Is it really necessary?

May 6th, 2006, 07:39 PM
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 207
Dah. If all of the things you mentioned weren't part of flight travel, then it would give some "butt head" the opportunity to sue. Charging for headphones, well, it is in effort to have them returned, for personal responsibility, effort to keep them nice, and just keep them, I guess. Sensoring...yes! I'm undamaged by hearing it...but Gee...children are exposed to so much crap, and there is a lot of crap anymore for all of us. What happened to simple respect? Such a rude and thoughtless society we have become!! 40 times!! A bit much...Mmmm? That many? But, really, it is frustrating, people just don't listen anymore....repeating helps. There is always someone who will blame the airlines for not announcing something when they already did, or those who will say, "I didn't hear that...I didn't get that?...What did they say? Never fails. Is this how "Air Rage" begins?
MrsKiss is offline  
May 7th, 2006, 01:48 PM
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,372
lynnjoel1015, the autopilot goes on immediately after liftoff and stays on until on short final (no more than a mile from touchdown). The autopilot can fly the airplane much more smoothly than the humans, and the humans, when in the lower altitudes, are running checklists and keeping an eye out for the little folks who inhabit the world below 18000 feet.

As someone who can't imagine being in a moving vehicle without a buckled seatbelt (car and plane always, boat when available), the existence or nonexistence of a sign is irrelevant.

bobmrg, pilot, ex-USCG sailor
Bobmrg is offline  
May 7th, 2006, 07:30 PM
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,850
wally- you have never been a flight attendant. Nor have I. However, I asked a friend's mother about this (30 years on the job) and she basically replied as the following:

1) censorship is exremely conservative because it follows a "better safe than sorry" policy. Also, nowadays so many people travel with their own modes of entertainment, those who are annoyed can easily tune out.

2) Airlines take money where they can get it. Necessary, no. Beneficial, yes.

3) Actually, non-smoking on flights has not been mainstream for more than a decade on all airlines, so the assumption is, again, that it is better to be safe than sorry. Also, it is an offense that can take one to court and it is easier to make the case when they were previously informed.

4) If everyone was capable, then preparation would take no time. However, not everyone is able to do things like that. There are children, frustratingly annoying people, sleepers. . . have you ever tried to get a tired child ready for school? Try doing that to an entire plane of people.

5) Again, better safe than sorry.

6) repeat

these are my answers:
7) Airports are completely absurd places, and announcements like that just confirm the fact. However, with how much traffic they get, and the huge turnover, every 4 minutes seems pretty on the mark.

8) BK is a business and they are taking advantage of the fact that people show up hungry, irritable and without a lot of quick options. It is annoying, but good business.

9) I fully agree.

My big complaint about airports and planes is that, as a frequent traveler, I end up feeling like I am getting repeated to all the time. However, I realize that most people on the plane do not get around as much as I do. So, I sit through it and do my best not to get annoyed. I recommend you do the same. Even laugh at some of the absurdity!

laclaire is offline  
May 8th, 2006, 06:33 AM
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,291
If it's better safe than sorry, expect the airlines to have us in the "brace" position for the entire flight in the near future.
wally34949 is offline  
May 8th, 2006, 08:42 PM
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,850
I still don't know why they don't just use tranquilizers. I mean, really!
laclaire is offline  
May 9th, 2006, 04:16 AM
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 272
How could I have forgotten about this dum-dum thing at O’Hare? The restaurants and bars have a sign that say “To Ensure Proper Service, We ID 100%”. That’s right, a 70 year-old who want to have a glass of wine with their dinner has to prove they are over 21! And I have personally witnessed this.

This isn’t a compliment as in “Gee, are you really 46 Mr. Tim”; it’s annoying as can be. Annoying because, once again, common sense has died another death.

I purposely get a beer at the Billy Goat because, despite any sign, they never card people in their mid 40’s. I even told them that they get my beer money and not the bar next to them, for I appreciate their simple wisdom.
CubFanAlways is offline  
May 11th, 2006, 04:50 PM
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,420
Most of the USELESS announcements are goverment mandated.

