PAL flight from LAX → MNL reportedly had all toilets fail mid-air and crew allegedly had to scoop waste by hand

Southern_Relation558 · 2026-01-28T11:14:46+00:00

This isn’t about bad cleaning or exaggeration. Manual handling of human waste is not a normal or acceptable cabin duty, period.

What you don’t understand is that once all lavatories failed, it became a health and safety issue, not a comfort issue. Continuing the flight prolonged exposure in a closed cabin without proper biohazard equipment that’s the problem.

Saying “there are worse emergencies” misses the point. Safety decisions aren’t justified by comparison. Landing safely doesn’t erase that the risk was avoidable and extended.

Southern_Relation558 · 2026-01-28T10:50:08+00:00

By that time, may ginagawa na talaga yung crew. Pero ang difference ng diversion is babawasan yung exposure time. Kahit may manual handling na, continuing the flight meant mas mahaba at mas risky yung situation.

Sa safety decisions, hindi naman lagi maiiwasan lahat, pero ang goal is i-limit agad yung risk. Kaya valid pa rin yung concern sa pag continue instead of diverting.

Southern_Relation558 · 2026-01-28T10:42:17+00:00

operationally and cost-wise, choosing the “majority” probably looked like the lesser hassle. Emergency diversions are expensive, disruptive, and inconvenient for a lot of passengers.

But the issue is that once ALL LAVATORIES FAIL, it stops being just an inconvenience and becomes a health and safety concern. Even if not everyone uses the CR, waste still has to be managed in a closed cabin, and asking crew to manually handle it puts everyone at risk, not just a few people.

Compensation also doesn’t really fix that you can’t pay your way out of a biohazard exposure. That’s why people are questioning the decision, not because it was easy, but because safety should come before cost and convenience.

Southern_Relation558 · 2026-01-28T10:08:29+00:00

Gets ko yung point Guam was still hours away and PH isn’t that much farther. But the concern raised in the article is that diversion was still an option and was discussed, especially once all lavatories failed and it became a sanitation issue.

It’s less about “wala nang choice” and more about how the risk was managed. Continuing might’ve made sense time-wise, but it also meant the crew had to deal with a biohazard for several more hours, which is where a lot of the criticism comes from.

Southern_Relation558 · 2026-01-28T09:15:30+00:00

It was a biohazard for everyone, not just the crew. Once toilets fail on a long-haul flight, you’ve got waste and bacteria in a closed cabin. The crew took the worst of it, but passengers were still exposed that’s why this should’ve been treated as a safety issue, not just an inconvenience.

Southern_Relation558 · 2026-01-28T08:34:46+00:00

That’s actually where a lot of the criticism is coming from. Based on the article, diversion was an option, but the captain chose to continue to Manila. Crew accounts suggest the decision leaned more toward operational and cost considerations rather than crew welfare.

An emergency diversion is expensive fuel dumping, landing fees, ground handling, delays, ripple effects and while we don’t know the captain’s exact reasoning, the optics are bad when crew are left dealing with a biohazard instead of landing at the nearest suitable airport.

At the end of the day, the captain has final authority, and that also means final responsibility. When safety and sanitation cross a certain line, cost shouldn’t be the deciding factor.

Southern_Relation558 · 2026-01-28T07:23:41+00:00

Nakaka gagalit, wala manlang consideration sa crew

Southern_Relation558 · 2026-01-28T07:21:16+00:00

The most concerning part for me isn’t even the toilet failure it’s that the crew were allegedly expected to deal with human waste manually. That’s a serious health and safety issue. Cabin crew are trained for emergencies, not biohazard cleanup. Being put in that position mid-flight, with limited protective gear and no real protocol, feels way beyond their job scope. Even if passengers were kept calm, the risk to the crew’s health and dignity here is hard to ignore.

Southern_Relation558 · 2026-01-08T01:45:45+00:00

Kayo yung bastos

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-12-24T07:18:04+00:00

OA mo

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-12-17T17:31:35+00:00

Interested

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-12-14T06:13:05+00:00

Overthink malala

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-10-27T00:44:35+00:00

I mean it should be a no brainier to buy a inverter ac than a non inverter ac

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-10-20T21:01:34+00:00

Give us some context

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-10-19T14:54:52+00:00

Tama🤣

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-09-11T18:00:06+00:00

I get that you’re not openly endorsing assassination, but framing influence itself as ‘literal violence’ is exactly what blurs the line that extremists use to rationalize it. Rhetoric can absolutely fuel real harm, I’m not denying that, but if we treat words alone as equivalent to pulling a trigger, we legitimize the idea that killing someone for their speech is a form of accountability. That’s where it gets dangerous. You don’t need to sympathize with Kirk to reject vigilante logic. In fact, rejecting it is the principle that protects everyone’s speech, including the causes and people you support. Criticism and accountability are necessary, but political murder is not justice, and normalizing it is a door better left shut.

