The secret cell phone enforcer on my flight
Oct 7, 2018, 9:20 pm
#61
Join Date: Nov 2010
Programs: AA EXP (owe), BA Silver (ows), AB Silver (owr), WN A+/CP, IHG Spire AMB, Avis First
Posts: 1,414
Reading this thread (and the number of people who believe adamantly that they are right even though they are so, so wrong: both re FCC regulations and gas stations) has highlighted to me that once again, this is just an internet forum where people anyone can sign up for an account and post (with authority), no matter how clueless they are.
Anyway, at the core of this is that we have a non-crew member giving a passenger instructions as if she were a crew member (I'm a FA). IMO, it is a public service (and your duty, to save the rest of us from the same fate) to report such employees on a trip. I would have submitted a complaint with details on seat and flight number, hopefully that information makes it way back to retrain the employee. It's of course AA's decision on what to do with that information.
The cell phone stuff is irrelevant. If she said "I'm a FA and your tray table needs to be up"... Still a power trip imo. Id report and hope the appropriate feedback is given.
The cell phone stuff is irrelevant. If she said "I'm a FA and your tray table needs to be up"... Still a power trip imo. Id report and hope the appropriate feedback is given.
Oct 7, 2018, 10:17 pm
#63
Join Date: Nov 2010
Programs: AA EXP (owe), BA Silver (ows), AB Silver (owr), WN A+/CP, IHG Spire AMB, Avis First
Posts: 1,414
If the person said, could you please put the phone in airplane mode, I'm afraid of interference with avionics, I would inform the person thats a myth. If the person asked without any other details, id proceed to ignore them until a crew member informed me otherwise.
Oct 8, 2018, 10:47 am
#66
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: COU
Programs: AA EXP, Bonvoy Ambassador, Hertz PC
Posts: 499
Once a crewmember says to put phones in airplane mode, failure to do so is a violation of the FAA regulation that pax have to obey crewmember instructions concerning airline policy. If you get up in the air with it still transmitting, then you're additionally in violation of an (obsolete) FCC regulation. But before you're airborne and before crew instruction, it is not a violation of any regulation to use your phone, regardless of whether the door has been closed.
Oct 8, 2018, 2:53 pm
#67
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: COU
Programs: AA EXP, Bonvoy Ambassador, Hertz PC
Posts: 499
Oct 9, 2018, 1:35 am
#68
Join Date: Jun 2017
Posts: 167
Reading this thread (and the number of people who believe adamantly that they are right even though they are so, so wrong: both re FCC regulations and gas stations) has highlighted to me that once again, this is just an internet forum where people anyone can sign up for an account and post (with authority), no matter how clueless they are.
Anyway, at the core of this is that we have a non-crew member giving a passenger instructions as if she were a crew member (I'm a FA). IMO, it is a public service (and your duty, to save the rest of us from the same fate) to report such employees on a trip. I would have submitted a complaint with details on seat and flight number, hopefully that information makes it way back to retrain the employee. It's of course AA's decision on what to do with that information.
The cell phone stuff is irrelevant. If she said "I'm a FA and your tray table needs to be up"... Still a power trip imo. Id report and hope the appropriate feedback is given.
The cell phone stuff is irrelevant. If she said "I'm a FA and your tray table needs to be up"... Still a power trip imo. Id report and hope the appropriate feedback is given.
When I get on the bus home, there are signs saying "no drinking or eating". I'm just a passenger, but I have just as much right to tell someone they're breaking the law as anybody else. Now I may not have authority to do something about it e.g. arrest them, but I do have the right (and authority) to point it out. Laws exist independent of any enforcement authority from the point they are created by the lawmaking body (whether that's a parliament or the FCC or whoever).
A police officer telling me not to murder has no more authority to tell me not to murder than Joe Bloggs down the street. What's different is that the police officer has additional authority (usually termed a "warrant") to do things like throw handcuffs on me. But guess what? In some situations, every citizen in some jurisdictions has equivalent authority.
Here's how to know what you said is absurd: humans have had laws longer than they've had police. That wouldn't be possible if the points being raised by people here were correct.
