Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:46 pm

Some might be fine... but I have little faith in the quality of flight attendants on your standard cross-country flight. At best they're annoying, at worst they're like the above, belligerent, rude, and on a power kick.

What can be done about it? Other than blithely sending letters, making ineffectual complaints, and refusing to fly... not much. Once you're up in the "friendly skies" those flight attendants get really overbearing with the safety stuff. The flipside is... some flyers are just so damned stupid that they ruin it for the rest of us, carrying chef knives on a plane, lighting a match to air out the lavatory, standing up and running down the isle before the plane has stopped, etc. I guess the thrust of my thesis here is that "humans are stupid and annoying." At least he didn't have to hear that flight attendant sing a song over the intercom after the plane landed. He probably would have been arrested for assault instead of just talking on a cell phone. Man I hate when they do that.

Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:10 pm

Well, the guy's not as innocent as it might sound. Turns out, he was using a "jailbroken" iPhone to play MineSweeper.

Fri Oct 12, 2007 3:06 pm

And everyone wonders why the airlines keep losing money. Their customers are treated worse than criminals by the TSA loosers at Security,(or as I have come to call them Barney Fife on steroids), then the airline itself treats the customers like cattle. And if you object they will try to have you charged with something nebulous like in this case (sence when can a flight attendant give you a written notice of violation. Were they deputized when I wasn't paying attention and now they can write tickets too?)or claim you were "interfering with the flight crew".

I used to fly a couple or three times per year. Now I don't unless it's to cross an ocean.

Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:05 am

geoduck wrote:

And everyone wonders why the airlines keep losing money. Their customers are treated worse than criminals by the TSA loosers at Security,(or as I have come to call them Barney Fife on steroids), then the airline itself treats the customers like cattle. And if you object they will try to have you charged with something nebulous like in this case (sence when can a flight attendant give you a written notice of violation. Were they deputized when I wasn't paying attention and now they can write tickets too?)or claim you were "interfering with the flight crew".

Interesting. I've never had a problem with the TSA people nor a flight attendant. Part of the reason, I would guess, is that I treat them all with respect, as I would expect them to treat me. I thank the TSA folks for doing their jobs, which must be rather boring. (I also show respect to plumbers, farriers, auto mechanics, store clerks, wait staff, etc., if they show respect for me.) I try not to judge other people by stereotypes associated with their line of work, gender, level of education, etc. (Lots of people apparently DO use stereotypes; I've been the target/victim of quite a bit of stereotyping, myself, especially before I retired.)

Frankly, the behavior of the passenger in the article seems a bit childish to me. ("I wanna lissen to my iPhone and you can't make me quit!") It would be understandable coming from a 4-year-old. He chose to ignore the flight attendant's request and got himself arrested. (That arrest may well stick on his record.) For what? To listen to music or watch a movie? If I'm going to be arrested, it's going to be over something much more important.

OTOH, the post just above this one, "I sent the following to ATA's media relations dept:" is very good. The Guest (he/she should register and log in, with such cogent remarks) is taking a sensible, adult approach.

I'm a very strong defender of civil rights and have been for several decades, probably before some of you were born. However, I don't see restricting the use of an iPhone, even in airplane mode, as impinging on my basic rights. To me, watching a movie or listening to music is not important enough to get in the face of the flight attendants. I've seen what they sometimes have to go through handling belligerent drunks. I also believe in the "Commons," the idea that we have some obligations as members of society. Sometimes, it may be better to accept a bit of inconvenience than fight a battle, especially one that I may well lose. (OTOH, I've stood up for other people's rights and my own in much more trying and important circumstances.)

There is a lot of much more important stuff that I do object to with respect to traveling, like profiling and "no fly" lists based upon name alone. (Anyone with nefarious intent could easily get a fake ID.) I've also spoken out against the NSA no-warrant wiretapping and much of the so-called "Patriot" Act. I've had my "patriotism" and "loyalty" questioned because I pointed out that some actions and policies seemed to violate the Bill of Rights and for other reasons, including opposing the invasion of Iraq from the start. (I usually have a good retort to such outpourings of bile--it's always good to know something about one's opponents before engaging in combat.)

Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:18 am

Anonymous wrote:

Guest wrote: Apart from all of this I think it is utterly rediculous to even suggest the possibility of interference in the plane's systems by whatever electronic consumer device transmitting whatever signal. Critical systems can, and must be designed to be impervious to any outside interference of this kind, period. If any vulnerable systems are on a plane, that plane should not be allowed to fly. Same thing goes for hospitals etc. btw. snip The same applies to using phones while filling your car with petrol. Can anyone correct me, but I don't think there have been any 100% proven cases of cell phones igniting fuel vapour at a service station. But it would pay to concentrate on what you are doing at the time

I don't think that there has ever been a documented case of a cell phone, Walkman, iPod, PDA or whatever in flight has brought down an airplane, or even caused problems. If this was a real concern then we wouldn't be allowed to bring the devices into the cabin or even in checked luggage. Consider this; a terrorist gets on a flight and surreptitiously turns on his Nano which caused the airplane to crash. Or a different scenario where an iPod in checked luggage is set to wake at a time when the airplane is expected to be at 30,000 feet. Yes, it is probably something where they don't want a racket in the cabin with all sorts of noise making devices, including sound leaking from earbuds or someone watching porn where other passengers can see it.

As to cell phone use while refueling vehicles. MythBusters did a show on that subject and could not get an explosion to occur. The fire department was standing by and they said it was because cell phones do not have open sparks. A bigger, and documented problem (with surveillance video), is static electric charge built up as people get in and out of autos while waiting for the tank to fill. If they don't grounding themselves before removing the nozzle there could be a spark; even then there must be the correct fuel vapor and air combination.

Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:41 am

gslusher wrote:

4. The passenger could have avoided all "undue distress" by not acting like a selfish child and putting his iPhone away. It was primarily his own intransigence and arrogance that got him into trouble. Given the current climate of paranoia about airline passengers (fueled by the FUD managers in the Administration, who use it as a way to distract attention from what they're really doing and not doing), the passenger perhaps should count himself lucky that he didn't end up in jail without bail.

Well that says it all. As safe as it is, flying is still dangerous and passengers do need to help keep it that way. We passengers need to stay between the lines, don't talk out of turn, don't fidget, and be courteous of others. That being said the airlines need to their part to keep the kids in line; More leg room, more elbow room, more fresh air, better trained staff, and no BS delays on the tarmac.

It might help if the airlines did away with calling them "Flight Attendants" which implies that they are there to serve passengers like spoiled patrons at a posh resort. Instead call them "Flight Crew Members" and dress them in an a uniform that has some authority in its look.