Questo sito web utilizza cookie. Continuando a usare e a navigare su questo sito, accetti l'utilizzo dei cookie.
Sapevi che il tracking dei voli di FlightAware è supportato dalla pubblicità?
Puoi aiutarci a mantenere FlightAware gratuito accettando gli annunci pubblicitari di Ci impegniamo per far sì che i nostri annunci siano pertinenti e discreti per offrire la migliore esperienza. Aggiungere gli annunci ammessi su FlightAware è facile e veloce oppure puoi prendere in considerazione i nostri account premium.
Back to Squawk list
  • 17

Now airline TOILETS are getting smaller

The "737 Advanced Lavatory" sheds seven inches from the most precarious seat on the plane... ( Altro...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

ADXbear 9

Tim Marks 6
Smaller toilets, smaller seats, smaller aisles, the only thing not getting smaller is the paying public. The average human has increased in overall size by almost 10% in the last 100 years - which is about the same timeframe the statistical measurements being used to determine who big (small) an airline seat, and now toilet, can become. The people making these executive decisions do not fly on the commercial aircraft, they travel around in an opulent business jet with huge first class seating and nearly apartment sized toilets. If they had to always fly commercial and not in first or business class, but in coach, decisions to downsize everything would be a different picture. As ADBEAR pointed out, all of these decisions are pushing into violation territory for all disabled passengers and those of us on the higher side of the human 95th percentile in size.
sparkie624 4
This is going over the line... For Some people they are going to have to use it from Long Distance! The lavatories are small even for a normal size person.... It will also affect those "Mile High" Lavatory people... Reminds me of the time a couple fell through the door in the act during turbulence!
mary susan watkins 2
well.the airlines could stop serving food and drink onboard (they almost have anyway),and put up a sign at the door to the jetway, (kind of like your mom used to remind you to do before a trip)saying did you go to the restroom before getting in line to board the airplane???please do...!
Viv Pike 2
I have done more long haul flights that I care to remember. Being based in South Africa, at more than 11 hours London is about the closest International destination I have been to. Many times. JFK is well over 15 hours for me, and Hong Kong 13 hours. I have never - repeat, never - used a bathroom for anything other than having a pee, washing my face, and brushing my teeth. In more than 30 years of International air travel, I have never done the "Number 2". I refuse point-blank.
Most of the flights I take are short, 3-5 hrs, rarely 10. However, in all cases, I avoid diurectics (coffee, tea) and drink minimally. I rarely use the washrooms at all, usually a line-up from the heavy eaters and drinkers. So I eat and drink very little before any flights.
Viv Pike 2
I am more than likely going to be tarred & feathered for saying this, and I know this comment will take a lot of flak. The problem is the consumer. Always looking for the very cheapest fare. Because the consumer "demands" the cheapest fares, the supplier needs to reduce the fare to attract customers. To make more money (from the reduced fares) they need to compensate by cramming in more passengers. More seats, less space. Most consumers, faced with a choice of airlines, will mostly opt for the cheaper fare. Using an example, if 1 airline has 150 seats and no frills, and the other has 30% less seats with all the frills, which would you choose? The cheaper? Or the one that costs 30% more? Reduce the seat count by 30%, increase the fare by 30%. But no. The consumer wants the cheap flight, then complains. The consumer has become complacent, and expects everything for nothing (metaphorically speaking). These days it is cheaper to fly than it is to drive. Ticket prices are very much lower now than they were years ago. I would happily pay the extra 30% for a pleasant flight. However, consumer demand for lower prices has driven the airlines to reduce fares. You pay for what you get. Just my penny worth.
Remember the lean years for the business? A couple of decades ago, when most airlines in the world were losing hundreds of millions of dollars for several years in a row? Remember Pan Am, and all the others who went bankrupt? The regan deregulation, when protection exited, competion skyrocketted and fares went cheap. The public got what it asked for, the business went into chaos, and ever since it has been scrambling for every penny. No right to health care, but the public believes there should be a right to airline travel. Certainly it is an issue for Congress & the president to consider. Maintain the status quo, or start regulating the industry. Let’s make airline travel great again, like it really was in the 60’s and 70’s. Should be easy for an administration that holds all the cards.
