when fellow pax won't turn off iphone?

Old May 18, 2010, 1:31 pm
  #91  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: IAD
Programs: *wood Gold
Posts: 1,781
Originally Posted by sweeper20
Again, please take a deep breath and actually read what I wrote. I didn't say I have ever seen anyone hauled off, please point out to me where I wrote that..What I did say was there are remedies in place should they choose to enforce them. Interesting that you think rules don't apply to you.
What you specifically said was "...go ahead and see how that works for you" in the context of "legal consequences". I was replying to that part of the post, hence why it was quoted.

My simple statement was that I had "gone ahead" a number of times in the past, and my experience of seeing "how that worked for me" was the FA simply requesting that I turn the phone off. There were no tickets, fines, arrests, threats, etc. given. So, in my experience, how it "worked for me" was simple-- ignored initial requests provided no consequence other than an FA asking for the item to be turned off and stowed.

I was merely querying whether or not you've ever seen any FA do anything different on any flight with any other customer. I think it would make a pretty good story if you had (mostly because it would show a rather extreme reaction on the part of the FA, IMO).

As far as the rules applying to me... Well, like I've said in previous posts, when the rules aren't silly and stupid, I'm happy to follow them. But when they're rather pointless, cause an inconvenience, and really aren't enforced in the first place, I see no reason to follow them. Hence, why I still wouldn't bother to turn my phone off during take-off and landing today if I were still flying. There are also apparently a large number of other people who feel the same way I do about this whole "electronics off" nonsense.
clrankin is offline  
Old May 18, 2010, 1:42 pm
  #92  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Boston MA
Programs: Delta Platinum, Delta Million Miler,Hilton Lifetime Diamond, Hertz Presidents Circle, Delta Sky Club
Posts: 663
Originally Posted by clrankin
What you specifically said was "...go ahead and see how that works for you" in the context of "legal consequences". I was replying to that part of the post, hence why it was quoted.

My simple statement was that I had "gone ahead" a number of times in the past, and my experience of seeing "how that worked for me" was the FA simply requesting that I turn the phone off. There were no tickets, fines, arrests, threats, etc. given. So, in my experience, how it "worked for me" was simple-- ignored initial requests provided no consequence other than an FA asking for the item to be turned off and stowed.

I was merely querying whether or not you've ever seen any FA do anything different on any flight with any other customer. I think it would make a pretty good story if you had (mostly because it would show a rather extreme reaction on the part of the FA, IMO).

As far as the rules applying to me... Well, like I've said in previous posts, when the rules aren't silly and stupid, I'm happy to follow them. But when they're rather pointless, cause an inconvenience, and really aren't enforced in the first place, I see no reason to follow them. Hence, why I still wouldn't bother to turn my phone off during take-off and landing today if I were still flying. There are also apparently a large number of other people who feel the same way I do about this whole "electronics off" nonsense.

I can understand your point, but i guess what perplexes me is that if everyone, on their own, decided what rules they thought were 'important' and therefore apporpriate to follow, society would be a mess. This particular rule isn't important to you - clearly. But what if someone else decided a rule was "silly" that you thought appropriate - would it be ok for them to simply say to you - yeah, its a rule, but I don't like it, so too bad for you? For instance, a front desk clerk overlooks you for an upgrade, even though the procedures (we'll call them 'rules' in this case) state that they should upgrade you...would it be ok for them to say to you "well im my opinion, its a silly rule, so I choose to ignore it" I doubt you'd let that slide.

Last edited by sweeper20; May 18, 2010 at 1:47 pm
sweeper20 is offline  
Old May 18, 2010, 3:59 pm
  #93  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,509
Originally Posted by sweeper20
I can understand your point, but i guess what perplexes me is that if everyone, on their own, decided what rules they thought were 'important' and therefore apporpriate to follow, society would be a mess. This particular rule isn't important to you - clearly. But what if someone else decided a rule was "silly" that you thought appropriate - would it be ok for them to simply say to you - yeah, its a rule, but I don't like it, so too bad for you? For instance, a front desk clerk overlooks you for an upgrade, even though the procedures (we'll call them 'rules' in this case) state that they should upgrade you...would it be ok for them to say to you "well im my opinion, its a silly rule, so I choose to ignore it" I doubt you'd let that slide.
At the risk of a long debate about the safety of cell phones, I will invoke the doctrine of victimless crimes to distinguish the two situations.
Ari is offline  
Old May 18, 2010, 4:57 pm
  #94  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC (formerly BOS/DCA)
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA
Posts: 60,745
Originally Posted by Ari
At the risk of a long debate about the safety of cell phones, I will invoke the doctrine of victimless crimes to distinguish the two situations.
If it's 3am and you're on a quiet street, do you run lights and stop signs?
magiciansampras is offline  
Old May 18, 2010, 8:00 pm
  #95  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,509
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
If it's 3am and you're on a quiet street, do you run lights and stop signs?
That wasn't the question-- I was responding to this post:

