Inflight Movies for the deaf passengers
May 13, 2004, 12:20 pm
#76
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: United MP
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by Wiggums
It actually costs money to caption films. Clipping movies is easy, but placing subtitles on it is not. I know for a 30 minute film, it cost my company $22,500 to caption it. The UA logo is an easy 5-minute job, but typing word by word definitely does not take 5 minutes. Does that make sense? Also, have you tried reading the captioning on a tiny 9 inch screen that plops down from the ceiling on an Airbus?
Why don't we make them all plasmas so those with poor eyesight could also see the movie? Oh, what about those who are deaf and with poor eyesight? Let's cover the screen with text. Do you see where I'm getting at?
Why don't we make them all plasmas so those with poor eyesight could also see the movie? Oh, what about those who are deaf and with poor eyesight? Let's cover the screen with text. Do you see where I'm getting at?
And to the last paragraph, do you mean they should do nothing at all since they can't meet every possible need?
May 13, 2004, 12:22 pm
#77
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: United MP
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by Wiggums
I'm not late-deafened. I was born deaf and I use ASL as my primary communication. I am with the others in ganging up on people who choose to plaster "Victim" on their foreheads. I'm a top-tier elite with UA, but I don't expect them to provide me DVD players or sign langauge interpreters on all of my flights.
I'm glad I found this thread - I am constantly amazed at this "gimme" mentality. When I go thru a drive-thru, I have never had problems getting my order by skipping the microphone and driving for the window. They will try their best to accommodate me and I'm appreciative of that.
Having Arby's in Irvine actually place a keyboard on the drive-thru was absolutely ridiculous and they found that nobody was using it. It was eventually taken out and I'm glad they didn't get sued again for that! Taco Bell did the same thing - and eventually took it out too.
I am NOT hearing who is not getting it. I am DEAF who is NOT getting it!
I'm glad I found this thread - I am constantly amazed at this "gimme" mentality. When I go thru a drive-thru, I have never had problems getting my order by skipping the microphone and driving for the window. They will try their best to accommodate me and I'm appreciative of that.
Having Arby's in Irvine actually place a keyboard on the drive-thru was absolutely ridiculous and they found that nobody was using it. It was eventually taken out and I'm glad they didn't get sued again for that! Taco Bell did the same thing - and eventually took it out too.
I am NOT hearing who is not getting it. I am DEAF who is NOT getting it!
May 13, 2004, 12:29 pm
#78
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: United MP
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by TravelManKen
That's a pretty low blow and a dang weak response to some legitimate arguments. There is no gang attack happening here, simply people (with and w/o disabilities) stating the fact that some requests are unreasonable. It's not a gang attack to say that when you have a disability there are simply some things in life that you will not be able to enjoy. That's not an attack, and life is not always fair, but it is a reality not caused by other people.
You know many of us non-disabled people have spent thousands of hours assisting those with disabilities and asked for nothing in return. The least you can do is take a look at our opinions and not attack us as being insensitive, or worse, not caring. I'm not one to be easily offended, but that statement was d@mn offensive.
You know many of us non-disabled people have spent thousands of hours assisting those with disabilities and asked for nothing in return. The least you can do is take a look at our opinions and not attack us as being insensitive, or worse, not caring. I'm not one to be easily offended, but that statement was d@mn offensive.
May 13, 2004, 12:34 pm
#79
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: United MP
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by JeremyZ
No it isn't.
As somebody with a "disability," I can tell you that it is not typical, and this thread is not an example.
Most people simply learn to live with disabilities, doing their best not to let it limit them.
A very few look for every opportunity to be slighted.
As somebody with a "disability," I can tell you that it is not typical, and this thread is not an example.
Most people simply learn to live with disabilities, doing their best not to let it limit them.
A very few look for every opportunity to be slighted.
May 13, 2004, 12:34 pm
#80
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SNA
Programs: Sixt Platinum, Avis Preferred Plus, Hertz President's Circle, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,557
Originally Posted by DeafFlyer
Don't be ridiculous. That $22,000 is nothing comparesd to the millions spent to make the movie.
And to the last paragraph, do you mean they should do nothing at all since they can't meet every possible need?
And to the last paragraph, do you mean they should do nothing at all since they can't meet every possible need?
And don't you think it's selfish when one wants equal access for deaf people with total disregard to blind people, etc? If one gets it, don't you think it's possible others would want it too? Learn how to live with it!
