FYI - My worst flight ever in International Business was sitting next to a 70 year old + man who a) wouldnt stop talking and b) couldnt keep his food on his plate. Should we ban them too???
By all means! Under 12 and over 75 works for me. At least invoke a diaper rule...if you are wearing em... back of the bus. (and not bulkhead Y)
Hope my compromise is helpful...
__________________
Chicago Cubs 1908 World Champions
No, but if they run around the cabin hitting people and being generally disruptive as well you have a much better chance
I do wonder at the view that because they are children everyone else in authority seems powerless to intervene. So where do you draw the line and where does this really become a safety issue and what would the FA do then?
By all means! Under 12 and over 75 works for me. At least invoke a diaper rule...if you are wearing em... back of the bus. (and not bulkhead Y)
Hope my compromise is helpful...
I'll second that rule.
Ii just wasted a half hour reading the entire thread, and am surprised by the attitude of some that the rules don't apply to them. It doesn't matter if you think your BackBerry is not a safety hazard. The rule is that you turn it off during takeoff and landing, and disable the wireless feature while in flight. If this is just a "suggestion" and not a rule, which are the other "suggestions" that I can ignore ? I mean, I'm an EXP too, so I should get to choose which rules apply to me, shouldn't I ?
Ii just wasted a half hour reading the entire thread, and am surprised by the attitude of some that the rules don't apply to them. It doesn't matter if you think your BackBerry is not a safety hazard. The rule is that you turn it off during takeoff and landing, and disable the wireless feature while in flight. If this is just a "suggestion" and not a rule, which are the other "suggestions" that I can ignore ? I mean, I'm an EXP too, so I should get to choose which rules apply to me, shouldn't I ?
I don't think that argument was that the rules don't apply- just that some rules violations are more egregious than others. As an example, I will exceed the speed limit on a freeway because I am very comfortable with handling my car and being able to anticipate others' actions, but I'm not going to do that on a city street because there's more outside my control, nor do I ever run red lights, or even close to red.
BenjaminNYC's example of jayalking versus murder comes to mind. Extreme? Sure. But it makes the point that this isn't black and white for everyone. Sure, some people will follow every rule just because it's a rule; others won't. When the liquid ban started and nothing was allowed, i took sunscreen to Kaua'i. Why? Because I wanted it there and it wasn't going to take down a plane. Was I violating a rule? Of course. Was there any risk to anyone? Of course not.
Some will blindly follow rules because they're rules; others will think for themselves and be prepared to deal with the possible consequences.
Some will blindly follow rules because they're rules; others will think for themselves and be prepared to deal with the possible consequences.
Well said, we all conduct our personal "risk assessments" everyday. As long as people are willing to take the consequences of not following the rules, and my safety is not impacted, have fun. I was more responding to what I perceived as an attitude of "rules are for others, not me". I wouldn't tolerate that from one of my employees.
Ii just wasted a half hour reading the entire thread, and am surprised by the attitude of some that the rules don't apply to them. It doesn't matter if you think your BackBerry is not a safety hazard. The rule is that you turn it off during takeoff and landing, and disable the wireless feature while in flight. If this is just a "suggestion" and not a rule, which are the other "suggestions" that I can ignore ? I mean, I'm an EXP too, so I should get to choose which rules apply to me, shouldn't I ?
Well said... the bottom line is that some people think that they are above AA's rules, yet they want AA to enforce rules which may or may not even exist. If one thinks that "there is nothing wrong whatsoever" with a blackberry being on during takeoff, and you are an EXP and you are aware of the rules, then I don't see how you have any grounds to complain about other rules being broken. I find that the elites in F break a lot of rules, and it sets a poor example for other travelers.
As far as the kids go, let's say the parents did scold them and they still were misbehaving. Then what? Do FAs have to authority to restrain them? And what does being in F have to do with it? I believe that the same issues could be stated in coach. But in F there is a lot more "holier than thou" attitude.
Whatever rules the kids broke should be objectively handled. I doubt that the FAs in this case even gave the flight a second thought afterwards. And we have no idea if the OP didnt agitate the situation. There ARE 2 sides to every story.
