Feet and shoes on Bulkhead?

[danintas]

Cashed up bogan!!!

 

[burmans]

That's what happens when sharing a plane with other people, who are all different.
The best thing to do is suck it up for a few hours and then move on with your life.
For those who really can't fly with people who recline/ put up their feet/ snore/ shout/ smell/ use upper class toilet or bring their kinds who do all the above, the solution is simple - buy or lease your own plane and create your own utopia onboard

+1 and if you can't you'll probably need to get over yourself, you can whinge all you want (and I'm pretty confident you will) but you won't change anything.

 

[timster]

Cashed up bogan!!!

Indeed. Perhaps the CSM could diplomatically suggest to such pax that they might be more comfortable flying JQ next time.

 

[Spongbob]

Indeed. Perhaps the CSM could diplomatically suggest to such pax that they might be more comfortable flying JQ next time.

But a pax in 1B, possibly a WP (?) - imagine the traffic on AFF if this happened to a QF status pax!

 

[Rebekkap]

While this type of behaviour is uncouth, my main concern is a 60 yo wearing sneakers. As for the leg stretching, there may be a medical reason.

You're right of course. People aged 60+ should be forced to wear only the most uncomfortable footwear, lest a younger person's eyes be offended by the sight of an older person in comfortable shoes. How shocking! How déclassé! How non-u! Let them fly Jetstar!

Honestly, some people need to get a life and stop worrying about the things other people do that can not possibly have any effect whatsoever on anyone else.

 

[AustraliaPoochie]

No one cares anymore, people do anything these days.
On the one time I flew trans Australia, when Qantas used to give out ice cream, (don't think they do anymore do they?)... I found a wooden ice cream stick in the seat back. Maybe it was from an outside bought ice cream stick or I don't know how long it has been there, if QF used to give out stick ice cream, rather than the small tub.
There is no longer any decorum when flying.
If not young kids being in the QP... or the story of finding used nappies in seat backs, or parents (I have seen this one-baby being changed on the seat while in flight)... ugh. And not being done in the loos mind you.

 

[Jos888]

While this type of behaviour is uncouth, my main concern is a 60 yo wearing sneakers. As for the leg stretching, there may be a medical reason.

OMG I am over 60 and didn't realise I shouldn't wear sneakers anymore!

 

[etops1]

As a regular economy flyer in an aisle seat, I've noticed the disturbing trend of people putting a bare foot over the armrest of the aisle seat in front.

I'd be completely grossed out having that next to my elbow as I'm grossed out enough having it in my eye line.

 

[k_sheep]

Everyone realises that your hands are probably "dirtier" than your feet, socks or shoes in terms of microbes, right? Not mention the sheer number of potential pathogens in your mouth and throat?

 

[Mark3000]

As a regular economy flyer in an aisle seat, I've noticed the disturbing trend of people putting a bare foot over the armrest of the aisle seat in front.

I'd be completely grossed out having that next to my elbow as I'm grossed out enough having it in my eye line.

But would you agree that it is the "thought of it" that is grossing you out, and there isn't actually any medical danger to your elbow from having someone's foot on that armrest

 

[BoyZeus]

The bigger issue here is how disgusting are those socks?

 

[timster]

Everyone realises that your hands are probably "dirtier" than your feet, socks or shoes in terms of microbes, right?

If your hands are dirtier than the undersides of your shoes you should warn people not to shake your hand.

 

[serfty]

Everyone realises that your hands are probably "dirtier" than your feet, socks or shoes in terms of microbes, right? Not mention the sheer number of potential pathogens in your mouth and throat?

Perhaps not if the feet-on-bulkhead PAX has just visited the lavatory ...

 

[Cynicor]

This is crazy! I can't believe how fearful some people are of "germs" and what they might do to you. It explains why so many of my patients try to pinpoint when they got their cold, and from whom.

You get colds, you get gastros. You are more likely to get them from the faeco-oral and airborne vectors than from anything on someone's socks, especially when you involve a secondary surface such as the bulkhead.

