[marden]

SkyWest sorry for not letting passenger use restroom

Desperate, he used air sickness bag for urinary relief
By Paul Beebe
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 03/16/2007 03:40:46 PM MDT

SkyWest Airlines has apologized to a passenger barred from a plane's restroom by a flight attendant.

James Whipple says that after repeated pleas to empty his beer-filled bladder on a recent flight, he finally found relief - with an air sickness bag.
Now, the Sandy man says SkyWest has issued him an apology for his distress.

"It was like I had no choice. I started to urinate on myself. So, thinking the way I thought, I grabbed one of those vomit bags," Whipple said.
"I didn't think I did anything wrong. I could have relieved myself all over my pants. It was almost like that was what she preferred me to do," he said.

On Wednesday, an airline representative apologized to Whipple on behalf of the attendant and promised to send him some travel vouchers.

But a SkyWest spokeswoman also said Whipple wanted to use the bathroom while the fasten-seatbelt light was illuminated. That is against Federal Aviation Administration regulations.

The captain had switched on the fasten-seatbelt light during the hour-long flight because the bathroom was unusable - the light was out.
SkyWest spokeswoman Sabrena Suite-Mangum says that policy is a matter of passenger safety. "As such we expect all our employees to adhere to those federal regulations," she said.


The episode occurred amid renewed scrutiny of how airlines treat passengers. A poll by Siena College in New York discovered that three in four fliers support calls for a passenger Bill of Rights. The poll was motivated by reports of a JetBlue Airways flight that stranded passengers on a New York runway for more than 10 hours last month.

"For a pilot to declare a lavatory inoperable for a one-hour flight is acceptable to the FAA," Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Mike Fergus said.
Whipple's travails began on the evening of March 7. Whipple, who had been working in Boise all day, was dropped off at the airport about 90 minutes before his flight departed. With little to do, he retired to an airport bar for "two really big beers," he said.

Whipple visited a bathroom in the airport before getting on board for the 67-minute flight to Salt Lake. He said he was allowed to use the aircraft's bathroom while the jet was taxiing from the gate. Whipple said the attendant had announced to passengers that the bathroom was out of order, but didn't explain further.

Salt Lake Tribune - SkyWest sorry for not letting passenger use restroom

The time has now come to create a Passengers Bill of Rights!

[torsoboy]

What's the mad face for? I think the airline was right with doing this... the bathroom had no light and the flight was only an hour long.

[marden]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

What's the mad face for? I think the airline was right with doing this... the bathroom had no light and the flight was only an hour long.

Are we not adults who know when we must go and when we can hold it? I will not stand for this outrage. I demand that you agree to a passenger's Bill of Rights or you may not go to the bathroom until I say you can.

[OldManMac]

So it's the airline's fault the guy has a belly full of beer before he gets on the plane? What do FAA regulations have to do with that? Passenger Bill of Rights - get over yourself.

[marden]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

So it's the airline's fault the guy has a belly full of beer before he gets on the plane? What do FAA regulations have to do with that? Passenger Bill of Rights - get over yourself.

Your position is indefensible. It is unreasonable to expect every person on board an hour long flight to not use the restroom. If there was no expectation that people would need to and should be able to and is ordinarily allowed to use the restroom on a plane, the aircraft manufacturers and airlines would SPECIFY that commercial airliners with a maximum range of 500 miles should not be equipped with lavatories.

They could add more seats and generate more revenue. Further, it would cost them less to build and it would cost them less to maintain. Well, there would still be the cost of cleaning up after people who couldn't hold it for an hour. And then there would be the cost of cleaning bills for clothing and lawsuits. So they are probably better off by having restrooms, as they do, on all their planes.

But in this case they recognized that people might need to relieve themselves and they still flew the plane and inconvenienced the passengers because it was to the AIRLINE'S advantage that the passengers hold it.

Well that is NOT acceptable!

[OldManMac]

If you'd bothered to read the article you posted, you'd have noticed that it's a federal regulation that you can't use the bathrooms when the seat belt light is on. Get over yourself!

