F amenities - Open Access by J pax

[legroom]

Friends

I'd like to relate one familiar story plus the tepid QF response (a la Priority Boarding mannerism).

Woke up on QF12 from seat 2A, wandered out to the restroom and did some stretching as both were showing 'occupied'.

Lo and behold, from one restroom out came a mother & her young daughter (3-4 years old) who contentedly walked upstairs back to J.

Refraining from becoming a vigilante, I mentioned that to my FA who expressed disappointment that such thing happened and that she would raise it with the CSM. Prior to landing she confirmed that the CSM was made aware of my discontent when she came around to say goodbye.

While waiting for the door to be opened, she mentioned to the CSM standing next to me that '.. This is Mr ABC who raised that issue ....' to which the CSM didn't bat an eyelid.

Suffice to say he didn't acknowledge me, let alone sharing his thought on the transgression.

I contacted Red Roo a few days later and was allocated a 'case number' from Customer Care who tried to call my mobile which I missed (during working hours).

What followed was sub-standard IMO.

I was sent an email with a generic switchboard number which I hung up after 10 min holding with soothing music.

Reply to QF email showed that the sender's inbox is not attended and won't be replied to.

So, F pax's raising of a legit transgression which QF failed to enforce was greeted with a cold shoulder and a run-around.

The 'couldn't care less' attitude is what troubled me more than anything else.

The CSM could have responded better. The Customer Care should have a direct reply phone number and an active reply email address.

Oh, I did remember that this issue (J pax freely accessing F amenities) has been aired here many time before but I could not relocate the threads.

Over to you !

 

[Princess Fiona]

Poor response by customer care to your complaint. The toilets at the front of the F cabin are for F pax and this should be reasonably enforced by the crew eg. they see someone coming downstairs from J and direct them back upstairs to their own toilets.
I'm wondering though in your case if a mother and child were in there the child might have been in a hurry? That's seems reasonable if the toilets in their cabin are full.

 

[legroom]

Judging by the external mien (as a medico), I doubted that 'emergency' had been the reason.

They both looked relaxed and cheerful with zero embarrassment or worries.

Of course, appearances are deceptive and I could be 100% wrong.

I'd be the first to say that 'urgencies' are acceptable exception to the rule.

Poor response by customer care to your complaint. The toilets at the front of the F cabin are for F pax and this should be reasonably enforced by the crew eg. they see someone coming downstairs from J and direct them back upstairs to their own toilets.
I'm wondering though in your case if a mother and child were in there the child might have been in a hurry? That's seems reasonable if the toilets in their cabin are full.

 

[blackcat20]

They both looked relaxed and cheerful with zero embarrassment or worries.

I'd look cheerful too if I'd been busting for the loo and had found relief....

 

[Princess Fiona]

Judging by the external mien (as a medico), I doubted that 'emergency' had been the reason.

They both looked relaxed and cheerful with zero embarrassment or worries.

Of course, appearances are deceptive and I could be 100% wrong.

I'd be the first to say that 'urgencies' are acceptable exception to the rule.

I've had many an emergency toilet break with my kids when they were three years old (including on aircraft) and we all looked cheerful afterwards but certainly not before

 

[legroom]

I understood where you were coming from.

The point is that had it been an "emergency" and you understood that you had "transgressed", one would ordinarily have a "I'm sorry" look when being gazed at by a F pax whom you had displaced.

The nonchalant appearance of entitlement suggested to me otherwise.

But, we are getting away from the main point - that is, why is it that the CSM and it appeared, QF, treated this transgression (like the Priority Boarding) with a marked degree of indifference.

Could it be a manifestation of the tall-poppy syndrome i.e. ... stuff it, we couldn't care less... to all those fancied F pax ?

I've had many an emergency toilet break with my kids when they were three years old (including on aircraft) and we all looked cheerful afterwards but certainly not before

 

[boomy]

In case of "emergency" J pax should use the Y toilets if all J toilets are occupied.

 

[Princess Fiona]

I understood where you were coming from.

The point is that had it been an "emergency" and you understood that you had "transgressed", one would ordinarily have a "I'm sorry" look when being gazed at by a F pax whom you had displaced.

The nonchalant appearance of entitlement suggested to me otherwise.

But, we are getting away from the main point - that is, why is it that the CSM and it appeared, QF, treated this transgression (like the Priority Boarding) with a marked degree of indifference.

Could it be a manifestation of the tall-poppy syndrome i.e. ... stuff it, we couldn't care less... to all those fancied F pax ?

Totally agree with you on the second part. It should not be treated with indifference by QF.

I've posted on here previously that I've waited outside the toilets only to see a male passenger come out of each toilet with wash bag and grey Roo PJ's in hand and head nonchalantly back upstairs. I've also waited behind a guy who used the toilet before me and then proceeded to walk back upstairs to his seat (different flights for each experience).

I know the crew are busy but I think if it's pointed out to them that F passengers are waiting to use the toilets whilst they are occupied by passengers from other cabins, that should be acted upon by the CSM.

 

[markis10]

Could it be a manifestation of the tall-poppy syndrome i.e. ... stuff it, we couldn't care less... to all those fancied F pax ?