The TSA is especially fond of beliveing that ANNOUNCEMENTS and RUDENESS equal SAFETY!

(I personally believe I am no safer today then prior to the founding of the TSA, but the hassle level on travel has increased dramatically....)
CarolA is offline  
May 11th, 2006, 05:30 PM
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 440 may not be any safer now, but you get much more personal service at the "pat down".
jamaltay is offline  
May 11th, 2006, 07:58 PM
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 272
Regarding TSA, I'm with you CarolA. Ah, but don't get me going...
CubFanAlways is offline  
May 13th, 2006, 01:10 AM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,998
Econ 102: Airlines supply what customers will pay for. Focus, forecasts that quite soon airlines will disappear. Oil in its many forms will be in critical supply and not to be wasted on non-essential uses. Travel now that you may!
GSteed is offline  
May 15th, 2006, 03:23 PM
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 448
On a flight this weekend I noticed the plane did NOT have the ubiquitious no-smoking symbol. Not to start another rant, but in its place was "turn off electronic equipment' or something along those lines.
tmh is offline  
May 16th, 2006, 07:33 AM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,271
Without getting into the cell phone debate, there is not one iota of proof or suggestion that cell phones will mess up a plane's navigational aides...cell phones will probably not work at the heights plane fly but part of the cell phone ban, of course, is for airlines to make money on phone calls using their systems.

I am sure people constantly leave cell phones on accidentally or they turn on when you put them in a tight pocket (it's happened to me) and there is nto one case reported of anything bad happening....

Then there's the question of just when you can use your cell phone when the plane lands....many airlines now just don't care, as soon as the plane's wheels hit the ground, you reach in and turn the cell phone on...some airlines announce you may not use your cell phone till your inside the terminal...US immigration and cutoms do not allow cell phones in the immigration and customs areas (although at JFK there are pay phones in the cutoms area)...just observations.
xyz123 is offline  
May 16th, 2006, 09:00 AM
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,291
I assumed (Hope I didn't didn't make an(ASS U ME) that since so many cell phones had cameras, and photos are not permitted, they wanted all cell phones put away during customs and immigration.

However, listening to someone in the air talking to their loved-one about their last sexual encounter would not be someone I would want to sit next to for 8 hours.
wally34949 is offline  
May 16th, 2006, 11:57 AM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,505
I don't really understand the cell phone restriction. With one or two accidentally being on and receiveing a call there is apparently no problem. But without the restriction it might be a problem if 100 cell phone calls were being made while the pilot was getting landing instructions from the controller.
mrwunrfl is online now  
May 16th, 2006, 02:14 PM
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,420
Cell phones must remain OFF, because I don't want my entire flight disturbed by the IDIOT in the seat next to me who thinks it would be a good idea to conduct his business loudly at 30,000 feet. LOL!

So I am ALL for cell phones being off and staying off!!! Yes, they may not really endanger the equipment, but air travel is bad enough now without the guy who thinks we will all be impressed if he "deals" all the way to his destination... I think this will lead to bloodshed in the aisles...
CarolA is offline  
May 16th, 2006, 07:20 PM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,885
Immigration and Customs has that rule so nobody can warn the person behind about "extra" security/customs and such. This has always been in place, long before cellphones had cameras.

I agree, NO CELLPHONES DURING FLIGHT! I fly a great deal and, I do use and need to use the cellphone, but give me a break....!!!! Do you REALLY have to call somebody to tell them "we just landed"??? (I swear, if I hear that 100 more times, I will shoot somebody, and I know I will hear it that many times during just 1 trip)

Imagine if cellphones were allowed during flight, and it is becoming an issue now that the FAA approved the use and the technology will allow it, but the public hearings are still going on. Please write your congressperson, FAA, and stop this madness NOW, before it's too late!!!!!