[marden]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

If you'd bothered to read the article you posted, you'd have noticed that it's a federal regulation that you can't use the bathrooms when the seat belt light is on. Get over yourself!

They can TURN THE FREAKING SEAT BELT LIGHT OFF so this guy can use the restroom and not piss himself and take their plane out of service while they clean it up!

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by marden 

They can TURN THE FREAKING SEAT BELT LIGHT OFF so this guy can use the restroom and not piss himself and take their plane out of service while they clean it up!

If you'd read the article you posted, you'd have noticed that he had already used the bathroom once, while the plane was taxiing, and then the pilot turned the seat belt light on, as the bathroom became unusable, apparently due to the light in it becoming inoperable.

[marden]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

If you'd read the article you posted, you'd have noticed that he had already used the bathroom once, while the plane was taxiing, and then the pilot turned the seat belt light on, as the bathroom became unusable, apparently due to the light in it becoming inoperable.

If he was sitting next to you I'd love to hear the squeal you'd let out when his piss splashed on you.

[OldManMac]

I don't doubt for one moment that you would, so you could feel better about yourself when you convinced yourself that you were right. Sad.

[marden]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

I don't doubt for one moment that you would, so you could feel better about yourself when you convinced yourself that you were right. Sad.

More so that I could sing the Dave Chappelle parody of R. Kelly's song, "I want to piss on you.." I think that would be funny. And then I'd say, "Mr. G, would you like to sign my petition asking for a passenger's Bill of Rights, now?"

If you said no, I'd resume singing and laughing and leave you there to just sit in the mess and smell and humiliation.

[Chuckit]

Geez, I could use the bathroom in the dark easily. Better than having to hold it for an hour.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Geez, I could use the bathroom in the dark easily. Better than having to hold it for an hour.

But of course!

KarlG is just being a gadfly.

Either that or he already wears Depends 'undergarments' wherever he goes.

[Teronzhul]

While a bellyful of beer isn't a great excuse, I have to side with the drunk on this one. The airline personnel have to be conscious of all sorts of possible situations involving people with poor bladder control etc. A light being out in the lavatory is not an excuse to refuse use for an hour. With any law or regulation there are exceptions. They could and should have bent.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Teronzhul 

While a bellyful of beer isn't a great excuse, I have to side with the drunk on this one. The airline personnel have to be conscious of all sorts of possible situations involving people with poor bladder control etc. A light being out in the lavatory is not an excuse to refuse use for an hour. With any law or regulation there are exceptions. They could and should have bent.

You are a man of good judgment.

[chabig]

Seat belt sign or not, if you have to go yo have to go. In my mind, the seat belt sign is there for three reasons:

1. The Captain feels that is would be unsafe to let people up.
2. The regulations require it.
3. It relieves the airline of liability if an unbelted passenger is injured.

So if you have to go, get up and go. But the passenger must accept the responsibility, if injured.

Chris

[wallinbl]

Supposed the guy is allowed into the restroom with no light. The plane hits some turbulence and he falls. He then sues them. It's a no win situation.

[Warren Pease]

The captain is in charge of his plane. What he says goes. Some may be inconvenienced by it, but that's how way life goes sometimes.

There may be a reason for a Passengers Bill of Rights (see JetBlue a month ago), but this incident is not it.

Did anyone read the part where the guy was found to still be legally drunk, hours after the plane landed? The guy acted irresponsibly.

So what if the guy was drunk. What if had been someone with a bladder problem that had to go?

[Warren Pease]

First, his perception on the events might be skewed.

If he had a bladder control problem, then he knows that he may not be able to get to a bathroom when he gets on a plane. So what does he do? Drinks "two really big beers" right before he gets into that situation? Then drinks a coke (which contains caffeine, a diiuretic) on the flight? Knowing the risks and taking no action to prevent, in fact exacberating those risks, is called being irresponsible in my book.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

The captain is in charge of his plane. What he says goes. Some may be inconvenienced by it, but that's how way life goes sometimes.

