Barefoot on airplane = threatened with arrest
Dec 8, 2010, 7:02 am
#106
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Yes, there is, but it applies to the airline, not you. As was stated in other threads, the FAA requires an airline to have a baggage policy that meets certain requirements. So technically, you're following the airline rule, but they are required by the FAA to have that rule.
There is a specific FAR (I'm too lazy to look up the number) that says you must obey crewmember instructions related to seats belts and smoking and the AA announcement says it correctly. But that's all.
Dec 9, 2010, 6:19 pm
#107
Join Date: Aug 2004
Programs: AA (EP), Hilton (Diamond), Marriott Bonvoy (Titanium)
Posts: 8,937
I don't walk around barefoot or in my regular socks. I don't want whatever is on the floor of the airplane (at my seat, aisle, in the bathroom) on my socks or bare feet. I also don't want it on my regular socks because I don't want to transfer it to the inside of my shoes.
An FA recently told me not to be a big baby after she had told the passenger next to me to put his oversized bag (would not fit in the overhead bins) lengthways under the seat in front of me. When I asked her for her name she refused to give it and made a big scene with the pilot who, luckily did nothing.
On a recent international trip the FA threatened to remove a passenger who was complaining his seat was broken. They only backed down when I pointed out the passenger was no threat whatsoever and merely did not want to spend 8 hours in a broken seat.
On a recent international trip the FA threatened to remove a passenger who was complaining his seat was broken. They only backed down when I pointed out the passenger was no threat whatsoever and merely did not want to spend 8 hours in a broken seat.
Dec 9, 2010, 6:41 pm
#108
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,042
Actually cardio I agree with most of what you said. I just try to be very conservative about a company making rules about things which could appear to be value judgments. Bare feet is a potential health concern. But my feeling was that Tizette was talking more about things like short sleeves, or removing shoes (keeping on socks) while seated. But I could have misunderstood.
Dec 9, 2010, 6:58 pm
#109
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,042
I agree! Our societal customs have degraded and I wish there were codes to enforce men to wear heavy 3-piece suites, neckties and oxfords and women to wear tight fitting corsets and chastity belts. Appearances must be kept and to heck with the men sweating from overheating or the women fainting from body restrictions.
We must all look our best when we fly (and safe from sex)!
We must all look our best when we fly (and safe from sex)!
Dec 9, 2010, 7:07 pm
#110
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SEA/ORD/ADB
Programs: TK ELPL (*G), AS 100K (OWE), BA Gold (OWE), Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Plat, IHG Plat
Posts: 7,763
Dec 9, 2010, 7:17 pm
#111
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Up in the air far too often.
Programs: Star Gold
Posts: 354
Neither do I, for the same reason, but so what? If richard or anyone else chooses to walk around barefoot, it's nobody else's business. Just like those pointless "no shirt, no shoes, no service" signs. It doesn't affect anyone else what you choose to wear on your feet.
You doubt me?
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q...=1099&bih=1005
It is also protection for the bare foot-wearer, to prevent them from being innoculated through micro-abrasions on their feet.
As a medically based policy, enforcing shoe wearing is extremely sound and a very good public health measure.
Again, for a healthy young person this might not be important. But as a policy it is smart, almost essential, to ban barefoot wearing, to avoid need for "foot inspection" by the flight attendants.
In almost all air carriers' contract of carriage passengers are required to wear shoes.
Dec 9, 2010, 8:46 pm
#112
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington DC USA
Posts: 2,571
It was probably SkyWest. But they weren't even supposed to allow reading material in there. A friend of mine is an SkyWest FA and she said they were asking them to require that nothing be in the seat pocket other than what the airline put there. Her feeling was that it had to do with concerns about seat pockets breaking. She ignored their request and only said something if there was a safety issue (e.g., a laptop put there).
Dec 9, 2010, 10:01 pm
#113
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
I'm still wondering, after 8 flights these past few weeks hearing the GA's tell me over the intercom that "FAA requires that all passengers may only carry one bag and one personal item onboard the aircraft." I never violate this rule as it has been in effect by the airlines long before the TSA came into existence (I am not confusing the TSA with the FAA) but it strikes me as odd that this is the new line over the past few years concerning carry-ons. Anyone have more info on that? Is it really an FAA rule?
Prior to October 8, 2001, AA permitted F and J passengers to carryon three bags - yes, three carryon bags - I have dated ticket jackets and copies of the CofC to prove it. Not one or two plus a "personal item," but three bags. Those were the days. Rollaboard, laptop bag or briefcase plus folding garment bag to be hung in the closet. And no hassles by anyone about it.
