Qantas passengers in toilet turmoil

[Ryan N]

Qantas passengers in toilet turmoil
July 31, 2008 - 3:20PM

A Qantas customer was forced to urinate in a sick bag after the airline refused to let passengers out of their seats during an extended landing.

Flight QF183 heading from Sydney to Queenstown, New Zealand, was diverted to Christchurch three hours into the journey due to bad weather.

The plane had to circle around the airport before landing, with passengers forced to stay in their seats.

One man, Richard Donald, said passengers had to wait for more than an hour without being able to move.

"It was a smooth flight up and there was no reason to keep everyone waiting for so long, but the pilot kept the lights on and wouldn't let anyone get out of their seat," he said.

The pilot circled the airport, he said.

"And then, when we finally did touch down, there was a rush to the loos. The lines were about 10 to 15 long on either side.

"There was a lady behind me screaming, 'I have to go to the toilet' and then I saw a man doing his business in one of the airline sick bags."

A Qantas spokeswoman said the incident was being investigated.

smh.com.au

[Marty H]

'When it rains it pours'

[Brendan Lawrence]

Hmmm sounds like the passenger who reported this to the media may have exaggerated just a bit, as usual for passengers blabbing to the papers. Lines of 10 or 15? A woman screaming?

I can actually believe the man peeing in the sick bag, because some people would be a bit frightened for the trouble they may get in from the crew or for their safety if they got up while the seatbelt sign was on.

But passengers are NOT prisoners in their seats, if someone has THAT much of a pressing urge to go to the toilet and we're not at a critical stage of flight like 30 seconds from touchdown or still in a very steep climb after takeoff then I will let them do their business if they persist/insist.

You can only firmly tell a passenger(s) once to take their seat, for their own safety and for the safety of those around them, before it becomes an action at their own risk. And cabin crew certainly won't get up out of their seats to restrain anyone if the seatbelt sign is on (unless a threat to security). I had a woman come bolting down to the aft galley just the other day (and it was late in the climb, seatbelt sign probably not too far from being switched off) and I quickly told her to resume her seat immediately and she said "sorry, I have to go to the toilet - TRUST me", so what are you to say in that situation? She's taking her own risk, and it could be avoiding an otherwise messy situation. :o

I think the particular passenger in this report is just being a bit whingey, and the SMH thought another negative story about QF wouldn't go astray! lol. ;)

[Joe Frampton]

one hour... one hour? ...

Have these people pea sized bladders?
Can't they just hold it in for a bit?
Should Qantas be responsible for someone with, what sounds to me almost like a medical problem?

Honestly, some people should just be hooked up to bags, seriously, or wear those those adult diapers...

I've taken bus rides longer than an hour, and there ain't no toilets on them (unless it's like a greyhound or something)...

no offence intended to anyone of course :) I too, am sick of the Qantas bashing this week... (heck I'm flying back to OZ again with them soon'ish and I hope I make it :eek:)

[Dave Powell]

one hour... one hour? ...

Have these people pea sized bladders?
Can't they just hold it in for a bit?
Should Qantas be responsible for someone with, what sounds to me almost like a medical problem?

Honestly, some people should just be hooked up to bags, seriously, or wear those those adult diapers...

I've taken bus rides longer than an hour, and there ain't no toilets on them (unless it's like a greyhound or something)...

no offence intended to anyone of course :) I too, am sick of the Qantas bashing this week... (heck I'm flying back to OZ again with them soon'ish and I hope I make it :eek:)



Since when is Sydney - Queenstown a 1 hour flight?

Prat!

[Steve B.]

Hi David,

I think you may have missed the original post. The flight was already 3 hours old when it had to hold for an hour. The seat belt sign was on for that last hour restricting pax to their seats.

That is not unusual, especially if the aircraft was holding at a lower level in a holding pattern in bad weather. Anyway, a holding pattern requires turns of 180 degrees every few minutes and it is not a good time for a pax to be moving around the cabin or using a toilet.

If the holding pattern was being conducted at low level, and the holding was the result of bad weather there may have been some turbulence involved.

If pax were complaining I'm pretty sure that the FAs would have notified the flight crew and consideration would have been given to the status of the seat belt sign given the circumstances.

Regards
Stephen

[Dave Powell]

G'day Steve

No mate - I didn't miss the original post, but I think Mr Frampton may have.

cheers

Dave

[Ash W]

G'day Steve

No mate - I didn't miss the original post, but I think Mr Frampton may have.

cheers

Dave

No I think he read it and made quite a very valid comment on the situation.

[Dave Powell]

No I think he read it and made quite a very valid comment on the situation.

That being what? The comment was that people should be able to hold their bladders for an hour - thse people had been in the air for 4 hours - that is a very different situation especially for certain older people or people who may have medical conditions. I'm sure that had passengers known their flight would be extended they might have made the "comfort" visit that in the end they were not able to make.

It's easy to make clever comments but until you are in that situation .......

[Ash W]

[QUOTE=Dave Powell;9847]That being what? The comment was that people should be able to hold their bladders for an hour - thse people had been in the air for 4 hours .../QUOTE]

Yeah 4 hours where they would have been able to go and see a man about a dog. As others have said no doubt if it was safe to do so the crew would have allowed people to use the toilets, but quite clearly this wasn't the case. What would you want the crew to do. Risk the passengers safty or let em piddle themselves?

[Steve B.]

David Powell,

Hi David,

You are correct, I apologise for representing you as the author of the comment made by Joe Frampton.

If I may add, the toilet facilities were available for the majority of the flight prior to the diversion, holding and approach and landing.

It is Qantas policy to have the passengers strapped to their seats when low level because of possible turbulence or when in areas of known or forecast turbulent conditions. Holding patterns require turns (at Rate 1 if I remember correctly) at regular intervals and are often conducted below 10,000 feet where turbulence is more likely to be encountered.

To allow passengers to move around the cabin in these circumstances is risky. I have sympathy for those who got "caught short" but rather an uncomfortable wait to use the facilities than a injury caused by falling during a turn or incured when turbulence is encountered.

It really is a no win situation for Qantas. If a passenger was injured under these circumstances the media would have had a "field day" with it. By following these rules, formulated to ensure passenger safety, Qantas still gets criticised. :confused:

Regards
Stephen

[Dave Powell]

Hi Stephen

I concur with everything you say in the last post. My issue was not with the incident or how it was handled, rather with some smart-Alec comments being made by others

cheers

Dave

[Steve B.]

Hi Dave,

Thanks. Yes I understood your position, all but the first paragraph were meant as a general comment to the forum, certainly not aimed at you specifically.

I certainly agree with your observation regarding ill informed posters and their comments. :(

Regards
Stephen