That's right. The Captain is in charge. But I'd rather have a passenger pee in the toilet that in his pants.

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by chabig 

I'd rather have a passenger pee in the toilet that in his pants.

So would I.

And to his credit, the pilot did just that. He held the plane to avoid that, possibly inconveniencing other passengers who need to catch connecting flights, etc.

[Eriamjh]

Originally Posted by hayesk 

So what if the guy was drunk. What if had been someone with a bladder problem that had to go?

It doesn't say he was drunk. It said he had to big beers and had to go even after he used the can before boarding the plane. Anyone with a full bladder has a "problem" when he has to go.

The whole problem with this situation is no one excercises any independent thought.

"The fasten seatbelt sign is on so you must stay in your seat."
"Federal regulations say you must follow the crews directions."
"The light was burned out so the bathroom was deemed out of order."
"The captain is in charge."

Just like airline security, no one seems to evaluate the situation for what it is. The seriousness of the situation is low. Let the guy use the restroom and give him some digntity. There is no harm. There is no intent to break the law. The guy had to take a piss for Jebus's Sake!

Look at the alternatives.

1. He pees in his seat. Great. The airline loves when that happens. I thought only little kids did that. He sues. They lose.
2. He gets up against the orders of the crew and uses the bathroom in the dark. The attendents report him and he is arrested when the plan lands for violating federal laws. Bad press ensues for the feds and the airlines. The guy might end up with a criminal record.
3. The attendants say OK and let him use the bathroom "just this once". Gee. That would require someone thinking. Not gonna happen.
4. He pees in a vomit bag. If it's good enough for vomit, it's good enough for piss. He made the best choice given his circumstances. He's the only one thinking.

As for hitting turbulence and getting hurt in the rest room, that has nothing to do with this situation. That's not why they wanted you in your seat. He could even sit down and pee to help stabilize himself.

Someone thinking could have left the door open for light and stood there giving the guy some privacy. There's that "thinking" word again.

So in the end a small problem became news because no one is thinking.

And don't most planes have at least two restrooms?

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

It doesn't say he was drunk. It said he had to big beers and had to go even after he used the can before boarding the plane. Anyone with a full bladder has a "problem" when he has to go.

marden didn't post the whole article. If you read the whole article you would find:

Whipple was taken to a police station at Salt Lake City International Airport. He said he asked to take a sobriety test, which showed his blood alcohol content was 0.08 percent, which is considered legally impaired. After two hours, he took a taxi home. No charges were filed.

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

And don't most planes have at least two restrooms?

Seriously.

[besson3c]

This is indeed an OUTRAGE of outrageous proportions! IT MAKES ME SO MAD I think I'm going to explode!!!

Thanks for bringing this serious and important issue to the fore Marden, it deserves far more attention than it has been getting. Why isn't this on the front page of all newspapers?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is indeed an OUTRAGE of outrageous proportions! IT MAKES ME SO MAD I think I'm going to explode!!!

Just don't do it in the seat right next to me.

[besson3c]

Next thing you know, Anna Benson will be christening every city!

[marden]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

First, his perception on the events might be skewed.

If he had a bladder control problem, then he knows that he may not be able to get to a bathroom when he gets on a plane. So what does he do? Drinks "two really big beers" right before he gets into that situation? Then drinks a coke (which contains caffeine, a diiuretic) on the flight? Knowing the risks and taking no action to prevent, in fact exacberating those risks, is called being irresponsible in my book.

When you go home do you ASSUME your bathroom will not work? When you go to work do you ASSUME the bathroom will not work? When you go anywhere there is a bathroom do you go there ASSUMING the facilities will be out of order?

No. You assume the facilities will work as they normally do.

Everything else in your post is invalidated with your flawed ASSUMPTION.

[Kevin]

If someone else had posted this thread, it would have turned out differently. Not that I am blaming the OP.

Sad.

