I was seating on the tarmac on a plane that was delayed because of a lavatory that was out of order. Â I have no idea what put it out of order, but the airline was getting it back in order.
We were sitting on the tarmac for at least an hour. Â The man next to me commented that the delay was causingÂ moreÂ of a demand for the lav and if we took off on time, we could have made due with the one we had.
He may have had a point.
There’s no FAA regulation requiring every toilet to work. Â The longer we sat, the more people would need to use the bathroom.
The New York Times has an article today about how coffee machines are increasingly causing flight delays. Â First of all, when there’s a problem with the coffee maker, you need to make sure there isn’t an overall problem. Â But then they also run into the problem of whether or not to fix the coffee pot.
This, though, can cause a new set of problems for airlines. Passengers expect on-time departures â€” but they expect coffee too. â€œ@AmericanAir- seriously no coffee on a my morning fly 5797 to ONT? Doesnâ€™t that violate a law or something?â€ wrote Tim Swearingen, a technical project manager based in Phoenix, on Twitter a few days ago.
Reached by phone, Mr. Swearingen added this thought: â€œAnd why would you wait until Iâ€™m on the plane to announce that? I would have gone to Starbucks.â€
This seems like an instance where clear transparency would help the situation,
Instead of saying the coffee maker is broken, why not list the tradeoffs?
For example, why not say: Â “Well folks, we just found out the coffee maker is broken. Â We could take a two hours delay to repair it, or just head on our way. Â We thought you might want to get to your destination as soon as possible, so we told maintaince not to worry about fixing it. Â I’ll be missing my caffeine fix as much as you.”
The Chicago Tribune highlighted a situation that happened at my old home airport, Westchester Airport. Â Westchester Airport isÂ small. Â Apparently, an American flight to Chicago took off with no working bathrooms.
Passengers were warned to use the bathroom in the airport before boarding the plane, but they were still upset.
Actually, they were furious.
“The captain was apologetic, and furious, when he told the passengers that American couldn’t get maintenance to come out and fix the toilet,” said the woman. She asked not to be identified, adding that she is of an age requiring more frequent bathroom breaks.
“The pilot said he wanted to wait, but they (the airline) told him to leave now or they would cancel the flight,” she said.
The (passenger’s account) is largely correct,” Scott said. The plane “did fly with the lavatory inoperative. A part was broken, and that part was not available in Westchester. The choice was to either cancel the flight and ferry the aircraft (with no passengers) to O’Hare or operate with the inoperative lavatory.”
I’m not sure whether the poor communication was between the airline and the pilot, or the pilot and the passengers. Â But it’s clear this situation would have been better if the communication was clear and transparent.
If you gave me the choice between flying with a restroom or not flyingÂ at all, I’d chose to hold it. Â The way the pilot worded the announcement made it sound like the airline chose not to delay the flight momentarily. Â But the airline didn’t have the parts it needed and would have needed to cancel the flight.
They could have given the passengers the option to cancel their ticket if they didn’t want to fly without a toilet. Â But the case for why they flew without one was so compelling, I think a little communication would have resulted in the passengers understanding more.
What do you think?