http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundl ... -1.2649342

Years ago this route had 737 service and now you gotta go in a bag and freeze in the winter

"She does, however, blame the airline and operator."

Of course she does. Imagine, though, the howls of outrage had the flight been cancelled, rather than substituting aircraft. Plus of course the follow-on demands for hotel accommodation, cabs, meal vouchers, etc. for passengers stranded by the cancellation. Throw in a bit of CBC Marketplace coverage and away we go.

And of course obviously it's the airline's fault that:
1. The airplane went mechanical in the first place (because complex machinery never goes out of service);
2. Buddy missed (or chose to ignore) the pre-boarding announcements about unavailable lav service;
3. Buddy can't manage more than 10 minutes into the first leg of a flight without needing to relieve himself; and
4. Demand on the route is small enough that a 737 doesn't make sense.

Of course she blames the airline and the operator. Classic case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Yes well Sydney used to have 5 times daily flights on the dc 9. What equipment they used to have on it matters not. That said the 7 b1900s in yqx have a total of 2.5 lavs between them "one stc'd lav is swapped between two planes". I don't know about the recently inherited Georgian machines, but I am pretty sure the contract requires a lav, maybe big red should make sure there subcontractors are in compliance

Big Red doesn't care. Their new model of farming out work to the lowest bidder is netting them serious $$$.

Spiral... Spiral... Spiral

rigpiggy wrote:Yes well Sydney used to have 5 times daily flights on the dc 9. What equipment they used to have on it matters not. That said the 7 b1900s in yqx have a total of 2.5 lavs between them "one stc'd lav is swapped between two planes". I don't know about the recently inherited Georgian machines, but I am pretty sure the contract requires a lav, maybe big red should make sure there subcontractors are in compliance

It said that there were 19 pax on the flight. Which means that they planned it based on a no lav airplane. If the AC contract requires a lav, then it should also limit the load to 18 pax. Can't have it both ways!

Captain Kangaroo wrote:Big Red doesn't care. Their new model of farming out work to the lowest bidder is netting them serious $$$.

Spiral... Spiral... Spiral

Cape Breton dilemma

Here I sit broken hearted, went to the back lav
Cause I thought I farted.
Next flight out, no lav good chance,
Hoping I farted, but shit my pants

Old fella wrote:

Captain Kangaroo wrote:Big Red doesn't care. Their new model of farming out work to the lowest bidder is netting them serious $$$.

Spiral... Spiral... Spiral

Cape Breton dilemma

Here I sit broken hearted, went to the back lav
Cause I thought I farted.
Next flight out, no lav good chance,
Hoping I farted, but shit my pants

That was beautiful, but poignant, and it moved me.

Changes in Latitudes wrote:

Old fella wrote:

Captain Kangaroo wrote:Big Red doesn't care. Their new model of farming out work to the lowest bidder is netting them serious $$$.

Spiral... Spiral... Spiral

Cape Breton dilemma

Here I sit broken hearted, went to the back lav
Cause I thought I farted.
Next flight out, no lav good chance,
Hoping I farted, but shit my pants

That was beautiful, but poignant, and it moved me.

Another dilemma - get a "grip" though

Any of the FAs who, give me directions to the aircraft loo
For I am needing to piss, and addition to this
I’am itching to mas-ter-bate too.