Lack of curtains separating Business and Economy on 737

[JohnK]

Nice try

Accept all of the timelines you have put forward. But the issue is... once the seat belt sign goes off, and before the carts roll down the aisle, that’s the time to head to the WCs.

Not wait until the carts come out so you can then decide you want to use the forward WC.

This isn't a conspiracy @MEL_Traveller.

Sometimes things happen. If I walk down the back to the toilet and there is a queue and the carts come out then I am stuck. The carts can then move back up into business to allow me into row 4 but if they do that the business service service will be disrupted.

On Friday night 2 from economy used the front toilets early on. It's not the end of the world. On yesterday's flight there wasn't anyone from economy that used the front toilets.

 

[Pushka]

Probably the only time I’ve been annoyed with a passenger for making me move to go to the toilet was one guy sitting in the window seat who smelt of booze on departure and then proceeded to continue with beers - I’d say 3 on flight BNE - ADL so much so that I was surprised the crew allowed him to continue drinking. He was continually needing to use the loo. J loo. In Y.

 

[Denali]

As someone that prefers 1D or 1F, my peeve is the guys that walk out of the toilet still zipping up. So Im also assuming that they didnt wash their hands after handling their junk.

Nice.

Other than that, Im old. When I have to go, I have to go NOW. But sooner is smarter so before you leave the lounge and/or before you arrive at the gate.

 

[durbrain]

As someone with a woolies bladder that has become even more fragile with age , I find this post offensive and discriminatory.
I have occasionally used a y toilet and was not surprised to find a fellow J passenger doing the same thing.

I don’t know what on earth a ‘woolies bladder’ is but even assuming it’s some continence issue, still does not entitle one to urinate where ever they please.

That said, I have no issue with Y passengers using the J toilets in a genuine ‘emergency’ but by far and away that is not whats happening on domestic flights. Unless a huge proportion of apparently able bodied non elderly passengers have underlying “woolies bladders”, they are simply being cough.

Not to mention if one truly has bladder ‘issues’ such that they may wet themselves at an instant’s notice, why on earth are they choosing to sit at the front of the cabin farthest from the toilet??? Choose a row 30 seat! There is no logical reason anyone (on more than the rare occasion) needs to systematically abuse the J toilets on every flight.

And also J passengers are allowed in the Y cabin. So not sure what the issue with J passengers using a Y toilet is.

 

[Denali]

...And also J passengers are allowed in the Y cabin......

 

[codash1099]

I don’t know what on earth a ‘woolies bladder’ is but even assuming it’s some continence issue, still does not entitle one to urinate where ever they please.

That said, I have no issue with Y passengers using the J toilets in a genuine ‘emergency’ but by far and away that is not whats happening on domestic flights. Unless a huge proportion of apparently able bodied non elderly passengers have underlying “woolies bladders”, they are simply being cough.

Not to mention if one truly has bladder ‘issues’ such that they may wet themselves at an instant’s notice, why on earth are they choosing to sit at the front of the cabin farthest from the toilet??? Choose a row 30 seat! There is no logical reason anyone (on more than the rare occasion) needs to systematically abuse the J toilets on every flight.

And also J passengers are allowed in the Y cabin. So not sure what the issue with J passengers using a Y toilet is.

One day, you too will be old. Let's hear from you then!

 

[Pleb Status]

Maybe those who need to use the Y toilets the most should select a seat closer to the Y (rear) toilets. On the 73H, these seats are normally the least desirable so preallocating them should not be an issue (particularly for SG/WP).

If you are seated in say row 25+, the amount of time where access to the rear Y toilets is obstructed would be minimal.

 

[Pushka]

Maybe those who need to use the Y toilets the most should select a seat closer to the Y (rear) toilets. On the 73H, these seats are normally the least desirable so preallocating them should not be an issue (particularly for SG/WP).

If you are seated in say row 25+, the amount of time where access to the rear Y toilets is obstructed would be minimal.

Seems eminently sensible but will put the cat amongst the pigeons right there.

 

[durbrain]

Maybe those who need to use the Y toilets the most should select a seat closer to the Y (rear) toilets.

That would require logic. Far easier to play the victim, demand row 4 and barge your way into a cabin you didn’t pay for ‘because it’s discrimination to ask me to control my bladder’.

 

[ric_melb]

I really should stop reading this thread, as its winds me up on most posts that I read.
I believe that the true issue lies with airlines that use the 737 or A320, and only 3 toilets for some 180 people. Whilst it is a selling feature for J passengers to have one toilet for 12 people, two (tiny) toilets for the other 168 is inadequate.
I am sure many economy passengers use J toilets, either out of ignorance or wilfulness. In cases of genuine emergency, or carts blocking the aisles etc, I would like to think people would have some tolerance of such use. Likewise Y passengers should respect being able to use the J toilet.
Passengers that have a bladder that doesn't need to be emptied on a flight are fortunate.
Some 15% of Australians suffer from urinary incontinence or urgency. The problem is more apparent in women than men, and more as we age.
Some 10% or more of Australian men over 60 will get prostate cancer. Of those that are operated on urinary urgency is a problem, and two hours between toilet visits would be normal.
Tolerance and courtesy would be well employed in this regard.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Tolerance and courtesy would be well employed in this regard.

yes but - as pointed out above, what's the answer to the question of why said pax don't sit at the rear of the aircraft near a WC?

 

[Pushka]

yes but - as pointed out above, what's the answer to the question of why said pax don't sit at the rear of the aircraft near a WC?

Maybe they think being near J toilet is that?

 

[durbrain]

Maybe they think being near J toilet is that?

And that’s understandable - which is exactly why a rope or curtain or electric fence needs to put in place!

But no doubt there are also plenty of row 4 scum (who should know better) that choose to abuse the system.

 

[JohnK]

Seems eminently sensible but will put the cat amongst the pigeons right there.

Yes and while we're at it move the recliners down there too.

 

[Gold60]

Is it really necessary to use the word scum in these posts? Can we be a bit more civil?

 

[Ewing]

So not sure what the issue with J passengers using a Y toilet is.

I've been known to use the Y toilets when flying on the A332 when there's a queue of people waiting to change in the single J lav and I need to relieve myself.

As for Y pax coming forward to use the J lav on the 737, as long as they're not queuing in the J cabin I stopped caring about that a long time ago (I fly J most of the time).

 

[DC3]

I don’t know what on earth a ‘woolies bladder’ is but even assuming it’s some continence issue, still does not entitle one to urinate where ever they please ....

Found something on Google:

 

[tgh]

The politically correct non everything youngsters mostly have no idea about good 'ol aussie vernacular.
Sad to see it all die.. so much wry humour is now banned.

 

[Vic]

Aren’t they actually the same thing?

No, one is a corruption of the english language.

Could care less is suppose to indicate that you do not care - that there is no lower level of caring you have could have about it. The problem is that if you could care less, then there is a lower level of care that you could give.

The correct way to express a lack of care is to say you could NOT care less. There is not a lower level of care I could give about it.

 

[Pushka]

No, one is a corruption of the english language.

Could care less is suppose to indicate that you do not care - that there is no lower level of caring you have could have about it. The problem is that if you could care less, then there is a lower level of care that you could give.

The correct way to express a lack of care is to say you could NOT care less. There is not a lower level of care I could give about it.

It’s similar to the phrase ‘nothing works better than abc product’. So we should do nothing then.