May 13, 2004, 12:36 pm
#81
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Kealakekua, Hawaii
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by Wiggums
It actually costs money to caption films. Clipping movies is easy, but placing subtitles on it is not. I know for a 30 minute film, it cost my company $22,500 to caption it. The UA logo is an easy 5-minute job, but typing word by word definitely does not take 5 minutes. Does that make sense? Also, have you tried reading the captioning on a tiny 9 inch screen that plops down from the ceiling on an Airbus?
Why don't we make them all plasmas so those with poor eyesight could also see the movie? Oh, what about those who are deaf and with poor eyesight? Let's cover the screen with text. Do you see where I'm getting at?
Why don't we make them all plasmas so those with poor eyesight could also see the movie? Oh, what about those who are deaf and with poor eyesight? Let's cover the screen with text. Do you see where I'm getting at?
Here is the scenarios:
You and I sit each other on the plane for 10 hours flight from, let's say SFO to LHR. There is a 2 hours movies. There are no closed captioned. You put the headset on and watch the movie. I don't understand what they're saying. I would have to ask you by writing note back and forth, what did he say? what did she say? what are they talking about? etc...You'd probably get frustrated and annoyed, right? You don't want that kind of hassle, right? I personally think that the airlines REQUIRE to get DVD players for the deaf passengers so they can watch the movies with closed captioned and enjoy themselves...As I have said the airliners are REQUIRED to provide movies for the HEARING passengers. Why not deaf? Also, The airliners are REQUIRED to provide the sound for the blind passengers....
Last edited by KDHawaii777; May 13, 2004 at 12:46 pm
May 13, 2004, 12:42 pm
#82
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: United MP
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by TravelManKen
I've seen this occur in other civil rights/human rights organizations as well. The activists serve a great roll in raising awareness, however they can really damage the credibility of a situation by making unreasonable demands. These outrageous demands (like DVD players for all) can cause a backlash and delay for other reasonable and urgently needed accommodations.
The reason activists do what they do is, if they don't nothing will change. I'm not even an activist. I simply voiced my opinion that IFE should be captioned. Immediately people respond with words like "entitlement" and "victim" Geez, now I'm not allowed to have an opinion?
May 13, 2004, 12:42 pm
#83
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PDX, AMS, MSN, ORD. Dedicated to finding a cure for Republicanism in our time. "Won't you please help"? "For the children's sake"?
Programs: ! "Ya can't tell da' playahs wit'out a program!" NW silver, DIRT everywhere else.
Posts: 1,194
Originally Posted by KDHawaii777
As I have said the airliners are REQUIRED to provide movies for the HEARING passengers.
May 13, 2004, 12:48 pm
#84
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: United MP
Posts: 7,822
Originally Posted by Wiggums
Studios are the ones spending millions. For subtitling, forcing airlines to pay $22,000 (for 30 minutes) is equally stupid. It's up to the studios.
And don't you think it's selfish when one wants equal access for deaf people with total disregard to blind people, etc? If one gets it, don't you think it's possible others would want it too? Learn how to live with it!
May 13, 2004, 1:02 pm
#85
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Originally Posted by KDHawaii777
As I have said the airliners are REQUIRED to provide movies for the HEARING passengers. Why not deaf? Also, The airliners are REQUIRED to provide the sound for the blind passengers....
No airline that I know of (at least subject to US laws) is required to provide movies. Not for the deaf, not for the blind, and not for pax afflicted with neither disability (or "challenge," depending on one's PC quotient). None are required to provide food. None are required to provide sodas. None are required to provide pillows or blankets. None are required to provide alcohol. The list goes on and on.
Rather than wrapping your desire with the cloak of disability and entitlement, try framing it (close-captioning of movies) as a wise business decision for the airlines.
May 13, 2004, 1:29 pm
#86
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SNA
Programs: Sixt Platinum, Avis Preferred Plus, Hertz President's Circle, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,557
Number one, I would not be putting headsets on because I cannot hear a peep! I would probably be chatting with you since you're deaf and using ASL.
Number two, are you telling me that my 40-minute flights from SNA to LAX are in violation of the law? Movies weren't on that flight. I think I'm going to fire off a few letters to my congressman and the FAA!
Number two, are you telling me that my 40-minute flights from SNA to LAX are in violation of the law? Movies weren't on that flight. I think I'm going to fire off a few letters to my congressman and the FAA!
Originally Posted by KDHawaii777
You're being silly. You sound like you're whining about spending alot of time working on caption for the movies.
