Airline passengers sue over first class loo

Precisely. 

you do have to know F/J pax do not like to queeue to start with, especailly in asmall cramp cabin and standing in a line.

I would if I was bursting to use the loo. No point being so precious if you're about to wet your pants.

First world problems. If this is the worst that can happen then life must be very charmed. Any toilet other than my own home is 'public' and I avoid unless really needed. I can tell you that First/Business class pax still stink the place up just like those 'great unwashed' economy underlings that a few of you seem to despise on here. It's still just a public crapper anyways. If it was anything like VA Business 737 it was no different to the economy toilet anyways. I maybe understand on a longhaul where you pay big bucks, but a few hrs on a 737?? Really?? 

Timely access to the First class toilet can be rectified if said passenger waited in line. Did she expect all other first class passenger to evacuate the toilets at her request on the basis of her urological condition? 

The issue of "having to wait" for coach passengers to get out first cuts to the heart of the 1st world problem snide remarks. Get a grip. You're flying first class... You're not that special. 

Maybe in the event of the plane ditching a First class passenger should expect only other first class passenger in their life raft? I hear the violins on the Titanic playing....

TheRealBabushka If I don't even know if she was mobility impaired or not, I don't know how you can just assume she wasn't and it was reasonable for her to stand in line.

It was my point, that it's easy to be made a fool making comments about a situation on which only a little is known. As is often said "Fools rush in... Only to later remove their foot from their mouth!"

As to the issue on bathroom access, on which I clearly made my point but which it seems you did not bother to read, what you or I think should be case is irrelevant, it's what the airline says it is offering.

If the airline markets their premium cabins as having cabin exclusive toliets, then it should follow through with that (except in reasonable circumstances, examples of which I outlined in my post). If it doesn't market such a feature/policy, then people shouldn't expect such features.

You can't expect businesses to offer you something, just because you think it should, and businesses should honour any commitments/marketing it makes to buy their products and services - it really isn't rocket science.

I am suggesting it is distasteful to sue that First class toilets are being used by Economy class pax even if the rules are clear that First class toilets are only for First class passengers. The very fact that it is a toilet makes it's different from any other premium class amenity. This type of segregation borders on the issue of toilets for black people and toilets for white people in segregated America of the past.

But she is not suing on the grounds the forward toliet was used by someone that was from Economy/Coach - the lawsuit is not brought on commercial misrepresentation, it's a negligence claim for injury and economic and non-economic damage, arising from the alleged slamming of the toliet door on the customer by the F/A onboard. This is clearly stated in the article above, as evidenced by the compensation sort.

The court isn't being asked to rule on whether the airline's toliet access policy is right or wrong!

TheRealBabushka - are you really trying to equate or even suggest that apartheid or racism is the same as people in economy being refused access to toliets in First or Business class?!?  Rosa Parks and Nelson Mandela would be turning in their graves...

gippsflyer,

Yes I note the basis of the negligence claim is due to the slamming of the door. I am not suggesting that the FA was somehow right in slamming the door. Nor am doubting that the claimant was genuinely physically hurt.

I am however suggesting that a large part of this negligence claim has got to do with hurt pride and ego. This stemming from the believe that the claimant as a First Class passenger ought to be treated as such and not have coach passenger using the First Class toilet. That is the bit that a lot of people are mocking and making snide comments about.

Further, the whole episode may take on a special meaning in America becuase of the association of segregated toilets from America's history. To neglect the possiblity of emotional ressonance on this subject is to be naive at best.

I admit however that I may have been innacurate when suggesting it was "...distasteful to sue that First class toilets are being used by Economy class pax". You are correct in my tardiness on that count.

On that particular aspect we can agree - if the airline never represented that the forward toliet was only for F pax, it is the pax that was in the wrong (although that doesn't excuse the assault, if that happened as alleged).

Using the Rosa Parks example - African-American and white people using the bus paid the same price, but were discrimated against solely on race. Same in the lunch counter protests, and the state funded schools segregations (African-American and white were taxed using the same methodology, but African-Americans received little back in benefits). Discrimination by price paid may be a tenuous form of indirect discrimination, depending on the individual circumstances (prolonged injustice, creating reduction in opportunities), but so is treating everyone the same regardless of their efforts, achievements, talents, capabilities, etc.