Oct 9, 2018, 3:40 am
#69
Join Date: Nov 2010
Programs: AA EXP (owe), BA Silver (ows), AB Silver (owr), WN A+/CP, IHG Spire AMB, Avis First
Posts: 1,414
I think the problem with your non-overly theoretical analysis is, as with many posts, that it suffers from a faulty analogy. Let's take your statement:
"no drinking or eating".
Sure, everyone is entitled to say that, but that's not exactly what was said, since it's missing the element of authority. Let's revise that to:
"I'm a police officer, and there is no drinking or eating".
Now, not everyone has a legal right in most countries to make this statement. And that's exactly the problem here, as I stated,
"at the core of this is that we have a non-crew member giving a passenger instructions as if she were a crew member"
Which is what happened when the statement was prefaced with "I'm a FA".
Now, of course, the person is a FA - but not on duty, so she isn't a crew member. But the reason to append the "I'm a FA" is to assert the authority of a crew member. And that's
where I believe the FA overstepped the lines.
Technically, she might even be considered to be violating 49 USC 46504 by interfering with the actual flight crew's ability to perform their duties, but I don't think anyone would take that claim seriously. Instead, I think it's appropriate to report to American, as they ultimately get to decide whether they're okay with non-revs giving instructions and incorrect information while they are seated and off duty asserting the position of a crew member. And American may very well decide that she has a right to claim she is a FA and tell passengers what to do (well, to the extent they don't interfere with the actual flight crew's instructions). Or they may not, and reprimand her accordingly.
If you read my original post carefully, you will notice that I carefully crafted my response to not contain any assertion of whether the FA was right or wrong here. I just wrote that IMO, such behavior by non-revs should be reported to American. " It's of course AA's decision on what to do with that information.". With the emphasis on IMO- In my opinion, off duty FAs shouldn't be telling passengers what to do. They are not just any passenger, they are non-revs who need to abide by non-rev etiquette rules. Not only that, it seems to be poor form. But maybe AA is okay with that, who knows. But I'd let AA know -- I'm not okay with this. No need to turn this into an argument about rights, authority and the origins of law...
Last edited by no2chem; Oct 9, 2018 at 3:54 am
Oct 9, 2018, 7:16 am
#70
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: I 35 south bound, finally stopped
Programs: LT Plt, 4mm, *A GLD, burned out medical provider, executing our estate plan
Posts: 1,665
No law was being violated. The use of electronics is allowed until they make the announcement which had not been made. An off-duty FA has no authority to issue requests that need to be followed. They were in uniform and representing their company and should be reported. Leave it to their management to determine if further action is needed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phones_on_aircraft
https://www.businessinsider.com/most...merica-2013-10
https://aviation.stackexchange.com/q...w-instructions
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...C_91.21-1D.pdf
I like this one, was news to me
8.3.3 During part 121 operations, if a crewmember uses a PED displaying an EFB application not authorized per OpSpec/MSpec/LOA A061, then he or she may be violating § 121.542(d). Per this section, flightcrew members must not use wireless communications devices or laptop computers for personal use while at their duty station on the flight deck while the aircraft is in flight, unless that usage is per FAA approved operational procedures. For more information, refer to InFO 14006, Prohibition on Personal Use of Electronic Devices on the Flight Deck.
oh and this one
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id..._1925&rgn=div8
Oct 9, 2018, 7:48 am
#71
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Programs: AA exp 3mm Hertz 5*
Posts: 334
No, the FAA does not prohibit cell phone use "in flight." They don't prohibit cell phone use at all. The FCC prohibits cell phone use in flight; they don't care about it on the ground, because that never posed any issue with cellular networks.
Once a crewmember says to put phones in airplane mode, failure to do so is a violation of the FAA regulation that pax have to obey crewmember instructions concerning airline policy. If you get up in the air with it still transmitting, then you're additionally in violation of an (obsolete) FCC regulation. But before you're airborne and before crew instruction, it is not a violation of any regulation to use your phone, regardless of whether the door has been closed.