Some of you need to grow up. Really.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If someone else had posted this thread, it would have turned out differently. Not that I am blaming the OP.

Sad.

Some of you need to grow up. Really.

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

It doesn't say he was drunk. It said he had to big beers and had to go even after he used the can before boarding the plane. Anyone with a full bladder has a "problem" when he has to go.

The whole problem with this situation is no one excercises any independent thought.

"The fasten seatbelt sign is on so you must stay in your seat."
"Federal regulations say you must follow the crews directions."
"The light was burned out so the bathroom was deemed out of order."
"The captain is in charge."

Just like airline security, no one seems to evaluate the situation for what it is. The seriousness of the situation is low. Let the guy use the restroom and give him some digntity. There is no harm. There is no intent to break the law. The guy had to take a piss for Jebus's Sake!

Look at the alternatives.

1. He pees in his seat. Great. The airline loves when that happens. I thought only little kids did that. He sues. They lose.
2. He gets up against the orders of the crew and uses the bathroom in the dark. The attendents report him and he is arrested when the plan lands for violating federal laws. Bad press ensues for the feds and the airlines. The guy might end up with a criminal record.
3. The attendants say OK and let him use the bathroom "just this once". Gee. That would require someone thinking. Not gonna happen.
4. He pees in a vomit bag. If it's good enough for vomit, it's good enough for piss. He made the best choice given his circumstances. He's the only one thinking.

As for hitting turbulence and getting hurt in the rest room, that has nothing to do with this situation. That's not why they wanted you in your seat. He could even sit down and pee to help stabilize himself.

Someone thinking could have left the door open for light and stood there giving the guy some privacy. There's that "thinking" word again.

So in the end a small problem became news because no one is thinking.

And don't most planes have at least two restrooms?

"Corn"

[marden]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

So would I.

And to his credit, the pilot did just that. He held the plane to avoid that, possibly inconveniencing other passengers who need to catch connecting flights, etc.

The message in this post is unclear.

[voodoo]

Bad service on that airline led to this incident. True, FAA regulations are on the side of the airline, strictly speaking, but this is bad publicity for them.

It isn't too much to ask that they replace the lavatory lightbulb before taking off??! I should think not.

V

[Warren Pease]

Originally Posted by marden 

When you go home do you ASSUME your bathroom will not work? When you go to work do you ASSUME the bathroom will not work? When you go anywhere there is a bathroom do you go there ASSUMING the facilities will be out of order?

No. You assume the facilities will work as they normally do.

Everything else in your post is invalidated with your flawed ASSUMPTION.

My assumptions are wrong? I'm not the one assuming a plane is anyway comparable to my home or work.

There are no "Fasten Seat Belt" signs at home. There are no "Fasten Seat Belt" signs at work. My free movement in either of those two places is not restricted by pilots or an FAA mandate. It is, however, on a plane.

It's not the pilots fault, or the FAAs, that this guy did not undestand this.

Re-read the orginal story about the FAA's stance on the topic:

But a SkyWest spokeswoman also said Whipple wanted to use the bathroom while the fasten-seatbelt light was illuminated. That is against Federal Aviation Administration regulations.
...
"For a pilot to declare a lavatory inoperable for a one-hour flight is acceptable to the FAA," Federal Aviation Administration spokesman Mike Fergus said.

I will plan accordingly when I fly tomorrow. Or maybe I could just get tanked before the flight and demand that I have the right to pee whenever I damn well please, completely disregarding the pilots orders. It obviously turned out well for this guy. He'll probably be making a few more trips on their dime (and hopefully not while drunk this time). Maybe we should all just follow his example.

Originally Posted by marden 

The message in this post is unclear.

It is in response to "I'd rather have a passenger pee in the toilet that in his pants." I would rather that happen. The pilot obviously thought the same way. He stopped the plane, taxiing to the runway, so this guy could take a piss. He didn't have too, but he did.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Bad service on that airline led to this incident. True, FAA regulations are on the side of the airline, strictly speaking, but this is bad publicity for them.

