This is bad advice:
« Do not wash your hands in the bathroom; use alcohol-based hand sanitizer containing at least 60% alcohol instead. »
Alcohol only kills some pathogens. Notably, it does not kill norovirus. If the water has coliform bacteria, you should wash your hands with soap and water and then use the alcohol hand sanitizer
That people like the author of the article proudly don't wash their hands after being in a bathroom is a huge argument for washing your hands whenever you've been in public and trying to avoid touching your face if you haven't washed your hands.
I don't think this has anything to do with being "proud" when it's part of a study summary that said the water you'd wash with commonly contains e.coli and advises a different cleaning method instead -- misguided as that conclusion may be when considering other types of viruses (I'm not an expert and cannot judge either argument's merit). Seems strange/unfair to lump them in with people that "proudly" (do you know anyone like that??) don't clean their hands
Sanitizer also does not remove dirt and grime from your hands.
At least the dirt and grime will have fewer pathogens
Unfortunately the reason you need mechanical cleaning is that dirt and grime prevent disinfectants from reaching pathogens or being effective once they do reach them.
And then touch the knob to open the door... the same knob half the other lavatory users touched with completely unwashed hands.
You should push the knob with a paper towel instead. I do this at all small public restrooms.
isnt most of the advantage of soap is that it gets the germs off your skin and washes them down the drain. the soap does not have to kill them to work.
I thought that soap did something more than just wash the nasties off - something about it interfering with cell walls of viruses/bacteria and therefore killing them
Looked it up
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3037063/
Handwashing is thought to be effective for the prevention of transmission of diarrhoea pathogens. However it is not conclusive that handwashing with soap is more effective at reducing contamination with bacteria associated with diarrhoea than using water only. In this study 20 volunteers contaminated their hands deliberately by touching door handles and railings in public spaces. They were then allocated at random to (1) handwashing with water, (2) handwashing with non-antibacterial soap and (3) no handwashing. Each volunteer underwent this procedure 24 times, yielding 480 samples overall. Bacteria of potential faecal origin (mostly Enterococcus and Enterobacter spp.) were found after no handwashing in 44% of samples. Handwashing with water alone reduced the presence of bacteria to 23% (p < 0.001). Handwashing with plain soap and water reduced the presence of bacteria to 8% (comparison of both handwashing arms: p < 0.001). The effect did not appear to depend on the bacteria species. Handwashing with non-antibacterial soap and water is more effective for the removal of bacteria of potential faecal origin from hands than handwashing with water alone and should therefore be more useful for the prevention of transmission of diarrhoeal diseases.
Why not use antibacterial soap instead of NON-antibacterial soap? Wouldn’t it be even more effective?
The better advice is to ask the flight attendants for a cup of bottled water and use that instead, especially for brushing teeth.
There's a YouTuber named Stig Shift who chronicles his job as an airline mechanic and he insists the bathroom water is clean enough to drink.
It says right on the bathroom faucet that it isn’t for drinking - anyone brushing their teeth with the sink water is a fool.
Newer planes do not have that sign and even supply paper drinking cups https://i0.wp.com/roomreviews.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06...
I think that's a bit of a harsh take. People will use what they can get, and they may be assuming the signage was placed there for compliance/legal box-ticking reasons rather than because it will actually make them sick.
If you fail to heed a warning, though, the law provides that you assume the risk of injury that could result and contributed to your own injury. Without assumption of risk, anyone who provides any services would be strictly liable for any injury, even for those that don’t result from inherently dangerous activities. That would mark a significant change in the law and would suddenly make a lot of activities and services infeasible to provide.
Also it doesn’t kill c diff bacteria
Presumably the number they are doing is less than 2 otherwise this is disgusting.
How are these scores so vastly different between airlines?
I understand the water sources may vary (by airport? not sure?), but if the planes are largely manufactured by Boeing and Airbus, how are the onboard water sources / distribution systems getting contaminated?
Delta being a 5.00 means they're doing something different, but what is it & what control do they have over the plumbing, water systems, etc.?
"Do not drink coffee or tea onboard." - Why not? Most common pathogens are killed by 140F water, and tea and coffee extracts disrupt some pathogens. As long as the water has been kept hot for a while, or approaches boiling temp, you're good
Even killing all pathogens does not reduce all toxins already present in contaminated liquids. If you or others you know ever had (air) “traveller diarrhea”, you can try avoiding liquids in planes and see how it goes. The n95 masking and avoidance of drinks and food during flights opened the eyes of a lot of friends to this change. None of these pathogens in water are very serious strains to the body, whereas covid or flu are, so not as big a deal as avoiding yet another nasty airborne disease, but it all helps in small ways.
I don’t think approaching boiling temps is quite enough unless it’s kept there for a long time (see pasteurisation times at various temps). I would agree with the author that if the contamination levels are high I wouldn’t risk it.
Well, for coffee it’s brought to near boiling then brew time is typically a few minutes, then it’s largely stored above 140 degrees.
It's a mere anecdote and YMMV but I've had the onboard coffee and tea with a variety of airlines many times over the years and to memory it's never given me trouble.
If the airline really doesn't care about the quality of water, then there might be other things in the water beside bacteria. Boiling will not remove chemical contaminants.
