Delta calls cops after pax uses VoIP
May 10, 2012, 1:10 pm
#46
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: BER, SAT, AUS
Programs: Feels like FO (AA EXP)
Posts: 1,611
Wow, talk about being passive aggressive. Honestly, no-fly list? DYKWIA wall of shame? What's wrong with you guys today? Are you just angry that you complied with idiotic "rules" such as no iPad/Netbook in the seat back, while someone else called the BS? Also, AFAIK there is no law against just being a douche and therefore does not qualify for preemptive exclusion of public transportation.
FA's make up stupid rules all day long and justify that with FAA regulations. One time, a FA removed my carry-on out of the overhead for some reason and placed it in BE while I was having a nap. Later on, I was refused access to my property because of a "FAA regulation" that I cannot walk into another cabin in-flight.
I find it refreshing that he did go all the way despite of him having to drain every last bit of publicity out of it. Furthermore, I find it alienating that many of the poster in this thread are usually quick in pointing out that an airplane is a public space and consequently you must deal with being totally exposed to other people. Personally, it makes little difference to me whether I am disturbed by the infant next seat, the travelling salesman, the iPad-addictive with key click and bejeweld-music blasting, the "HELLO I AM ON THE TARMAC NOW" caller, etc. or someone VoIP'ing. And please, alongside with the FA's, please stop making up stuff. VoIP is much more conservative of bandwidth (and usually noise) than the guy one row before me checking out freaking youtube reviews on speed boat engines: "And now to the Honda XYZ: WROOOOOOOM WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM WROOOOOOOM!".
FA's make up stupid rules all day long and justify that with FAA regulations. One time, a FA removed my carry-on out of the overhead for some reason and placed it in BE while I was having a nap. Later on, I was refused access to my property because of a "FAA regulation" that I cannot walk into another cabin in-flight.
I find it refreshing that he did go all the way despite of him having to drain every last bit of publicity out of it. Furthermore, I find it alienating that many of the poster in this thread are usually quick in pointing out that an airplane is a public space and consequently you must deal with being totally exposed to other people. Personally, it makes little difference to me whether I am disturbed by the infant next seat, the travelling salesman, the iPad-addictive with key click and bejeweld-music blasting, the "HELLO I AM ON THE TARMAC NOW" caller, etc. or someone VoIP'ing. And please, alongside with the FA's, please stop making up stuff. VoIP is much more conservative of bandwidth (and usually noise) than the guy one row before me checking out freaking youtube reviews on speed boat engines: "And now to the Honda XYZ: WROOOOOOOM WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM WROOOOOOOM!".
May 10, 2012, 1:35 pm
#47
In memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2005
Location: PIT
Programs: DM life is over 2MM PM now & NW MillionAir Wyndham Rewards Plat -Hotels.com Silver -Accor Silver
Posts: 15,408
Well, ya know, some people, simply have an "enforcement" mentality that every "infraction", no matter what the extenuating circumstances, must be dealt with!
Or maybe it's just a power trip!
That said, I do get a little peeved when someone near me is typing on their BlackBerry during takeoff or landing - - or using their iPad, which I'm seeing more and more of.
Or maybe it's just a power trip!
That said, I do get a little peeved when someone near me is typing on their BlackBerry during takeoff or landing - - or using their iPad, which I'm seeing more and more of.
May 10, 2012, 1:41 pm
#48
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,533
Well, ya know, some people, simply have an "enforcement" mentality that every "infraction", no matter what the extenuating circumstances, must be dealt with!
Or maybe it's just a power trip!
That said, I do get a little peeved when someone near me is typing on their BlackBerry during takeoff or landing - - or using their iPad, which I'm seeing more and more of.
Or maybe it's just a power trip!
That said, I do get a little peeved when someone near me is typing on their BlackBerry during takeoff or landing - - or using their iPad, which I'm seeing more and more of.
May 10, 2012, 3:03 pm
#49
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Iowa, USA
Programs: Delta KM, United 1K, SPG plat
Posts: 415
May 10, 2012, 3:30 pm
#50
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 42
Wow, talk about being passive aggressive. Honestly, no-fly list? DYKWIA wall of shame? What's wrong with you guys today? Are you just angry that you complied with idiotic "rules" such as no iPad/Netbook in the seat back, while someone else called the BS? Also, AFAIK there is no law against just being a douche and therefore does not qualify for preemptive exclusion of public transportation.
But no matter, they're all a bunch of DYKWIAs who think they're so important they actually have to fly on an airplane instead of taking a bus.
May 10, 2012, 4:39 pm
#51
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 5,501
The PAPD police report should contain DL's complaint. I suspect the crew did not specify or allege any actionable violation. As often as it happens on the street, it's still troubling when "attitude" alone becomes probable cause to detain someone for questioning. Being escorted off a plane needs to involve an identifiable infraction.