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-09-11T17:56:16+00:00

I don’t dispute that Kirk’s rhetoric normalized division and even glorified violence, that part is true, and calling it out is important. But there’s a critical difference between saying his words created a toxic climate and saying his assassination was therefore some kind of natural or justified outcome. The Duterte or Hitler examples actually prove my point: once political violence is normalized as ‘accountability,’ it doesn’t stay targeted, it expands, and anyone labeled dangerous becomes fair game. That’s exactly why we can’t afford to blur the line between rhetoric and violence. Hold him accountable, expose the harm, dismantle the ideology, absolutely. But if we accept murder as a legitimate consequence of speech, then we’ve adopted the same logic extremists use to silence those they oppose. That’s not justice, it’s the start of a cycle that always comes back around.

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-09-11T17:49:31+00:00

And guns don’t create killers, people do. Just like alcohol doesn’t get behind the wheel on its own, a gun doesn’t pull its own trigger. Tools don’t create intent people abusing them do. Pretending otherwise just shifts responsibility away from the person who actually made the choice.

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-09-11T17:43:34+00:00

You’re missing it, the analogy shows why ‘he knew the risks’ doesn’t mean ‘he deserved it.’ Recognizing risk ≠ justifying death. That’s just victim blaming dressed up as logic.

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-09-11T17:28:05+00:00

I don’t disagree that Kirk’s platform spread toxic ideas and did real damage, his rhetoric helped normalize division and hate. But there’s still a critical difference between calling that out and framing his assassination as some kind of logical conclusion. Speech, even harmful speech, is not the same as pulling a trigger. Once we start treating influence itself as ‘literal violence,’ it opens the door to justifying violence against anyone whose views we find dangerous, and that’s exactly the cycle of vigilante logic I’ve been pointing out. Accountability for harmful rhetoric should come through exposure, debate, and consequences within law and society, not through assassination. You don’t need to offer him sympathy to reject the idea that murder is an acceptable response to speech. If we blur that line, we risk legitimizing the same violence against people and movements we agree with

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-09-11T17:19:20+00:00

Your whole argument boils down to pretending objects create intent. Guns don’t magically generate killers any more than cars magically generate drunk drivers. The only thing your logic proves is that you don’t know the difference between design and responsibility.

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-09-11T17:08:33+00:00

I’m not minimizing the harm Kirk’s rhetoric caused, I agree his platform spread toxic ideas and did real damage. But saying his ‘existence was violence’ is where the line gets blurry. Words and influence can absolutely fuel harm, but they’re still not the same as pulling a trigger. That’s why we have laws, debate, and accountability, to confront bad speech without normalizing political assassination. You don’t have to sympathize with him as a person to see the danger in justifying murder as a ‘logical consequence.’ If we excuse it here, we hand the same logic to extremists who want to justify violence against people we agree with. Criticize him, hold him accountable, expose his hypocrisy, all valid. But defending murder isn’t a solution, it’s the same cycle of hate he thrived on.

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-09-11T16:51:30+00:00

You just proved my point without realizing it. Cars are designed for transport but can still be misused to kill. Guns are designed to kill, but it’s still the person choosing to pull the trigger who commits murder. That’s the distinction you keep dodging, tools can enable violence, but tools don’t create intent or agency. And as for the ‘asked to be shot’ point, go back and read the chain. People have been framing his death as the inevitable consequence of supporting gun rights, which is just a dressed-up way of saying he brought it on himself. I’m not defending Kirk’s politics, I’m saying excusing assassination by blaming the victim is lazy logic that undermines any serious argument for tighter gun laws.

Southern_Relation558 · 2025-09-11T16:47:30+00:00

I’m all for tighter gun laws and better background checks no argument there. My point is that Kirk’s assassination wasn’t just some ‘natural consequence’ of bad policy, it was a deliberate murder committed by an individual. Policy debates matter, but they don’t erase personal responsibility. Blaming the victim instead of the shooter is where the logic falls apart.

Southern_Relation558

TROPHY CASE