It isn't too much to ask that they replace the lavatory lightbulb before taking off??! I should think not.

V

Indeed.

[andi*pandi]

It's against the law to use the restroom when the fasten seatbelt sign is on? Then call me a lawbreaker. I've done it many times.

The light being out isn't that big a deal, if I were that desperate I'd manage. Or, perhaps the flight crew has a FLASHLIGHT?

If there had been small children on the flight, just imagine the problems, soaked seats, and embarrassment.

[marden]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

It's against the law to use the restroom when the fasten seatbelt sign is on? Then call me a lawbreaker. I've done it many times.

The light being out isn't that big a deal, if I were that desperate I'd manage. Or, perhaps the flight crew has a FLASHLIGHT?

If there had been small children on the flight, just imagine the problems, soaked seats, and embarrassment.

[marden]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Bad service on that airline led to this incident. True, FAA regulations are on the side of the airline, strictly speaking, but this is bad publicity for them.

It isn't too much to ask that they replace the lavatory lightbulb before taking off??! I should think not.

V

[Tenacious Dyl]

Similar to the flashlight comment, how about a spare bulb for the goddamned bathroom? If the plane only has one bathroom, and it is a regulation that it can't be used if there is no lighting in it, then the only reasonable solution seems to be a spare.

As for the situation itself, I find it a little lame... as the guy already used the bathroom at the airport, and then used the bathroom again once he was on the plane. Getting yourself full of beer and then whining that you don't have a third chance to use the bathroom in just over 60 minutes is a bit much.

On the other hand, if someone had a bladder issue and was forced to piss in a vomit bag, I think there would be a bit more of an issue. This problem isn't self inflicted.

[marden]

Originally Posted by Tenacious Dyl 

Similar to the flashlight comment, how about a spare bulb for the goddamned bathroom? If the plane only has one bathroom, and it is a regulation that it can't be used if there is no lighting in it, then the only reasonable solution seems to be a spare.

As for the situation itself, I find it a little lame... as the guy already used the bathroom at the airport, and then used the bathroom again once he was on the plane. Getting yourself full of beer and then whining that you don't have a third chance to use the bathroom in just over 60 minutes is a bit much.

On the other hand, if someone had a bladder issue and was forced to piss in a vomit bag, I think there would be a bit more of an issue. This problem isn't self inflicted.

A few beers will require more than a few trips to the head. After an evening's drinking I've peed all I could before going to bed and STILL had to get up in the middle of the night once or twice.

It's not an issue when you reasonably assume that the bathroom works.

To all of us who have flown any number of times to any number of place over many years, how many times have the restrooms on a plane ever been out of order?

Never in my experience.

[macroy]

The guy's lucky he wasn't flying into Regan National. You are absolutely NOT allowed to leave your seat within 30min of arriving or leaving DCA. Doing so will divert the flight (usually to BWI) and everyone onboard being treated like terrorists.

Most short flights of ~45 min (i.e. to/from JFK) typically means you don't get up at all.

Having said that, I do think the airline pretty much F'd themselves from a PR standpoint. Eriajmh is pretty much on target with regards to putting some thoughts into what you're doing.

[Dakar²]

The fools! When will they learn to build bathrooms with two lightbulbs!?

[wallinbl]

Originally Posted by marden 

To all of us who have flown any number of times to any number of place over many years, how many times have the restrooms on a plane ever been out of order?

Never in my experience.

I've been on plenty of flights where there was not an opportunity to get up.

[voodoo]

The shortest regular flights I've been on are 45 minute jumps on an F50. There is plenty of time to go to the bathroom, have coffee and buy some merchandize.

V

[Scifience]

Originally Posted by macroy 

The guy's lucky he wasn't flying into Regan National. You are absolutely NOT allowed to leave your seat within 30min of arriving or leaving DCA. Doing so will divert the flight (usually to BWI) and everyone onboard being treated like terrorists.

