Originally Posted by reimero

Having said that, to my knowledge there are only two periods during which "sit with your seatbelt fastened" is a hard and fast requirement: during takeoff and landing. The rest of the time it's semi-required. If the seatbelt sign is on and you want to stretch your legs, FAs can and will yell at you. But other than takeoff and landing, they cannot legally prevent you from heeding the call of nature.

Originally Posted by ethernal

1 hour flight time may be a bit much (as opposed to 1 hour block time).. but yes, if something is less than a 4-4.5 hour drive (and you can avoid traffic) then it's a no-brainer to drive in my opinion. Really depends partly on where your actual O and D points are (e.g., if you live far north of Atlanta and your destination is south Nashville).

For me, I leave my house about 90 minutes before my flight on average - sometimes a bit more if traffic is bad, but that's a good rule of thumb. Assume an hour block time, and 30-45 minutes to get to your true final destination, and in theory you're at your destination in just over 3 hours - which is faster than 4 hours. But flying has risks as you noted, and the intermodal nature (Uber -> security -> gate -> boarding -> flight -> deboarding -> uber/rental -> get to destination) is far more stressful (in my opinion) than car -> destination. On the flip side, you can theoretically work while flying, but with block times so short that benefit is trivial at best.

Originally Posted by jdrtravel

Actually, you are required by law to obey posted placards (including seatbelt signs) as well as crew instructions. If you were to seriously ignore FA directions or a posted sign, including the seatbelt sign, they could theoretically have the police greet you upon arrival. I don't think this will happen just for running to the restroom, but the point still stands.

Edited to add source: Here is the language of the law, which comes from the same place as the regulations about tampering with smoke detectors:



https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/121.317

Originally Posted by reimero

According to the letter of the law, if the crewmember verbally instructs you to sit down, you must sit down. If the crew member informs you that the seat belt sign is on but does NOT explicitly tell you to sit, you're legally in the clear. .

Originally Posted by jackvogt

The fact that there is a discussion about this is kind of pathetic. I do not book flights based on whether or not I will receive a drink service. I personally don't want an FA falling into my lap if the flight is turbulent. Sometimes they will use it as an excuse to be lazy, or maybe the captain was expecting turbulence but they were rerouted or things cleared up by the time we are en route. Also I have had to get up while the seatbelt sign was on to use the restroom and the FAs didn't scold me or try to shame me into sitting down. Either way, a beverage and tiny serving of whole grain Cheezits (disgusting, why can't they be regular???) is the least of my concerns when I am on a flight.

Originally Posted by jackvogt

The fact that there is a discussion about this is kind of pathetic. I do not book flights based on whether or not I will receive a drink service. I personally don't want an FA falling into my lap if the flight is turbulent. Sometimes they will use it as an excuse to be lazy, or maybe the captain was expecting turbulence but they were rerouted or things cleared up by the time we are en route. Also I have had to get up while the seatbelt sign was on to use the restroom and the FAs didn't scold me or try to shame me into sitting down. Either way, a beverage and tiny serving of whole grain Cheezits (disgusting, why can't they be regular???) is the least of my concerns when I am on a flight.

Originally Posted by ethernal

I am not one that really cares much about service, so I would say I am generally aligned...

That said, turbulence can technically happen any time. Unexpected clear air turbulence can happen at any point in the flight regardless of measured and reported meteorological conditions. Therefore, an airline is always making some sort of trade-off on service versus risk of injury/incident from turbulence unless they simply provide no cabin service at all (and ban passengers from getting up through the duration of the flight). I think it is perfectly reasonable to question (as a customer) exactly where that trade-off is being made.

In-flight turbulence-induced injuries are exceedingly rare. Rare enough that when they do happen, they make at least local/regional news (and often times national). Aiming for zero injuries (instead of "less than one-in-ten-million chance") inherently means sacrificing material service - something that a lot of people do care about.

Originally Posted by ethernal

In-flight turbulence-induced injuries are exceedingly rare. Rare enough that when they do happen, they make at least local/regional news (and often times national). Aiming for zero injuries (instead of "less than one-in-ten-million chance") inherently means saccrificing material service - something that a lot of people do care about.

Originally Posted by Bear96

Exceedingly rare in terms of multiple passengers being thrown around so violently their heads hit the ceiling and the Captain has to request an emergency landing and ambulances meet the plane? Sure.

Exceedingly rare in terms of a F/A twisting her ankle while trying to maneuver a 200-pound trolley full of liquids and other supplies back to the galley while the floor is bouncing around (which BTW never makes the evening news)? Airlines who have to pay the resulting workers comp claims would beg to differ.