The method by which Mineta's new edict was enacted was by requiring all airlines to immediately amend their carryon baggage rules to match the FAA's new mandate. Over the past few years, FAA inspectors have been hitting the airlines hard over failure to enforce their carryon bag limits - that's why you've heard of it more lately.
Most FAA regulations do not apply directly to passengers; most apply directly to airlines. But airlines are empowered to enforce their rules against passengers under the "must obey crewmember instructions" rule, and most airlines have been cracking down on carryons.
Bottom line: the carryon bag limit is an FAA rule.
Dec 10, 2010, 5:13 am
#114
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: AUS
Programs: DL-DM/ 2MM
Posts: 263
Seems odd that an FA would claim such a rule when every airline's amenity package in international J and C has little socks in it for the passengers to use during flight. Now I am pretty certain that those are not considered shoes by the FAA, nor are they intended to be used with shoes, so I guess all those airlines are encouraging their passengers to be in violation of the FARs.
Dec 10, 2010, 5:58 am
#115
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,972
It's an FAA rule that airlines must limit carry-on bags to one plus a personal items plus items such as a musical instrument and camera stuff. I don't see how telling passengers that is "a stretch".
Dec 10, 2010, 7:31 am
#116
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Then please cite the rule. FAR or CFR or any other statute. Airline CofCs don't count as an FAA rule.
Dec 10, 2010, 7:52 am
#117
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 398
That is just patently false. The no shoes issue is very important, especially in establishments like grocery stores and restaurants. A lot of people have very small cuts on feet, and it spreads blood, bacteria, viruses, and fungus around. Even socks (as was also mentioned) can help protect against this a little bit and is much better than bare feet. The next guy, also barefoot, would then be inoculated with bacteria smeared around from the first.
You doubt me?
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q...=1099&bih=1005
It is also protection for the bare foot-wearer, to prevent them from being innoculated through micro-abrasions on their feet.
As a medically based policy, enforcing shoe wearing is extremely sound and a very good public health measure.
Again, for a healthy young person this might not be important. But as a policy it is smart, almost essential, to ban barefoot wearing, to avoid need for "foot inspection" by the flight attendants.
In almost all air carriers' contract of carriage passengers are required to wear shoes.
You doubt me?
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q...=1099&bih=1005
It is also protection for the bare foot-wearer, to prevent them from being innoculated through micro-abrasions on their feet.
As a medically based policy, enforcing shoe wearing is extremely sound and a very good public health measure.
Again, for a healthy young person this might not be important. But as a policy it is smart, almost essential, to ban barefoot wearing, to avoid need for "foot inspection" by the flight attendants.
In almost all air carriers' contract of carriage passengers are required to wear shoes.
So why doesn't the TSA consider this when they insist on having passengers take off their shoes? It would be interesting, if statistics exist, to compare the risk of being harmed by the bad guys in flight versus acquiring an infection by walking through security without shoes!
Paranthetically, while I was proceeding through security for a trip to Toronto the other day, and stepped on a metal buckle. While no harm was done in this instance, I could easily have cut my foot. After picking it up I offered it to the TSO manning the metal detector. I opined that someone must have dropped this on the floor. I sensed he less than gracious in accepting it, but of course this was my read of his body language as I am not trained in SCOPE. In addition he may or may have not thanked me as it would have been inaudible, and his lips didn't move.
Dec 10, 2010, 10:30 am
#118
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 21,606
The only time I take off my shoes is when we are at cruising altitude. They then go back on once we start to descend.
Dec 10, 2010, 11:06 am
#119
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chicago
Programs: Chairman US Air, four million miles Delta and F.C., Plat Prem Marriott, Marquis Jet," Air America
Posts: 222
I am with you. I didn't have shoes other than "church shoes" for my first 10 years as a kid and I don't wear them unless I have to.
However, playing the devil's advocate, one could argue that if the plane were to crash and you needn't to make an emergency exit with glass, etc - it might slow you and hence everyone else down.
But please let us know AA's response!
Might be worth it to ask it in an ask a FA spot too (unless the powers that be hit you with double posting as they do me)
Dec 10, 2010, 11:13 am
#120
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 78
I so completely agree with you. I think it's appalling that we even see skin at all. Hopefully you and I can start a movement (the NSS) where all women are required to wear Burqas so that no skin is shown. It's even repugnant for me to sit next to someone and be forced to view their hands or face. Ski masks and gloves should be mandatory. NO SKIN SHOWN!