly?
I'm pretty sure I remember reading a blog post (maybe by Rick Seaney over at Farecompare), about there being no requirement for working lavs. I know I've definitely done an express flight (~1 hour) that had the only lav inop. I think it was a CR7. The GA announced that the lav wasn't working prior to boarding, so told everyone that if they wanted to go, they should use the airport lav prior to boarding. But that is certainly a completely different situation then something like an LAX-IAD flight.
emcampbe is offline  
Old Feb 25, 10, 3:58 pm
  #13  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Redwood City, CA USA (SFO/SJC)
Programs: Last 1K flight 1/21/11; fun while it lasted, 1P in 2011, Plat for 2012,13,14,15 & 2016. Gold in 17 &
Posts: 8,523
For me, a transcon without lav availability would pretty much be a no-go (so to speak). 10 years ago, no issue. Nowadays, maybe three hours would be the limit for comfort, and if you then factor in the possibility of turbulence when the facilities might finally be available (the 2 out of 8 or whatever)... it just wouldn't be my idea of a fun time.

It amazes me that the FAA doesn't have some minimal requirement for lavs.
Mike Jacoubowsky is offline  
Old Feb 25, 10, 5:10 pm
  #14  
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO, CDG, PBI
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,496
Originally Posted by Mike Jacoubowsky View Post
For me, a transcon without lav availability would pretty much be a no-go (so to speak). 10 years ago, no issue. Nowadays, maybe three hours would be the limit for comfort, and if you then factor in the possibility of turbulence when the facilities might finally be available (the 2 out of 8 or whatever)... it just wouldn't be my idea of a fun time.

It amazes me that the FAA doesn't have some minimal requirement for lavs.
if it was a "liquid flush" head, then yes a no-go for me as well (and thanks to f/t i know which a/c are liquid vs vaccum flush ) but still a pita as if i wanted to simply wash my face, or get some coffee for my baileys, it's a schlepp to the back

to update....

somebody must be listening to someone somewhere as i just rec'd my first unsolicited* "we're sorry" e-mail offering me:

$600 domestic e-cert
20% off worldwide
30,000 miles

decisions, decisions.....

*it has to be unsolicited as i haven't even submitted to the two "apology forms i rec'd from the purser yet (inop lavs and my inop seat)

Last edited by goalie; Feb 25, 10 at 5:26 pm Reason: added compensation offered by united
goalie is offline  
Old Feb 25, 10, 5:30 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Redwood City, CA USA (SFO/SJC)
Programs: Last 1K flight 1/21/11; fun while it lasted, 1P in 2011, Plat for 2012,13,14,15 & 2016. Gold in 17 &
Posts: 8,523
Originally Posted by goalie View Post
to update....

somebody must be listening to someone somewhere as i just rec'd my first unsolicited* "we're sorry" e-mail offering me:

$600 domestic e-cert
20% off worldwide
30,000 miles

decisions, decisions.....

*it has to be unsolicited as i haven't even submitted to the two "apology forms i rec'd from the purser yet (inop lavs and my inop seat)
So the question becomes, would I be willing to endure a plane with only two lavs (out of 8) on a transcon, and in exchange get a 20% off worldwide discount? Hmm. 20% off any fare, or is it restricted? 20% off one of those heavily-discounted C fare to Europe in July...

Seems like they bought you off with a resonable offer. ^
Mike Jacoubowsky is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: