Now Boarding ... Chicken or Beef?

[DrA]

If a passenger in F (say SYD-LAX) orders a gluten free, vegan or other type special meal, do they get served the same thing as what's served for the special meal in Y (just with fancier tableware)?

I'm just curious, because obviously F and J pax have separate menus, but what happens when you can't eat off the menu? Obviously before your flight you pre-book your special meal, but surely you'd still have to get served a better standard of food than what's served in Y? Say for example you're vegan, the vegan food in F wouldn't be the same as the vegan food served in Y, would it? That would just make me sad

 

[Flashback]

If a passenger in F (say SYD-LAX) orders a gluten free, vegan or other type special meal, do they get served the same thing as what's served for the special meal in Y (just with fancier tableware)?

I'm just curious, because obviously F and J pax have separate menus, but what happens when you can't eat off the menu? Obviously before your flight you pre-book your special meal, but surely you'd still have to get served a better standard of food than what's served in Y? Say for example you're vegan, the vegan food in F wouldn't be the same as the vegan food served in Y, would it? That would just make me sad

I don't know about QF but on TK and LH the meal is different to what is served in whY.

 

[MrHyde]

I've flown QFi J and EY J and the Vegetarian Meal is different from Y. Much much nicer and tastier and more filling. I would assume F is different again.

If a passenger in F (say SYD-LAX) orders a gluten free, vegan or other type special meal, do they get served the same thing as what's served for the special meal in Y (just with fancier tableware)?

I'm just curious, because obviously F and J pax have separate menus, but what happens when you can't eat off the menu? Obviously before your flight you pre-book your special meal, but surely you'd still have to get served a better standard of food than what's served in Y? Say for example you're vegan, the vegan food in F wouldn't be the same as the vegan food served in Y, would it? That would just make me sad

 

[DrA]

I've flown QFi J and EY J and the Vegetarian Meal is different from Y. Much much nicer and tastier and more filling. I would assume F is different again.

Good to know Was just curious.

 

[Groundfeeder]

If a passenger in F (say SYD-LAX) orders a gluten free, vegan or other type special meal, do they get served the same thing as what's served for the special meal in Y (just with fancier tableware)?

Mrs G is a celiac and I've had mixed success with GF requests to QF well prior to departure.
Last trip BNE-MEL provided a good GF brekkie for her on B738 but 4pm return flight also on B738, GF snacks were not available - why I do not know.

 

[smit0847]

milehighclub might struggle on this one, because it's SQ rather than QF.

That said, it's a question too about the subtleties of Hindu vegetarian versus other (and standard) diet meals.



As it happens, sometimes pax know it's inevitable but that doesn't stop them from being disappointed.

Some claim how is it possible, i.e. how can you possibly think that only 70% want beef over fish, when it should be more like 90%. A bit specious reasoning but you get the idea.

Some claim that airlines should over cater to near guarantee that all pax will receive their option (the extreme case would be stocking each choice for every pax, i.e. guaranteed 50% meal wastage beyond people eating seconds). That is mainly impractical due to weight. I have heard a story (not QF) where one pax in Y made such a fuss about not having her choice that the only way to pacify her was to offer her a meal (main course) from J, which was brought to her.

After 8 SQ Y meals MEL-SIN-CDG-SIN-MEL recently I stopped caring if my choice was available after a while - it all tastes the same.

(That being said if your choice is not available the SQ crew specifically ensure that you get your first choice on the next meal run.

 

[ozbeachbabe]

Mrs G is a celiac and I've had mixed success with GF requests to QF well prior to departure.

Last trip BNE-MEL provided a good GF brekkie for her on B738 but 4pm return flight also on B738, GF snacks were not available - why I do not know.

Special meal requests are only offered on flights designated as a meal flight ie breakfast/lunch/dinner not for flights where a refreshment service only is offered.

 

[anat0l]

Not sure if you're still around here milehighclub (and other cabin crew members)... hope work has been alright for you and your colleagues...

Anyway, question is about drinking water on board, particularly with respect to long haul flights. (No, this is not a question about that QF1 incident).

How is potable water stocked onto a flight? I assume there are several bottles of water for pax, but there is also water used for making tea, coffee, rehydrating stuff etc. which is drawn from taps in the galley (assumed). Is the water which is used in the galley treated in any way, e.g. filtered, tested, etc.. Or is it just the local drinking water (if certified potable) pumped into tanks which is then fed through the galley?

I assume the water used in the galley and water used in the toilets (vanity basin) are separate supplies from different sources (because one is potable and one is not)?

What is the standard procedure if a passenger wants water? OK may sound silly but hear me out. I suppose water bottles are handed out at the start of service and during service there are larger bottles of water (Mount Franklin, etc.) where you pour these for pax. If pax later want another bottle of water, I commonly hear these are just refilled from the galley tap. Is this correct? Do you refill the Mount Franklin bottles from the galley tap in preparation for next service / next round of intermediate drinks?

 

[JasonD]

Not sure if you're still around here milehighclub (and other cabin crew members)... hope work has been alright for you and your colleagues...

Anyway, question is about drinking water on board, particularly with respect to long haul flights. (No, this is not a question about that QF1 incident).

How is potable water stocked onto a flight? I assume there are several bottles of water for pax, but there is also water used for making tea, coffee, rehydrating stuff etc. which is drawn from taps in the galley (assumed). Is the water which is used in the galley treated in any way, e.g. filtered, tested, etc.. Or is it just the local drinking water (if certified potable) pumped into tanks which is then fed through the galley?

I assume the water used in the galley and water used in the toilets (vanity basin) are separate supplies from different sources (because one is potable and one is not)?

What is the standard procedure if a passenger wants water? OK may sound silly but hear me out. I suppose water bottles are handed out at the start of service and during service there are larger bottles of water (Mount Franklin, etc.) where you pour these for pax. If pax later want another bottle of water, I commonly hear these are just refilled from the galley tap. Is this correct? Do you refill the Mount Franklin bottles from the galley tap in preparation for next service / next round of intermediate drinks?

Hi anat0l, I can answer that question from the view of a domestic carrier, which would be similar to some long haul services but of course each airline and country has different rules. on my airline we use lots of large bottles of water for pax to drink, that we pour out into cups on request. the water on board that comes out of the taps is all from the same source (sinks, galley taps, water boilers etc) which is potable water. We do not consider this safe to drink as it sits in those tanks for ages (which aren't cleaned and neither are the pipes it travels through). The only exception to this is the water that is used from the water boilers as this is heated to over 100'C this is considered safe. the potable water is only used for washing hands basically and cannot be used for anything to be consumed. Recent investigations across the U.S found that the water on board many aircraft contained all sorts of exotic bacteria that was poses health risks. This is also an issue when going to countries where the standards are not as high as in Australia, for example Bali, coughet to name a few, so the water is loaded full on the way up and is not filled in those countries when returning.
some other airlines may see differently on this but I personally would not want to drink from that water- give me a bottle or 5 anyday!!

 

[anat0l]

Welcome to AFF, JasonD. Nice to have you on board (pun intended).

Thanks for your response, too.

The only exception to this is the water that is used from the water boilers as this is heated to over 100'C this is considered safe.

It's interesting you mention this. If I recall correctly, most cabins are pressurised to 8000 ft equivalent above sea level (i.e. about 2500 m above sea level, which is where some of the highest towns and cities in the world are located). As water boils at different temperatures as the ambient pressure changes due to altitude, at a height of 8000 ft, the ambient pressure is about 75 kPa (ref: on the ground is about 101 kPa) and thus water boils at 92 degrees Celcius, not 100 degrees.

Of course, the boilers on board may be special ones which may be locally pressurised so that water boils at 100 degrees in them. Furthermore, I know boiling kills most bacteria etc. (they recommend this as a first pass action when dealing with water of questionable quality for drinking); I'm not sure if 92 degrees is low enough that some key bacteria would not be killed in boiling action, but I'm prepared to go out on a limb to say it would still be sufficient.

 

[harvyk]

Welcome to AFF, JasonD. Nice to have you on board (pun intended).

Thanks for your response, too.



It's interesting you mention this. If I recall correctly, most cabins are pressurised to 8000 ft equivalent above sea level (i.e. about 2500 m above sea level, which is where some of the highest towns and cities in the world are located). As water boils at different temperatures as the ambient pressure changes due to altitude, at a height of 8000 ft, the ambient pressure is about 75 kPa (ref: on the ground is about 101 kPa) and thus water boils at 92 degrees Celcius, not 100 degrees.

Of course, the boilers on board may be special ones which may be locally pressurised so that water boils at 100 degrees in them. Furthermore, I know boiling kills most bacteria etc. (they recommend this as a first pass action when dealing with water of questionable quality for drinking); I'm not sure if 92 degrees is low enough that some key bacteria would not be killed in boiling action, but I'm prepared to go out on a limb to say it would still be sufficient.

I was watching a documentary a few months back, the one about the BA 747 going in for a service. They mentioned that the kettles took water up to 84C (I'm pretty sure that was the temp, it was certainly in the 80's).
Simply boiling water is not enough (and 84C is not boiling) to kill any bugs in the water, it needs to be sustained boiling for a period of time. When I used to go out camping we used to get into some pretty remote places (the sort of places that if something went wrong, a helicopter ride would be required), and we would take water from rivers and streams for drinking, and we always made sure that we boiled the water for at least a minute before considering it safe to drink.

So to be honest, whilst the water simply out of the tap might not taste as good as the bottled stuff, in all likelihood it is no more dangerous to drink than the cup of tea / coffee...

 

[anat0l]

I was watching a documentary a few months back, the one about the BA 747 going in for a service. They mentioned that the kettles took water up to 84C (I'm pretty sure that was the temp, it was certainly in the 80's).
Simply boiling water is not enough (and 84C is not boiling) to kill any bugs in the water, it needs to be sustained boiling for a period of time. When I used to go out camping we used to get into some pretty remote places (the sort of places that if something went wrong, a helicopter ride would be required), and we would take water from rivers and streams for drinking, and we always made sure that we boiled the water for at least a minute before considering it safe to drink.

So to be honest, whilst the water simply out of the tap might not taste as good as the bottled stuff, in all likelihood it is no more dangerous to drink than the cup of tea / coffee...

Depending on the altitude, 84 degrees may well be boiling (i.e. go to a much higher place and boil some water for tea; using a thermometer you can see the water will start to bubble and evaporate at a lower temperature than 100 degrees. So 100 degrees is "boiling" but only at normal atmospheric pressure).

The key is not much if it's boiling or not (unless you're purifying water through the dome condensation technique) but rather whether the temperature is sufficient to kill the majority of bacteria. As you've explained it likely isn't unless boiling is sustained, and even then. But, I suppose it's also about what won't kill people too fast or adversely (just like municipal water treatment!)

In any case, didn't mean to detract from the thread. I don't know if crew think about this or share some or all of these concerns; guess it was an interesting talk point spurned by the QF1 incident (in another thread).

 

[harvyk]

Depending on the altitude, 84 degrees may well be boiling (i.e. go to a much higher place and boil some water for tea; using a thermometer you can see the water will start to bubble and evaporate at a lower temperature than 100 degrees. So 100 degrees is "boiling" but only at normal atmospheric pressure).

At 8000 ft 92C is boiling point. a far cry from 84C and again it's not sustained. That said, perception plays a big part in things and I've seen people drink water out of rivers without boiling simply because it looks "clean", so by making it hot and adding tea / coffee to it, it's not longer just the water which came out of the tap, things have been done to it...

 

[Bjet]

right...I have watched the documentary about BA 744 check-D last week. They said that hot water inside the kettle should not be boiled. That machine can heat up water inside the kettle but have to stop going further. Don't remember what the reason is.

 

[harvyk]

right...I have watched the documentary about BA 744 check-D last week. They said that hot water inside the kettle should not be boiled. That machine can heat up water inside the kettle but have to stop going further. Don't remember what the reason is.

The reason (from memory, it's been a little while since I've watched the doco) is that 84C is the recommended temp for tea. The kettles need to be able to reach that temp in 90 seconds, if they are unable to do so then they are wasting the limited power available on the plane, likewise they don't make it hotter as it would then be hotter than needed, and would again be wasting the limited power available.

 

[NM]

... likewise they don't make it hotter as it would then be hotter than needed, and would again be wasting the limited power available.

And if too hot, it becomes a safety hazard when handling and serving.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

water boiling and limited power?? heaven help us if a 747 is that badly underpowered!!!

 

[harvyk]

water boiling and limited power?? heaven help us if a 747 is that badly underpowered!!!

Whilst this is going really OT, yes there is limited power available, since that 747's electrical system has to power everything on board, and has to make sure that the amps been drawn by each individual component do not exceed the design specification. If a component does it either means that another component no longer has the required amount of power to run, or a circuit breaker will trip turning off the device full stop, or worse a circuit breaker does not trip and the wiring has too many amps going through it and thus overheats.

Of course, there is a little experiment that you could try at home, simply plug your heater in and turn it on full, plug your kettle into the same circuit and turn it on, and have both your washing machine and dishwasher going at the same time from the same circuit and see if you still have power after that, or if like the 747 your house is underpowered as well.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Whilst this is going really OT, yes there is limited power available, since that 747's electrical system has to power everything on board, and has to make sure that the amps been drawn by each individual component do not exceed the design specification. If a component does it either means that another component no longer has the required amount of power to run, or a circuit breaker will trip turning off the device full stop, or worse a circuit breaker does not trip and the wiring has too many amps going through it and thus overheats.

Of course, there is a little experiment that you could try at home, simply plug your heater in and turn it on full, plug your kettle into the same circuit and turn it on, and have both your washing machine and dishwasher going at the same time from the same circuit and see if you still have power after that, or if like the 747 your house is underpowered as well.

I'm not doubting that they say or what you're reporting - but if a $200 million jet can have difficulties because someone decided to boil water then we would seem to have a major problem.

 

[harvyk]

I'm not doubting that they say or what you're reporting - but if a $200 million jet can have difficulties because someone decided to boil water then we would seem to have a major problem.

It doesn't matter if the jet costs $200 million or $200 billion, there is just no getting around some simple laws of physics... One of them is if you use energy in one place, you no longer have the energy to use in another, and a plane only generates a certain amount of energy.

(Technically energy can not be created or destroyed just converted, just to appease the budding scientists who may have a comment to say)