Thank God! I know what we're all thinking -- right now those lavatories are just way too big!
PaulN2719 1
And how long before we're being charged to use the lavatory? It has been suggested!
What’s the big deal? Your blanket, an airsick bag... ..and you’re good to go. Best thing, though, is to fast before flying.... I refer to those flights as a fast trip.
You forget adult diapers... 🤢
On second thought, that is a bad suggestion.... on some flights, airlines might take the no-toilet suggestion seriously, and just have a stack of “Depends” issued at check-in. Of course, the adverts would refer to a “dependable” airline, or an in(ter)continental flight. But really, In reality, after reading the article, it would seem to be mostly a change in wall design.
You are right.... I could just sneak that into the trash with the lunch remnants as the cabin staff passes by...
« Now airline TOILETS are getting smaller. » ... excepté for A220Airbus (ex CSeries »!!
Larry Toler 1
I read about that. There's even a picture with 3 flight attendants fitting inside. I'm sure there will be a cabin option to make those smaller and add more seats as well.
I wonder what size person these designers are using for "tests" on the newer,smaller restrooms? in actuality, even the old ones cant be called "bathrooms" (no room to really bathe if you wanted to,even in the sinks), and "restroom" is not really true as there is no room to rest!they are beginning to look like the "porta potties"you have at outdoor festivals and the like!
Probably an average size. Given that, roughly, 37% of Americans are obese, it might just barely suit them. However, the rest of the world probably fits just fine. The market is global. Regardless of the current trend that Americans have been badly abused by the rest of the world, they are the authors of their own problems. Is it Americans only, complaining about toilet size? Toilets are not just in aircraft, but also busses and trains, maybe ships. . It would be worthwhile to compare them all to see if one particular mode of transportation is expecting too little from it’s clients.....
Tim Marks 2
I am willing to bet you are an average sized adult Hugh, probably 5'10" and 180lbs? When you are 6'3" and 275lbs - and not obese - trying to use an commercial aircraft lav is a proposition in contortionist yoga. Making the lav any smaller will make it nearly impossible for those of us in the 95th percentile for human height. And it is not an American thing - we grow them bigger over here in North America.
There is no doubt that commercial aircraft for decades have not allowed any space for anyone who is above the “average” size. Me, 180 lbs and 6’, and I feel squeezed in an airlne seat both for length and width. Definitely right, not an American thing. The UK has the highest obesity rate in Europe as I recall. However, the only way anything will change is for the consumer to fight back with their wallets. Complaints do very little. Not using the product sends a much bigger message. I have not flown commercially now for years. It is too uncomfortable, too congested, too many “unexpected” additional costs. These days I only fly if the trip is over water. Mostly, I’ll go by car, train or boat if it’s at all feasible. I’ll start to fly again when seats and toilets are bigger, andboarding lines smaller. Last time I flew I asked for a wheelchair for my 85 yr old moth, who was also quite heavey. As soon as it arrived, some 70 yr old jumped in and so my mother had to walk. She skipped the toilet for the trip. But I blame all this on the deregulation decades ago. The fares are cheap, but the quality of flying is deploreable.... Unless you are very wealthy.
Hugh, I'm 6'2" and 285lbs. A little flabby? Sure, but that happens when you're retired and physically disabled. Aircraft lavs have been a no-go for me for over a decade now because my arthritis and the cramped quarters do not allow me to perform the gymnastics needed to make use of them. Making them 7" smaller isn't going to make that problem much worse, but it sure won't make it any better. But you're an understanding kind of guy, aren't you? I'm sure you won't mind if I sit next to you when I can't hold it anymore, right?
Most of my comments have been facetious. As indicated above, I think flying conditions for passengers are deploreable. I think that whenever possible, people to avoid flying. I fight back with my wallet, I just do not fly. Too narrow a seat, too short a pitch, everything an expense, too many line-ups. I recently drove from Toronto to Kansas, about a thousand miles, to avoid flying. The car ride was comfortable, I had lots of access to washrooms, I ate whatever and whenever I wanted, and I enjoyed a close look at the scenery. My view... I would rather have a 1st class car or train ride, that a 3rd class ride in an airborne sardine can.


Non hai un account? Registrati adesso (è gratis) per usufruire di funzioni personalizzate, allarmi voli e molto altro!