Since we are now going down the no children should be allowed in F/J road, I'll chime in for what it is worth. Children of a certain age (I thinking over 4 or so) can be taught how to act appropriately in public as well behaved young gentlemen or ladies. Most of the children that I have encountered in F/J have been very well behaved. I am sure that since the parents are highly likely FFs and know what it is like when children are out of control on an airplane is a factor of why their children are so well behaved. And this may seem snobbish but in IMHO people of a certain class usually better understand proper etiquette. Although, it would appear that these EXP paxs were not part of the majority. Growing up, I still remember the lectures we got from my parents whenever we were going into an "adult" environment.
Now, please understand that I have seen may share of poor behavior in F/J, most of it coming from the adults. My pet peeve are F paxs that board and block the aisles looking through their bags because what the h...l they have already boarded so who cares about the 100+ paxs trying to get to Y. Or the F/J paxs that treat the FAs like they are servants.
Now very young children and infants are a different story. An infant is not going to cry just because you tell him/her no. Of course, a six month old will not be running up and down the aisles or hitting paxs. But again, I have seen infants and very young children that were as quite as a dead body.
Ultimately, I see no reason for airlines to ban children up front but I will admit that when I see children coming into the F/J cabin I am usually thinking the worst.
Some people are sheep; some people use their brains.
Smart people, with brains, made rules after determining that it was safer for the 200 passengers on the plane if MR CEO in 3A could go without his Blackberry for 15 minutes during takeoff. Frankly I trust them a whole lot more that I trust you to make decisions that could impact MY safety.
If you want to make dumb decisions when you are the only one who will have to bear the consequences, then knock yourself out, but don't do it when I am on a plane with you.
Smart people, with brains, made rules after determining that it was safer for the 200 passengers on the plane if MR CEO in 3A could go without his Blackberry for 15 minutes during takeoff. Frankly I trust them a whole lot more that I trust you to make decisions that could impact MY safety.
If you want to make dumb decisions when you are the only one who will have to bear the consequences, then knock yourself out, but don't do it when I am on a plane with you.
What about the liquid rule? Made by someone with brains? OK, that's debatable.
What if I manage to get a fifth of Jack Daniels through security. I sure broke the rules, but is enyone (besides my liver if I actually drank Jack) in any danger? Probably not.
Hearsay aside, why do you assume that the BB rule is any more intelligent? Just because someone made it?
I do turn off my stuff as asked. I do it out of respect for the FA who has asked me and is required to enforce my compliance. I don't do it because I believe for one instant that having it on will cause the plane to come hurtling to earth.
I flew into the UK a few days after the arrests that triggered the liquids ban, so I understand the thinking behind the ban. As far fetched as the scheme was, apparently it could have worked. Nobody seems to object to having their shoes screened, thanks tot he ShoeBomber. That is now part of flying. I am willing to live with the inconvenience in both cases if it closes a potential security hole.
As to you smuggling some JD, knock yourself out, that has no possible impact on me as a fellow passenger. That is unless you drink the entire thing in flight while sitting next to me. Been there, done that. I though the dude was going to blow chunks when we were trying to land at LGA in a snowstorm. In the end the pilot abandoned the landing and we went to JFK. I had my seatmate convinced that he would get the additional Frequent Flyer miles for the leg from LGA to JFK
Ok, I'll admit up front not to reading all 8 pages of this thread.
Minor thought: This is really a good discussion of what AAs responsibility is mixed up in a grouchy discussion on compensation.
Major thought: While some of the retailitory ideas might seem emotionally satisfying (tomato juice spill), there is the problem that then the retaliator is legally responsible for their actions independant of any "them's fighting words (behavior) argument.
Is there any legal repurcussion to telling the kid to "shut the **** up, you little ****"?
What about the liquid rule? Made by someone with brains? OK, that's debatable.
What if I manage to get a fifth of Jack Daniels through security. I sure broke the rules, but is enyone (besides my liver if I actually drank Jack) in any danger? Probably not.
I think the difference is that the liquids ban is theoretically designed to prevent you from making a bomb (which requires a further step), whereas the electronic devices rule is designed to prevent interference (which means the act of using the devices is in and of itself dangerous). So, by all means sneak your Jack Daniels aboard, but if you try to assemble a bomb on the plane, I'll probably be displeased.
Quote:
Hearsay aside, why do you assume that the BB rule is any more intelligent? Just because someone made it?
I already posted links upthread that discuss the risk, which seems to quantify it as "small, but existent". This probably describes many factors in airplane safety, and I'm glad we generally defer towards safety in these situations. Otherwise, the FAA wouldn't be so anal about little cracks and rules about pilots getting enough sleep and such, which I'm sure are inconvenient to the airlines.
