Lack of curtains separating Business and Economy on 737

[UP4014]

There may be a sign, however there is no rule as such prohibiting the use of toilets at the front, a crew member can ask reasonably for a passenger to use a rear toilet, that is all.

 

[durbrain]

There may be a sign, however there is no rule as such prohibiting the use of toilets at the front, a crew member can ask reasonably for a passenger to use rear toilet, that is all.

So how do you propose one use the front toilet without disobeying the sign?

What’s the point of the sign? Decoration?

 

[JohnK]

And the fact that you know it exists yet still choose to ignore it is the definition of entitlement.



Translation: Rules only selectively apply to me.

You can continue all you like.

I'll use the toilet that makes most sense when the cart is out and if that's the front toilet then so be it. Doing nothing wrong. Not abusing any entitlement.

And no I didn't complain to the airline about having someone without status next to me.

 

[UP4014]

So how do you propose one use the front toilet without disobeying the sign?

What’s the point of the sign? Decoration?

It's just sign, it's not a rule. If a crew member directs me to the back and I say I'm busting then that is not a reasonable request and I can use the nearest.

You assume because there is a sign it must be a rule. There are plenty of real rules around flying and conduct, using the nearest toilet is not one of them.

On a larger plane walking past the nearest toilet to front could reasonably be met with request to return the way you came.

 

[Pushka]

I don’t think I’ve seen the sign? Where is it?

 

[durbrain]

You can continue all you like.

I'll use the toilet that makes most sense when the cart is out and if that's the front toilet then so be it. Doing nothing wrong. Not abusing any entitlement.

You're disturbing an exclusive cabin that you are not entitled to be in. As clearly indicated by the sign. Absolutely wrong.

And no I didn't complain to the airline about having someone without status next to me.

I didn't say you complained to the airline. You merely ranted and raved for 11 pages about how incredulous it was of Qantas to dare to place a no-status passenger in your 'exclusive' row 4 shadow seat.

Domestic Row 4/Row 23 and seating for WP Discussion

One set of rules for JohnK, another for everyone else!

 

[durbrain]

It's just sign, it's not a rule.
You assume because there is a sign it must be a rule.

Let me explain something:
1. If there is a reserved sign for a room in a restaurant, you can assume that you are not entitled to eat the food in that room (even if there is no rule stating "Do not eat the food in the reserved room"
2. If there is a VIP only sign for a stadium reserved box, you can assume that you are not entitled to use the facilities within that box
3. If there is an authorised entry only sign in the White House, you can assume that you are not entitled to use any facilities within that part of the White House (and yes that includes the toilet).

There is a SIGN SAYING BUSINESS CLASS ONLY. That means ECONOMY CLASS PASSENGERS CANNOT USE THE FACILITIES IN THAT CABIN.

No need to thank me, I understand not everyone has the ability to follow simple logic.

 

[durbrain]

Logic of the J-toileting freeloading Y brigade:
1. Sign says "Business Class only beyond this point" --> I am special, I can ignore.
2. Cabin crew state "Front toilet is for business class passengers" --> I am special, I can ignore.
3. Multiple J passengers who paid 4X cost of Y fare unhappy that exclusive cabin trampled by Y freeloaders --> I don't care, I am special.
4. Potentially hold J passengers up who are waiting for toilet whilst they lose control of bowel/bladder in J toilet --> I don't care, I am special (plus it is an "emergency" )
5. Vast majority of other Y passengers able to use Y toilet and/or manage to control bowels/bladder like normal adult --> I don't care, I am special.

 

[Boca68]

Let me explain something:
1. If there is a reserved sign for a room in a restaurant, you can assume that you are not entitled to eat the food in that room (even if there is no rule stating "Do not eat the food in the reserved room"
2. If there is a VIP only sign for a stadium reserved box, you can assume that you are not entitled to use the facilities within that box
3. If there is an authorised entry only sign in the White House, you can assume that you are not entitled to use any facilities within that part of the White House (and yes that includes the toilet).

There is a SIGN SAYING BUSINESS CLASS ONLY. That means ECONOMY CLASS PASSENGERS CANNOT USE THE FACILITIES IN THAT CABIN.

No need to thank me, I understand not everyone has the ability to follow simple logic.

And read capital type in bold font! Really?

Sign or no sign, I couldn't give two hoots about it. I've flown all over the world in J and Y. I really don't have a problem either way. In fact, I'd call it a non-issue.

 

[durbrain]

And read capital type in bold font! Really?

Sign or no sign, I couldn't give two hoots about it. I've flown all over the world in J and Y. I really don't have a problem either way. In fact, I'd call it a non-issue.

That’s fine but you’re not the one complaining in J. That you don’t give a cough doesn’t mean others who are entitled to the exclusive cabin they’ve paid for don’t have a valid grievance.

 

[Boca68]

That’s fine but
you’re not the one complaining in J. That you don’t give a cough doesn’t mean others who are entitled to the exclusive cabin they’ve paid for don’t have a valid grievance.

As I said flown J and Y many times, mostly J. And whilst in J, I couldn't give 2 hoots. (nothing about c**p)

But thank you for your considered opinion. Not polite, but considered in some way.

 

[FrustratedQP]

There may be a sign, however there is no rule as such prohibiting the use of toilets at the front, a crew member can ask reasonably for a passenger to use a rear toilet, that is all.