This hasn't been the rule for over a year now. If you come across a crew that is still enforcing it, you should report them to the FAA/airline.

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

And don't most planes have at least two restrooms?

Not if it is an RJ (regional jet). These only have one restroom.

Originally Posted by marden

To all of us who have flown any number of times to any number of place over many years, how many times have the restrooms on a plane ever been out of order?

I've been on a number of flights with one or more broken restrooms. Sometimes they get clogged or run out of soap in the middle of a transpac, sometimes they are just broken to start with. It definitely happens. You seem to have very high (and therefore unrealistic) expectations for airlines.

In any case, I'd take a busted toilet instead of any number of other problems that routinely come up while flying in a heartbeat. Compared to some of the stuff I've experienced, that is literally so insignificant as to not be worth worrying about. Not that it should happen. Just that it is a very minor problem as far as airline troubles go.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Scifience 

I've been on a number of flights with one or more broken restrooms.

Me too. However, I have never been on a flight with a broken lavatory on a plane with only *one* lavatory.

Imagine - a 747 taking off full of pax for an hour's flight with no functioning lavatories.. It's the same. Doesn't matter if it is a RJ or a Jumbo jet. Some people aboard will *have* to go. I can't imagine an airline being so stupid as to dispatch a carrier with 0% of lavatories functioning.

If those are high expectations....? Well, then I wouldn't choose *that* airline again.

V

[macroy]

Originally Posted by Scifience 

This hasn't been the rule for over a year now. If you come across a crew that is still enforcing it, you should report them to the FAA/airline.

Oh - never mind then
To be honest, I don't remember when I last flew out of DCA. I wonder if my registered traveler privileges still work....

[smacintush]

Common sense and airline travel parted ways long ago. Why should this be any different?

Personally, I hate flying. It's loud and uncomfortable, and there are too many idiotic rules and rituals. Yeah, I suppose I would get used to the bullshit if l flew often enough. I could get used to hitting myself in the head with a tack hammer.

[marden]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Me too. However, I have never been on a flight with a broken lavatory on a plane with only *one* lavatory.

Imagine - a 747 taking off full of pax for an hour's flight with no functioning lavatories.. It's the same. Doesn't matter if it is a RJ or a Jumbo jet. Some people aboard will *have* to go. I can't imagine an airline being so stupid as to dispatch a carrier with 0% of lavatories functioning.

If those are high expectations....? Well, then I wouldn't choose *that* airline again.

V

It's time for a revolution! Those bastards need to be shown they can't treat people like cattle.

A passenger's Bill of Rights is what we need, dammit!

They insist on treating us like animals? Well, PISS on em!

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by marden 

It's time for a revolution! Those bastards need to be shown they can't treat people like cattle.

A passenger's Bill of Rights is what we need, dammit!

They insist on treating us like animals? Well, PISS on em!

In my experience it isn't that bad. At least not with Iberia or Air Nostrum. Usually top service and very kind, understanding and polite.

And certainly never depart with 0% lavatories functioning.

OO apparently isn't a world class airline. Vote with your dollars as they say in the USA. Don't fly with airlines that treat pax like cattle.

V

[marden]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

In my experience it isn't that bad. At least not with Iberia or Air Nostrum. Usually top service and very kind, understanding and polite.

And certainly never depart with 0% lavatories functioning.

OO apparently isn't a world class airline. Vote with your dollars as they say in the USA. Don't fly with airlines that treat pax like cattle.

V

If that were the only airline with that, admittedly, isolated problem it wouldn't be so upsetting. The problem is that EVERY airline has different attitudes regarding passenger treatment and, industry-wide there is a GAP between the barest minimums of flight safety (proscribed by the FAA) and what is the minimums of what the average citizen would consider considerate service.

An airline could fly safely and within FAA regs yet still have NOTHING preventing their keeping passengers on board grounded planes for 15 hours at a time or flying with 0% working lavatories.

Face it, we are at the airlines mercy and these aren't the only types of mistreatment the average passenger is possibly subject to.