Delta's statement doesn't quarrel with Marco's claim he promptly obeyed all orders:
MSNBC
Delta's statement doesn't quarrel with Marco's claim he promptly obeyed all orders:
"Delta fully supports a ban on cell phone voice transmissions. We are not, however, opponents of in-flight data transmissions (i.e. text and e-mail messages) provided they do not interfere with flight deck navigational equipment." - Delta spokeswoman Leslie Parker
May 10, 2012, 4:56 pm
#52
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Canada
Programs: AS, DL, UA, Hyatt, SPG
Posts: 2,574
Lol, if your username handle is anything to go by, why am I not surprised at this ludicrous response.
Throw him in jail (for life) - for what? Violating GoGo's TOS? He did discontinue the call, albeit after questioning the veracity of one of the FA's statements (it being an FAA regulation - which, indeed, was a falsehood by the FA).
I don't condone causing a ruckus onboard, and if an FA asks you to stop doing something, whether you think they have legitimate reasons or not, I would desist / cease, and take it up with DL HQ after I'm back home. Being difficult or questioning the FAs in-air is asking for a sticky situation and depending on the situation and how it plays out, could be DYKWIA/D-bag behaviour.
But (even if it was), does being a DYKWIA or D-bag warrant being thrown in jail for life? It appears law enforcement officers determined no crime was committed - yet you still advocate throwing him in jail? If that's really the NYPD way, then thank goodness I don't live in NYC.
Throw him in jail (for life) - for what? Violating GoGo's TOS? He did discontinue the call, albeit after questioning the veracity of one of the FA's statements (it being an FAA regulation - which, indeed, was a falsehood by the FA).
I don't condone causing a ruckus onboard, and if an FA asks you to stop doing something, whether you think they have legitimate reasons or not, I would desist / cease, and take it up with DL HQ after I'm back home. Being difficult or questioning the FAs in-air is asking for a sticky situation and depending on the situation and how it plays out, could be DYKWIA/D-bag behaviour.
But (even if it was), does being a DYKWIA or D-bag warrant being thrown in jail for life? It appears law enforcement officers determined no crime was committed - yet you still advocate throwing him in jail? If that's really the NYPD way, then thank goodness I don't live in NYC.
Last edited by SamuelS; May 10, 2012 at 5:02 pm
May 10, 2012, 8:11 pm
#53
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 4,782
Wow, talk about being passive aggressive. Honestly, no-fly list? DYKWIA wall of shame? What's wrong with you guys today? Are you just angry that you complied with idiotic "rules" such as no iPad/Netbook in the seat back, while someone else called the BS? Also, AFAIK there is no law against just being a douche and therefore does not qualify for preemptive exclusion of public transportation.
I mean come on the it used to be that the aircraft had frinkin phones installed in EVERY seat back. Now replaced with, annoying AVODs. So what is the difference?
FA's make up stupid rules all day long and justify that with FAA regulations. One time, a FA removed my carry-on out of the overhead for some reason and placed it in BE while I was having a nap. Later on, I was refused access to my property because of a "FAA regulation" that I cannot walk into another cabin in-flight.
I find it refreshing that he did go all the way despite of him having to drain every last bit of publicity out of it. Furthermore, I find it alienating that many of the poster in this thread are usually quick in pointing out that an airplane is a public space and consequently you must deal with being totally exposed to other people. Personally, it makes little difference to me whether I am disturbed by the infant next seat, the travelling salesman, the iPad-addictive with key click and bejeweld-music blasting, the "HELLO I AM ON THE TARMAC NOW" caller, etc. or someone VoIP'ing. And please, alongside with the FA's, please stop making up stuff. VoIP is much more conservative of bandwidth (and usually noise) than the guy one row before me checking out freaking youtube reviews on speed boat engines: "And now to the Honda XYZ: WROOOOOOOM WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM WROOOOOOOM!".
May 10, 2012, 11:14 pm
#54
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,746
Last time I checked, violating GoGo's terms of service is not a crime.
Also not clear what authority a Port Authority cop has to cite/arrest someone for a "crime" that did not occur in NY or NJ.
And since when is Delta concerned about protecting folks from being part of a captive audience? I have to hear that cracker natter on about his desk at the beginning of every flight.
Also not clear what authority a Port Authority cop has to cite/arrest someone for a "crime" that did not occur in NY or NJ.
And since when is Delta concerned about protecting folks from being part of a captive audience? I have to hear that cracker natter on about his desk at the beginning of every flight.