Before reading TFA, I'd like to bet $50 that if the article includes the rankings, Delta will be at the very top and American Airlines will be at the very bottom
Airline Water Safety Scores At-a-Glance (5.00 = highest rating, 0.00 = lowest):
Major Airlines
Delta Air Lines: 5.00 (Grade A)
Frontier Airlines: 4.80 (Grade A)
Alaska Airlines: 3.85 (Grade B)
Allegiant Air: 3.65 (Grade B)
Southwest Airlines: 3.30 (Grade C)
Hawaiian Airlines: 3.15 (Grade C)
United Airlines: 2.70 (Grade C)
Spirit Airlines: 2.05 (Grade D)
JetBlue: 1.80 (Grade D)
American Airlines: 1.75 (Grade D)
Regional Airlines
GoJet Airlines: 3.85 (Grade B)
Piedmont Airlines: 3.05 (Grade C)
Sun Country Airlines: 3.00 (Grade C)
Endeavor Air: 2.95 (Grade C)
SkyWest Airlines: 2.40 (Grade D)
Envoy Air: 2.30 (Grade D)
PSA Airlines: 2.25 (Grade D)
Air Wisconsin Airlines: 2.15 (Grade D)
Republic Airways: 2.05 (Grade D)
CommuteAir: 1.60 (Grade D)
Mesa Airlines: 1.35 (Grade F)
[edit: formatting]
"Among major airlines, American Airlines has the lowest score of 1.75 (Grade D)."
Nice. Is this from experience?
Yes, it's night and day. From purchase to lounge to flight and even airport terminal, it's a completely different experience. American Airlines is not only bad overall but it's so f dirty everywhere.
And also every time there's a report, they rank this way
As for bag space...
I always take my suitcase and my backpack to the airplane and then I check my suitcase at the gate. Three reasons. First, there are no baggage fees at the gate. Second, I can roll backpack on my suitcase. Third, I get to board early for "helping out". Why wouldn't you do this?
I do only check it if someone else in my party is already checking bags but that turns out to be most of the time for me.
Note: I'm actually replying to a reply that's too deep.
> Why wouldn't you do this?
Normally gate checking is the better option, but you can't do it when flying with stuff that can't go into a carryon: bottles of wine, firearms, and so on.
The advantage of American, anecdotally, is most of their planes in the routes I've been flying have the sideway bag bins that don't fill up, so I don't have to play the standing-in-line and boarding group game.
Doesn't it differ by aircraft too? I believe the 787 dreamliner has a UV water purification system for potable water.
I'm sure they're correct about a lot of airline water being nasty - no argument there, but the organization/website sounds like it has a mission that is probably at least partly pseudoscience adjacent:
"Mission Center For Food As Medicine & Longevity is a nonprofit organization working to bridge the gap between traditional medicine and the use of food as medicine in the prevention, treatment, and management of disease while also increasing access to these treatments, thereby creating a more equitable food system that will improve health outcomes."
It might not be, but I'm skeptical of most articles coming from organizations sounding like that. Eating healthy and nutritious food is incredibly important and a good diet can prevent certain diseases. Maybe that is all they're trying to say. However, I come across a lot of people who just think you can avoid medicine all together and just eat certain foods and herbs.
What is the pseudoscience in that statement? There is no reference to specific foods, superfoods, etc.
An inlaw who worked as a stewardess (back when they were called "stewardesses") on international routes for many years always carried her own water.
> The “Shame on You” Award goes to the EPA for weak enforcement.
It makes me wonder, how much money is actually wasted by this? It also feels like violations should be the primary funding for these agencies. (Probably creates perverse incentives though)
If you are flying Southwest and need a drink, ask for a can of water.
This doesn’t make sense. One of the airlines with a grade C uses cans of water on board, yet the article’s advice is to only drink bottled water?
My understanding is the water tested in this study is the water in the lavatory faucet and what they use to make hot beverages onboard. If you ask a flight attendant for water you would always get water from a can/bottle/box depending on airline, at least based on my limited experience.
They tested the water from the tanks, which apparently is used to prepare hot drinks.
- "The ADWR requires airlines to take samples from their water tanks to test for coliform bacteria and possible E. coli."
I believe the study is based on water in the tank of the passenger airline and the advice given is to not drink that water, on average.
(2023)
The article says 2026 report and has a byline date of December 29, 2025
tl;dr some airlines have poo in their water. Best advice is to treat any water not coming out of a bottle on an airplane as non potable. Wash your hands with it and that’s about it and even then a good hand sanitizer afterwards is a good idea.
Worth a listen to this podcast: https://pjvogt.substack.com/p/wait-should-i-not-be-drinking-...
WTF is with these AI slop header images... does the author actually think an image of a woman crumpling a cup into her face against a backdrop of airplane parts is not going to distract from the post?
The article is from 2023. I wouldn't be too hard on the author as it was still a novelty back then.
> person drinking airline coffee unsure what is in it / Midjourney
I’d rather PJ focus on his podcast rather than making visual art. Akin to using a stock image instead of going out taking a picture instead to save time.
Having no art is better than that art.
Almost any mildly relevant stock image would have been better if having an image was that desirable.
and wow look at that hand
2023 was a different time…
That’s no hand.
Way more important than not drinking the water is not breathing the air.
Please wear an N95 when you lock yourself in a tiny steel tube with hundreds of others. If not for your safety, do it for others.
During boarding/unboarding, sure, but during the actual flight when the aircrafts intake/recirculation system is running you're getting much better air quality than basically any building you'd be in. “Tiny steel tube with hundreds of others” is a _very_ misleading statement.