No smoking - not a rule, just a sign
Police only past this point - not a rule, just a sign
Authorised personnel only - not a rule, just a sign
No trespassing - not a rule, just a sign
First Class check in - not a rule, just a sign
Do not use mobile phones - not a rule just a sign
Priority Boarding line - not a rule, just a sign
Employees only - not a rule, just a sign
Business Class passengers only beyond this point - not a rule, just a sign

Good grief, what have you been smoking?

 

[Pushka]

No smoking - not a rule, just a sign - Law
Police only past this point - not a rule, just a sign - Law where a crime has occurred
Authorised personnel only - not a rule, just a sign - Policy sometimes law
No trespassing - not a rule, just a sign - depends on circumstances. There is a common law that anyone can approach the front door.
First Class check in - not a rule, just a sign - Policy
Do not use mobile phones - not a rule just a sign - Policy of an airline
Priority Boarding line - not a rule, just a sign - Policy of an airline or say cruise ship
Employees only - not a rule, just a sign - Policy
Business Class passengers only beyond this point - not a rule, just a sign - Policy.

Good grief, what have you been smoking?

A number of those are laws. Others are just policy.

 

[FrustratedQP]

A number of those are laws. Others are just policy.

Are you saying that it is appropriate to ignore Policy?

 

[Pushka]

Are you saying that it is appropriate to ignore Policy?

Policy is no more than a ‘way we would like to do things’. If you refuse to abide by a particular policy, then there may be other means of enforcement, such as a motherhood law like ‘obey cabin crew’; or not. It’s why priority boarding lines can never truly be policed if someone decides to ignore it.

 

[JohnK]

You're disturbing an exclusive cabin that you are not entitled to be in. As clearly indicated by the sign. Absolutely wrong.

Just following CSM/cabin crew instructions. Should I tell them "Sorry, I know better so I'll just go down the back!".

I didn't say you complained to the airline. You merely ranted and raved for 11 pages about how incredulous it was of Qantas to dare to place a no-status passenger in your 'exclusive' row 4 shadow seat.

Domestic Row 4/Row 23 and seating for WP Discussion

One set of rules for JohnK, another for everyone else!

I'd forgotten about that. Long time ago. My luck still the same and Qantas still allocating middle seats at the front while other middle seats are vacant. Looks awful when almost every middle from row 5 back is vacant and people sitting 4B, 4E.

Also funny a few weeks ago Saturday evening SYD-BNE on a 717 and I'm in row 8 with daughter on lap and 2 ladies sitting next to us. Almost every other row had middle vacant seat and hardly any 2 people sitting together on the side with 2 seats.

Now let's see if we get this important thread to 11 pages.

 

[FrustratedQP]

Policy is no more than a ‘way we would like to do things’. If you refuse to abide by a particular policy, then there may be other means of enforcement, such as a motherhood law like ‘obey cabin crew’; or not. It’s why priority boarding lines can never truly be policed if someone decides to ignore it.

No, policy is what is expected of you not the way we would like to do things. If you don’t wish to abide by a certain company’s policy you are free to go elsewhere. I would even go as far to say that there is a requirement to abide by Qantas’ policies as a condition of carriage.

The priority lines can be policed should Qantas want to, they simply deny boarding until the non compliant passenger enters via the correct boarding line.

Rules (including policies) are what makes an ordered society possible. Ask yourself what kind of world we would live in if the majority of people ignored all policies or even just the ones that didn’t suit them.

It annoys those that abide by a company’s policies when they see others who break them. It feels like those people doing the right thing are penalised for doing so.

Surely nobody thinks it is appropriate for everybody to act contrary to Qantas’ policies, so why would some people think it is appropriate for them to do so?

 

[Pushka]

No, policy is what is expected of you not the way we would like to do things. If you don’t wish to abide by a certain company’s policy you are free to go elsewhere. I would even go as far to say that there is a requirement to abide by Qantas’ policies as a condition of carriage.

The priority lines can be policed should Qantas want to, they simply deny boarding until the non compliant passenger enters via the correct boarding line.

Rules (including policies) are what makes an ordered society possible. Ask yourself what kind of world we would live in if the majority of people ignored all policies or even just the ones that didn’t suit them.

It annoys those that abide by a company’s policies when they see others who break them. It feels like those people doing the right thing are penalised for doing so.

Surely nobody thinks it is appropriate for everybody to act contrary to Qantas’ policies, so why would some people think it is appropriate for them to do so?

By my statement I was referring to the Company not the individual. I’ve never seen anyone turned away from the priority line and I know they should have been.

 

[amaroo]

I've flown Y more than any other class - check out my flight tracker. I've never used a class of toilet above the class I've paid to fly - it's a very, very simple concept!

Need to pee or dump, queue and be happy. If you can't queue - pay for the privilege ... no different to passengers that are obese and need to overflow into another passengers seat, IMHO.

 

[FrustratedQP]

Just following CSM/cabin crew instructions. Should I tell them "Sorry, I know better so I'll just go down the back!".

Yes, perhaps you should.

Qantas conditions of travel state,

2.3 Basis of Carriage
The carriage of a Passenger on any flight by Qantas under the QF Airline Designator Code is, without exception, subject to:

• these Conditions of Carriage
• any applicable Tariffs filed by us with regulatory bodies
  
• the Convention and any other applicable laws
• any specific directions given to a Passenger in writing or orally by our staff

And,
2.6 Cannot Vary
No Qantas employee or other person is authorised to vary any of these Conditions of Carriage.