Last edited by BigFlyer; May 10, 2012 at 11:21 pm
May 11, 2012, 12:15 am
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: check swarm
Programs: DL DM & 2MM, SPG/Bonvoid LT Titanium, Hyatt Globalist, $tarbucks Titanium
Posts: 14,401
May 11, 2012, 3:07 am
#56
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: MEL
Programs: DL, QF, QR Gold, MR Lifetime Gold
Posts: 6,999
May 11, 2012, 3:19 am
#57
Join Date: Jun 2009
Programs: A3 Gold, AA Platinum, Marriott & Discovery Platinum, IGH Diamond
Posts: 888
A few years ago, I was on CO in F, and the FA told me that it was an FAA regulation that I can't go to the lav in socks. I had to have my shoes on! Where do they get this stuff from? Not to mention that overseas J flights actually give you socks to wear!
My situation is slightly different than the above story, of course, because VoIP is against company policy, and you hafto always obey a FA, pretty much no matter how crazy the request is . . . . . That said, could the CO FA in my story have had me arrested for disobeying her if she wanted to? And why would she really care if I wear shoes to the lav - yeah I know - it can be nasty. I don't go in if it looks bad.
My situation is slightly different than the above story, of course, because VoIP is against company policy, and you hafto always obey a FA, pretty much no matter how crazy the request is . . . . . That said, could the CO FA in my story have had me arrested for disobeying her if she wanted to? And why would she really care if I wear shoes to the lav - yeah I know - it can be nasty. I don't go in if it looks bad.
Regards,
El Puerco Volante.
May 11, 2012, 4:14 am
#58
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Programs: DL DM; DL AMEX Reserve; HHonors Gold
Posts: 1,984
May 11, 2012, 4:30 am
#59
In memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2005
Location: PIT
Programs: DM life is over 2MM PM now & NW MillionAir Wyndham Rewards Plat -Hotels.com Silver -Accor Silver
Posts: 15,408
I wish FA's would call cops for the ones who think footwear is optional when walking on planes..Maybe this is the only way for certain people to learn some respect for fellow travellers...all other ways - I doubt it,if not it would have been clear from the beginning.
I just flew 12 hours on NRT/MSP on lie-flat seats. My shoes were under the foot extension. I use the lav frequently for normal reasons plus taking medications throughout the flight. Putting on my shoes every time I need to go would be a major pain. My socks are clean (and pretty
)! Sorry if you have a problem with it.
May 11, 2012, 5:25 am
#60
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Shanghai
Programs: BAEC (Gold), PC (Plat), HH (Gold), MR (Gold)
Posts: 2,729
Wow, the jerk had the audacity to call out the police for being rude. The police were probably thinking how this man's selfishness was wasting their time. Gogo has limited bandwidth, but he is important enough to hog it all on his phone call. The other passengers don't want to hear his conversation, but he's important enough that his call trumps everyone else's comfort on the plane. (Obviously he was loud, or the FA wouldn't have even known.) Heck, he also knows that he is so important that he can tell the FAs what to do.
With that said, FAs need to learn that making up fake FAA rules only makes the situation worse. They have the authority to say, "Because I am in charge." If, instead, they make something up, passengers who know they are fibbing are less inclined to do as told and more inclined to argue back. Tell me you are in charge and you say to do it, I've got no response. Make up that the FAA has a rule, and I've got the truth to argue back.
With that said, FAs need to learn that making up fake FAA rules only makes the situation worse. They have the authority to say, "Because I am in charge." If, instead, they make something up, passengers who know they are fibbing are less inclined to do as told and more inclined to argue back. Tell me you are in charge and you say to do it, I've got no response. Make up that the FAA has a rule, and I've got the truth to argue back.
I disagree. Finally! Someone who thinks the rules don't apply to him is put in his place. Personally, I'd love to see more of that, especially with idiots and jerks who sneak using their cell phones while in flight.
Bravo to the FAs who called the cops on Marco!
A big
to Marco. Whether he likes the rules or TOS or not, he must abide by them, just like the rest of us. He is certainly a candidate for the DYKWIA Hall of Shame.
Bravo to the FAs who called the cops on Marco!
A big
to Marco. Whether he likes the rules or TOS or not, he must abide by them, just like the rest of us. He is certainly a candidate for the DYKWIA Hall of Shame.Great post
I can't believe some posters actually seem to think "well they should just fuss at him and there should not be consequences for his actions" REALLY? Sounds like other wanna be members of the DYKWIA Hall of Shame to me. (In other words I am going to do what I want and Delta should KNOW how special I am and just
)
I can't believe some posters actually seem to think "well they should just fuss at him and there should not be consequences for his actions" REALLY? Sounds like other wanna be members of the DYKWIA Hall of Shame to me. (In other words I am going to do what I want and Delta should KNOW how special I am and just
)Did any of you actually read the article, or did you just look at it and make your own version of the story up?