Once a crewmember says to put phones in airplane mode, failure to do so is a violation of the FAA regulation that pax have to obey crewmember instructions concerning airline policy. If you get up in the air with it still transmitting, then you're additionally in violation of an (obsolete) FCC regulation. But before you're airborne and before crew instruction, it is not a violation of any regulation to use your phone, regardless of whether the door has been closed.
Now the issue of whether someone is entitled to make their own determination, which some of the thread seems to have bogged down into, seems incredibly foreign to me. I would have never thought, sans an emergency, to tell ATC that they announced the turn a little to soon....
Last edited by Snuggs; Oct 10, 2018 at 4:49 am
Oct 9, 2018, 9:23 am
#72
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: COU
Programs: AA EXP, Bonvoy Ambassador, Hertz PC
Posts: 499
I posed it as a question to avoid any debate. As OP stated, they did make the announcement as soon as the door was closed. So, yes, I agree with your conclusion, as you are spot on.
Now the issue of whether someone is entitled to make their own determination, which some of the thread seems to have bogged down into, seems incredibly foreign to me. I would have never thought, sans an emergency, to tell ATC that they announced the turn a little to soon....
Now the issue of whether someone is entitled to make their own determination, which some of the thread seems to have bogged down into, seems incredibly foreign to me. I would have never thought, sans an emergency, to tell ATC that they announced the turn a little to soon....
Oct 9, 2018, 9:58 am
#73
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: COU
Programs: AA EXP, Bonvoy Ambassador, Hertz PC
Posts: 499
Without getting into overly theoretical analyses of rights vs authority, you're wrong.
...
Here's how to know what you said is absurd: humans have had laws longer than they've had police. That wouldn't be possible if the points being raised by people here were correct.
...
Here's how to know what you said is absurd: humans have had laws longer than they've had police. That wouldn't be possible if the points being raised by people here were correct.
Oct 9, 2018, 10:23 am
#74
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2004
Location: DFW/DAL
Programs: AA Lifetime PLT, AS MVPG, HH Diamond, NCL Platinum Plus, MSC Diamond
Posts: 21,422
Let's break this down
1. You were breaking the law.
2. Someone told you you were breaking the law
3. You got pissy
Here's what's polite. If you are breaking the law (you have your phone out, you cut someone off driving, anything illegal that you know is wrong), and someone mentions it (they tell you, they honk at you), you don't get pissy - you admit you were wrong. Because getting angry when you're in the wrong is stupid.
Nobody is perfect enough to never break the law, but everyone is good enough to accept critique when they make that mistake.
And before anybody says "but this was minor" - it doesn't matter. it's the principle. Society rests on an edifice of rules and regulations. The alternative is red in tooth and claw.
1. You were breaking the law.
2. Someone told you you were breaking the law
3. You got pissy
Here's what's polite. If you are breaking the law (you have your phone out, you cut someone off driving, anything illegal that you know is wrong), and someone mentions it (they tell you, they honk at you), you don't get pissy - you admit you were wrong. Because getting angry when you're in the wrong is stupid.
Nobody is perfect enough to never break the law, but everyone is good enough to accept critique when they make that mistake.
And before anybody says "but this was minor" - it doesn't matter. it's the principle. Society rests on an edifice of rules and regulations. The alternative is red in tooth and claw.
There had not yet been an announcement, so he was not breaking any law and not even ignoring any announcements
"Almost immediately, the woman in the window seat next to me said "please put your phone in airplane mode"
The only person telling him put his phone in airplane mode had NO BUSINESS looking at his phone display.
Last edited by mvoight; Oct 9, 2018 at 12:21 pm
Oct 9, 2018, 11:26 am
#75
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: STL/ORD/MCI/SAN
Programs: AA CK MM, AC SE100K, UA 1K, DL Plat, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 1,986
I'm just a passenger, but I have just as much right to tell someone they're breaking the law as anybody else. Now I may not have authority to do something about it e.g. arrest them, but I do have the right (and authority) to point it out. Laws exist independent of any enforcement authority from the point they are created by the lawmaking body (whether that's a parliament or the FCC or whoever).
I think it's time for me to move on from this thread.