Chrizztofa
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2014
- Posts
- 232
Michael O'Leary at Ryanair once made a similar point when rumours were circulating that FR wanted to charge passengers for using toilets. His argument was that by charging, for use FR would change passenger behaviour so they would need one fewer toilet per flight and could put in more seats instead.Let's take a more pragmatic view of this. The only thing absolutely worth conceding here is that the toilet ratio is worse for Economy passengers. That's it.
Is it actually worse for Y passengers? What are the effects - people wait longer, toilets are on average smellier, increase of risk of urinary diseases across people who regularly fly QF?
No one is honestly tracking all of this, e.g. the average wait time of a passenger in any type of aircraft. Maybe QF don't really want to do it either. But none of the accusers have honestly and practically laid out that this will lead to a drastically more uncomfortable toilet experience for all Y passengers (maybe all J passengers if you want to be strict, since they go from 12 pax to 1 toilet to 20 pax to 1 toilet). QF have certainly increased the risk of dissatisfaction - especially if and when these aircraft fly routes longer than about 2 hours - but I don't think anything but experience is going to tell whether it practically translates to a material discomfort or dissatisfaction. (Of course, those who realise this may decide to change their toilet habits to avoid using the aircraft toilet, which masks whether QF actually were OK or not in making this design decision).
While the social media disquiet may dissipate once the aircraft is in regular service, the toilet queues on PER-SYD was mentioned in at least one published flight review, so it does seem to be out of the ordinary (by current standards) for regular flyers...and just adds to the perception of QF being 'cheap' while charging sky-high prices (at least with FR and JQ you expect a vaguely bad experience!)