Probably a case of them understanding that on occasions peoples rights come second to peoples needs. Since the reconfigs I would imagine the lavs feel the pressure regardless of cabin, and I am sure no one wants to see someone with wet pants.

 

[eastwest101]

I've had many an emergency toilet break with my kids when they were three years old (including on aircraft) and we all looked cheerful afterwards but certainly not before

Yep - kids can have emergencies, which may be the case here. Always polite to ask crew first though - which may have happened.

But there sometimes seems to be a perception of parents that by simply having a child means that the rules no longer apply to them. A sort of self-granted entitlement to say, access to a higher class cabin/facilities etc. As evidenced by crew redirecting parents and children back to their own cabin on occasions. Children can have a natural tendency to explore and obviously will not understand all the 'rules' but parents should be a different matter.

Anyway - the lack of follow up to the complaint seems to be your primary concern, even though some may think its a trivial issue, I don't think its too much to ask to have email addresses that are attended to and/or phone lines without a long time on hold.

Did you get a unique case number/reference number for your complaint in the email? I take it your reason for pursuing this complaint on the ground is that you felt the resonse from the crew on board wasn't satisfactory?

 

[Pushka]

In case of "emergency" J pax should use the Y toilets if all J toilets are occupied.

And you reckon Y loos won't be occupied too? And maybe they'd already checked that.

 

[Princess Fiona]

And you reckon Y loos won't be occupied too? And maybe they'd already checked that.

Sadly Pushka it's a much shorter walk downstairs from the front J cabin to the F loos on the A380. I doubt anyone would bother going all the way back.

 

[boomy]

But, we are getting away from the main point - that is, why is it that the CSM and it appeared, QF, treated this transgression (like the Priority Boarding) with a marked degree of indifference.

Could it be a manifestation of the tall-poppy syndrome i.e. ... stuff it, we couldn't care less... to all those fancied F pax ?

The other scenario could be an apologetic CSM who promise to take care of the matter but actually does nothing and forgets about it the minute he gets of the plane.

 

[cmon0005]

Normally I would agree that F facilities are there for F pax only, however I am a realist and don't see a problem with a mother and child from J using the 'F' lav. Personally I would not have even raised it, if there was a steady flow coming downstairs then yes, but a mother with a child who may have a urgent need to go, I would have just let it ride.

Second I respect the crews discretion to be able to handle situations as they arise. For example back in June I flew SIN-SYD in PE(747), the toilets directly infront of PE are actually J toilets, as the back half of J was pretty much empty the CSS used her discretion to allow the PE pax to use the J toilet in front of PE. So perhaps there were big lines upstairs in J so an FA directed them downstairs to help with queues.

Anyway not saying you are not entitled to complain nor are you wrong for complaining, but I would have let it go and enjoyed my time in F rather than wasting precious time worrying/following up about someone using a toilet for a few mins..

Hope you had a good flight in F though

 

[Pushka]

Sadly Pushka it's a much shorter walk downstairs from the front J cabin to the F loos on the A380. I doubt anyone would bother going all the way back.

Just thought I'd raise the option.

But travelling with a toddler who needs to go, now, probably rates as an emergency. Accidents are bad enough on land!

 

[blackcat20]

Sadly Pushka it's a much shorter walk downstairs from the front J cabin to the F loos on the A380. I doubt anyone would bother going all the way back.

There just aren't enough loos on the top deck, full stop. In the upper Y cabin, there is one loo, which is frequently used by PE pax (and possibly J pax too)...

 

[boomy]

Just thought I'd raise the option.

But travelling with a toddler who needs to go, now, probably rates as an emergency. Accidents are bad enough on land!

We all raise too many assumptions here.
Maybe it wasn't an emergency and maybe all Y toilets were vacant at that time, who knows... The fact is there are a lot of DYKWIA J pax who think they are entitled to use F facilities.

 

[legroom]

The main concern is the indifference from the CSM whose job it is to set the tone for the staff to follow what is still officially QF's policy.

True, it is a minor matter in its real sense but.... can we be "half pregnant" with a paper rule which no one respects or adheres to, least of all the CSM ?

Why don't we have an open-door policy in a literal sense ?

I have yet to see this on SQ or TG (but yes, I have seen it on EK too).

Is it too difficult to restore the "barrier rope" at the top of the stair?

Or, to have a J announcement (like on domestic flights) after take-off ?

FWIW, I do stop at red lights even at 3am with no other car on the road !

We all raise too many assumptions here.
Maybe it wasn't an emergency and maybe all Y toilets were vacant at that time, who knows... The fact is there are a lot of DYKWIA J pax who think they are entitled to use F facilities.

 

[Danger]

I think I'm in the minority here but agree with cmon0005.

If the passenger (or other J passengers) had repeatedly used the F toilet then fair enough but in this situation I personally wouldn't even have alerted a flight attendant. There's too much unknown, as outlined by others. As for following it up, I personally don't believe it's warranted.

I certainly agree that the F toilets are for F passengers but, again, if i was only an isolated incident as far as you're aware, I would not take it further.

 

[Homer]

[video=youtube;JeIKMAdZ9bY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JeIKMAdZ9bY[/video]