If they do allow it, then you will be hearing about some idiot's life story just because s/he can use that little handset. If somebody can explain to me how the most important deal of the century can and has to wait (at least for now) when the "dealmaker" is stuck in the aluminum tube for few hours, but yet, once allowed to use all of hers/his toys will all of the sudden have a need to do the DEAL NOW! or worse, tell his/her, wife-husband/girlfriend-boyfriend/friend/business associate/whatever how we just took off and it looks like we will be on time.

I believe that the only way to control the "idiotic" calls is to make them pay through the nose. $5-10 a minute. If the deal is a make/break type situation, I'm sure the businessperson won't care how much it costs, but I really don't want to hear about somebodies wonderful weekend, a sob story, how much they love each other, etc.... At that price if you really need to, then go ahead, but I doubt there would be a great need for "no real purpose" calls, which these days account for about 80% of the calls I hear when sitting before takeoff/after touchdown.

Just got home from a short trip to Japan! Had a wonderful time!
AAFrequentFlyer is offline  
May 17th, 2006, 04:46 AM
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,291
Bring back the free wine and make people pay $100 a minute to use their cell phone. "What a plan!"
wally34949 is offline  
May 17th, 2006, 08:04 AM
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,049
I'm not eager to have cell phones used in planes, but I don't like them used in restaurants, either, where I blatently eavesdrop until the miscreant leaves to get some privacy.

However, banning their use on planes should be strictly a safety issue. If their use on planes poses a risk, let them be banned until they can demonstrate that there is no risk.

The history of allowing use of personal electronic equipment on board has always concerned only safety, primarily whether the devices emit signals that could interfere with the equipment on the plane. Over the years, there have been plenty of instances where the aircrew experienced some dysfunction, which stopped when the offending device was turned off, or even when it was relocated. However, controlled studies that have attempted to reproduce these findings have not been successful. I'm not super confident about these studies, as there are so many variables involved that I think it would be virtually impossible to replicate a situation with absolute accuracy.

In any event, today's devices are far improved over those of even a few years ago, and the FAA does allow use of them when the plane is at altitude, but bans their use during takeoff and landing, out of an excess of caution, as there is almost no time to recover from an event, no matter how rare, in that environment.

Cell phones, other than those mounted in the plane, which you can rent, remain banned. I believe the cell phones mounted in the plane have some kind of special technology designed to avoid interference; I believe the cell phones almost all of us carry do not have that technology. In any event, the plane builders have conducted tests and concluded that cell phone usage would be safe for the plane. Of course, the user would still have the problem of being so far from the stations, and moving from one to the next so quickly, that calls would likely not work, without some change in the technology.

One area of concern is that many cell phones use frequencies that are very close to those used by safety services, and there have been plenty of instances where the police or firefighters have lost use of their communicators because of cell phone interference, and they are concerned that being bombarded by cell phone signals from aircraft would worsen their problem.

While that might not affect the operation of the plane, my feeling is that until the industry can demonstrate that there would be no instances of a policeman's call for backup being impaired, cell phone usage on planes should remain banned.
clevelandbrown is offline  
May 17th, 2006, 10:48 AM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 65
While it seems to many that the instructions on seat belt use, tray tables, etc..are silly, I just got back from a trip to the states with some members of my staff- none of them had ever been on a plane in their lives...not only did they follow with rapt attention the instructions on how to work the seat belt (and need help actually securing it), they also asked if there were bathrooms on the plane and if the food was safe to eat...(yes to the first, and maybe not to the second) please have patience- there are people out here who have not flown extensively and yes, the instructions are needed. Ana
anaaleman is offline  
May 17th, 2006, 01:16 PM
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 23,074
I've flown hundreds of time since I was a baby, but I still listen to the safety instructions everytime and note where the exits are. When I do have the exit row seats, I read the instruction card too to make sure I know how to open the door, if needed.

Last time I flew on CO's 762, they started to play the safety video of the 764. When I saw that they showed like 4 main doors on each side of the plane, I immediately stared at the FA with a "huh?" look on my face. Soon, they stopped it, apologized, and played the correct one before taking off.
rkkwan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy -


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:49 PM.