I've been in row 1 a few times before and often used the bulkhead and by be-socked feet to prop myself up. This probably isn't an issue for the shorter people but I didn't realise it was such a point of contention!

 

[Mark3000]

This is crazy! I can't believe how fearful some people are of "germs" and what they might do to you. It explains why so many of my patients try to pinpoint when they got their cold, and from whom.

You get colds, you get gastros. You are more likely to get them from the faeco-oral and airborne vectors than from anything on someone's socks, especially when you involve a secondary surface such as the bulkhead.

I've been in row 1 a few times before and often used the bulkhead and by be-socked feet to prop myself up. This probably isn't an issue for the shorter people but I didn't realise it was such a point of contention!

Pure common sense! Obviously from someone who understands microbiology.

I would say too that the lavatory floor, even though it looks dirtier and would have urine drops on it, urine being mostly sterile, would be less risky than the faecal E Coli contaminated taps from people washing their hands after using the toilet.
Honestly people, you really do not need to fear getting a disease from socks on the bulkhead.
Common sense says wipe your hands before eating or putting them in your mouth. Other than that, relax and enjoy life
There is a lot of evidence that those who use too much antibacterial soap / washing powder etc have a higher risk of allergic disease too.

 

[Pablo]

I've just read through the thread and surprised no one has thought about those "windy" passengers who "follow through"!! Imaging sitting on the same seat as them!!!!

 

[vet]

My socks repel microbes. They're so bad, I always get a window seat so the window gets wound down

 

[medhead]

socks are fine. dirty, filthy shoes with bits of dog [do] on the bottom are not acceptable anywhere people will touch.

 

[timster]

You are more likely to get them from the faeco-oral and airborne vectors than from anything on someone's socks, especially when you involve a secondary surface such as the bulkhead.

As malodorous as her socks may have been, we're concerned by the women putting her shoes on the magazine holder (read the OP), likely initiating that very faeco-oral (shoe-hand-mouth) vector.

Regarding secondary surfaces, from people who know about microbiology (too?):
Bacteria Can Linger on Airplane Surfaces for Days
"MRSA lasted longest (168 hours) on material from the seat-back pocket while E. coli O157:H7 survived longest (96 hours) on the material from the armrest."

 

[Cynicor]

As malodorous as her socks may have been, we're concerned by the women putting her shoes on the magazine holder (read the OP), likely initiating that very faeco-oral (shoe-hand-mouth) vector.

Regarding secondary surfaces, from people who know about microbiology (too?):
Bacteria Can Linger on Airplane Surfaces for Days
"MRSA lasted longest (168 hours) on material from the seat-back pocket while E. coli O157:H7 survived longest (96 hours) on the material from the armrest."

Sure, but some of the comments are about socks. Shoes will be a bit worse too, I agree.

But- while it would be nice to think that articles in peer reviewed journals are correct and written by experts, this just isn't always the case. I have published research and I know it is poor quality, medical student research that was done to pass my course and obtain a qualification. These two are not clinical microbiologists but one is a grad student. I haven't looked into the other one in any further detail.

Next, this was not swabs from an air plane surface which would be a more representative/realistic study. Other bacteria colonise particular surfaces and out-compete less efficient/well suited microbes. They have (as far as I can tell, cannot find the published data) mere inoculated materials representing air plane surfaces and then seen how the bacteria go. I will keep trying to find their methods but this is extremely unrealistic already.

Thirdly, they have gone for headline grabbing bacteria. If you want to study something useful, maybe ETEC would be better than EHEC, which is responsible for very few (relatively) illnesses. ETEC is the most common cause of traveller's diarrhoea. MRSA is similar in head-line grabbing potential, but the ability for you to get an illness from coming into contact with S.Aureus, let alone MRSA is very low. I.e. both these bacteria are not really that pathogenic in this circumstance.

I would suggest that my clinical microbiology is as good as that of those two researchers, and I have no worries about EHEC or MRSA from planes or any other non-medical object.

Edit- the other is an associate director for research, and has a PhD. I think it likely that his name ends up on lots of papers which he supervises only minimally or assists in some vague way, otherwise he would be lead author, especially as his name is alphabetically first.