Here is the scenarios:
You and I sit each other on the plane for 10 hours flight from, let's say SFO to LHR. There is a 2 hours movies. There are no closed captioned. You put the headset on and watch the movie. I don't understand what they're saying. I would have to ask you by writing note back and forth, what did he say? what did she say? what are they talking about? etc...You'd probably get frustrated and annoyed, right? You don't want that kind of hassle, right? I personally think that the airlines REQUIRE to get DVD players for the deaf passengers so they can watch the movies with closed captioned and enjoy themselves...As I have said the airliners are REQUIRED to provide movies for the HEARING passengers. Why not deaf? Also, The airliners are REQUIRED to provide the sound for the blind passengers....
Here is the scenarios:
You and I sit each other on the plane for 10 hours flight from, let's say SFO to LHR. There is a 2 hours movies. There are no closed captioned. You put the headset on and watch the movie. I don't understand what they're saying. I would have to ask you by writing note back and forth, what did he say? what did she say? what are they talking about? etc...You'd probably get frustrated and annoyed, right? You don't want that kind of hassle, right? I personally think that the airlines REQUIRE to get DVD players for the deaf passengers so they can watch the movies with closed captioned and enjoy themselves...As I have said the airliners are REQUIRED to provide movies for the HEARING passengers. Why not deaf? Also, The airliners are REQUIRED to provide the sound for the blind passengers....
May 13, 2004, 1:31 pm
#87
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PDX, AMS, MSN, ORD. Dedicated to finding a cure for Republicanism in our time. "Won't you please help"? "For the children's sake"?
Programs: ! "Ya can't tell da' playahs wit'out a program!" NW silver, DIRT everywhere else.
Posts: 1,194
Originally Posted by FWAAA
Rather than wrapping your desire with the cloak of disability and entitlement, try framing it (close-captioning of movies) as a wise business decision for the airlines.
May 13, 2004, 1:33 pm
#88
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SNA
Programs: Sixt Platinum, Avis Preferred Plus, Hertz President's Circle, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,557
You ever try reading text on the tiny LCD screens sticking from the ceiling in an Airbus? I even have a hard time reading the subtitling on safety videos and my eyesight's 20/20!
If you weren't such an *******, maybe you can actually encourage a friend to come along and keep you company.
If you weren't such an *******, maybe you can actually encourage a friend to come along and keep you company.
Originally Posted by DeafFlyer
True enough. The airline could tell the studios they want captions, can't they?
The others are quite capable of letting us know their needs. OTOH, are you again saying that they should do nothing at all, since they can't meet all needs?
The others are quite capable of letting us know their needs. OTOH, are you again saying that they should do nothing at all, since they can't meet all needs?
May 13, 2004, 1:34 pm
#89
Suspended
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Kealakekua, Hawaii
Posts: 74
Originally Posted by FWAAA
I'm thoroughly confused. I'm not sure where you are getting the "required" part.
No airline that I know of (at least subject to US laws) is required to provide movies. Not for the deaf, not for the blind, and not for pax afflicted with neither disability (or "challenge," depending on one's PC quotient). None are required to provide food. None are required to provide sodas. None are required to provide pillows or blankets. None are required to provide alcohol. The list goes on and on.
Rather than wrapping your desire with the cloak of disability and entitlement, try framing it (close-captioning of movies) as a wise business decision for the airlines.
No airline that I know of (at least subject to US laws) is required to provide movies. Not for the deaf, not for the blind, and not for pax afflicted with neither disability (or "challenge," depending on one's PC quotient). None are required to provide food. None are required to provide sodas. None are required to provide pillows or blankets. None are required to provide alcohol. The list goes on and on.
Rather than wrapping your desire with the cloak of disability and entitlement, try framing it (close-captioning of movies) as a wise business decision for the airlines.
I contacted the Disability Center office at an airline headquarter(can't use thier name).They told me that they required to get movies for the hearing passengers. They said Air Carrier Act or something like that doesn't require for them to get captioned movies for the deaf passengers...
May 13, 2004, 1:42 pm
#90
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: SNA
Programs: Sixt Platinum, Avis Preferred Plus, Hertz President's Circle, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,557
Did you ask them about 30-minute flights? I really don't buy it.. my uncle's friend's brother told me this and that....
I looked all over the web and there's NO such requirement.
Woolly Bully, Woolly Bully
Watch it now, here he comes
Says gotta have big movies
And a woolly sound
Woolly Bully
I looked all over the web and there's NO such requirement.
Woolly Bully, Woolly Bully
Watch it now, here he comes
Says gotta have big movies
And a woolly sound
Woolly Bully