skylady

Mr. Baldwin Goes to Washington?

brp

Assuming you're not joking here (and it's kinda hard to believe you're not), this is a completely unreasonable comment. Even though I agree with you about the "dangers" of the electronic devices, do you really think that the FA in question is the one who made this decision and unilaterally tried to enforce it? Were you aware that a AF not properly enforcing this policy can be fined up to $10,000?

Doesn't matter whether it makes sense or not. The flight crew have certain rules that they need to follow (and make us follow) and getting on them for doing these things is unreasonable. How is someone following rules that they are required to follow "out of line?"

Terminated. Give me a break.

Cheers.

ijgordon

Well, just thinking about this logically: (1) pax are supposed to pay attention to the safety briefing which occurs some time between the door closing and take-off and (2) FAs have many duties to prepare for take-off and policing pax and their devices during this time (since clearly pax cant be trusted to voluntarily comply) should not be one of them. So to simplify the whole process, the FAA requires the devices to be shut off as soon as the door closes.

RogerD408

Here's my $0.02 worth... Having been involved with the evolution of traveling computers (before the term PC was coined) and the very-pre-9/11 hysteria about electronics on board. Besides the unknown of what could happen technically, the bigger concern is the attention of the passengers to what is going on around them. Remember the lady caught on security camera's walking into the fountain in the mall?

I have no numbers but if you break a flight into three phases, takeoff, in-flight, and landing; takeoff is probably the most hazardous. Imagine a plane full of people playing online games and something happens. If people paid attention to the pre-flight announcements there's a better chance more would know what to do. FAs won't have time to help every pax figure out how to get their seat belts off while performing an emergency evacuation. And let's not forget about those that are just about to post the longest word on Words w/Friends!

FAA/AA regs are what they are, FAs should not be allowed to decide if they should be enforced. As for the other "violators on-board", it's only illegal if you get caught. We all see speeders on the highways, so if I get pulled over I can claim selective enforcement? Hmmm

supergrandslam

One thing I am sure is 30 Rock will be replaced by another sitcom for AA IFE TV drama section

CloudsBelow

Like it or hate it, AA's handling of Baldwin was winning a battle but losing a war. AA will lose more as a result of this than Baldwin. Even worse, Baldwin won't be flying any less and will be doing so in paid F/J UA.

His piece in the Huffington post is well written and accurate.

AA_EXP09

With UDU's, F doesn't really mean anything anymore, though.....

abk

I agree with the caveat that the battle may actually only be won in this thread.

RogerD408

Let's face it, he's got a campaign going in NYC. What's wrong with some free publicity? Name recognition can really help, good or bad. And he's spinning this as being pro consumer.

UVU Wolverine

Unfortunately, AA was only enforcing FAA regulations as many others have said. They come out of this PR stunt looking like the bad guy, however if Mr. Baldwin wanted to really change something he would contact the FAA instead of ridiculing AA.

Regardless of who's side of the story is told, Baldwin no doubt knew the rule about electronics and decided to push the limits of the FA's enforcement of such a rule. Such disrespect for FAA safety regulations can inherently cause a danger to all passengers, which is why they are regulations to begin with.

justforfun

Completely agree. The first thing he does is apologize to his fellow pax. Class act. While most FAs are great, we've all encountered the bad apples, and it's completely plausible that this FA singled him out due to his celebrity status. But of course this is FT where we pass judgment on others so easily.

gemac

I have read his whole post. He admits that the door was closed. When the door is closed, the FAA mandates that the FAs have people turn off their electronic devices. If the FA does not do so, the airline can be fined. So there is no way to take any position except that he was in violation of FAA rules, and he refused to follow crew member instructions.

His defense is that other people were breaking the rule too. He sounds like a third-grader (come to think of it, he acted like a third-grader too). If you are speeding and a cop pulls you over, how successful will you be if you say that other drivers were speeding too?

Somehow, he omitted the part where he went into the lav, banged the door so loudly that the pilots heard it in the cockpit, and then he banged on the walls of the lav. He needed to be put in time-out.

vasantn

I'm sure he/she is not joking. A severe case of the DYKWIAs, for sure.

Pushing the envelope is one thing. Claiming that one has the right to do whatever one wants on private property is quite another.

UVU Wolverine

Especially when it is in direct violation of FAA regulations. If anyone wanted to purposely break such a rule, I suggest driving to your destination next time.

Also, it is great to hear such "humbleness" when it seems that elites and first/business class customers should be able to do "whatever they please".

TAWS

"As for what Baldwin might think about that: his publicist Matthew Hiltzik tweeted, "hey @American_AA: How come ok 4 other 1st class passengers 2 tweet while @alecbaldwin asked to leave while using his device? #hypocrisy."

People on the plane tweeted on the incident as it happened. The rep has a good point...