Originally Posted by sweeper20
For instance, a front desk clerk overlooks you for an upgrade, even though the procedures (we'll call them 'rules' in this case) state that they should upgrade you...would it be ok for them to say to you "well im my opinion, its a silly rule, so I choose to ignore it" I doubt you'd let that slide.
I was simply explaining why that comparison is flawed. Your comparison is more apt. sweeper20's comparison was flawed.
Ari is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 5:24 am
  #96  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Boston MA
Programs: Delta Platinum, Delta Million Miler,Hilton Lifetime Diamond, Hertz Presidents Circle, Delta Sky Club
Posts: 663
Originally Posted by Ari
That wasn't the question-- I was responding to this post:



I was simply explaining why that comparison is flawed. Your comparison is more apt. sweeper20's comparison was flawed.
Let me see if I can make it a bit less flawed for you. This really is for my own edification.

Here is how I see the situation based on the following scenerios:

1. You determine that a rule is "silly" so its ok to ignore it. (I think we have derterminded this earlier)

2. I determine a rule is silly, and you agree, therefore its also ok for us both to ignore it. (again, ok from what I have seen in earlier posts)

3. This one is tricky, so follow closely:

I determine a rule is silly, but you determine that said rule is actually quite important and should be followed without at doubt - its still ok for me to ignore it, right? Since we can all make our own determinations as to what is silly what we are willing to follow and what we are not, correct? You would just ignore my actions, since I have in my own mind, determinded that its ok for me to do - and thats really what its all about, us deciding on our own whats 'silly' and what isn't.
sweeper20 is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 5:42 am
  #97  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: FLL -> Where The Boyars Are
Programs: AA EXP 1.7 M, Hilton Gold, Hertz 5*, AARP Sophomore, 14-time Croix de Candlestick
Posts: 18,669
Originally Posted by birdstrike
The problem is that you are not going to be able to get an entire planeload of pax to obediently stop their phone conversation in the moment between "taxi into position and hold" and "cleared for takeoff".
On some recent AA flights, I've noticed that some FAs have provided an announcement that served as a form of "early warning" that the cutoff was approaching in 10 minutes (mostly when nearing arrival, but also once or twice before departure as well). I suspect that these were cases of the individual FAs taking the initiative, as such early announcements have been the exception, not the rule.
Non-NonRev is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 6:16 am
  #98  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,509
Originally Posted by sweeper20
Let me see if I can make it a bit less flawed for you. This really is for my own edification.

Here is how I see the situation based on the following scenerios:

1. You determine that a rule is "silly" so its ok to ignore it. (I think we have derterminded this earlier)

2. I determine a rule is silly, and you agree, therefore its also ok for us both to ignore it. (again, ok from what I have seen in earlier posts)

3. This one is tricky, so follow closely:

I determine a rule is silly, but you determine that said rule is actually quite important and should be followed without at doubt - its still ok for me to ignore it, right? Since we can all make our own determinations as to what is silly what we are willing to follow and what we are not, correct? You would just ignore my actions, since I have in my own mind, determinded that its ok for me to do - and thats really what its all about, us deciding on our own whats 'silly' and what isn't.
What you write above is a legitimate arguement.

Your example was flawed-- it showed a "victim" of a policy complaining about its violation. Of course someone who loses an upgrade to someone else based on a violation of policy is going to be pissed off and not think it is acceptable. In the example of the cell phone during taxi-out, no one is hurt (assuming you are able to extrapolate that the "harm" done is the same as during taxi in, something some here are unable to do so they attempt to justify it with other arguments and refuse to address it directly ).

The best example would be speeding 56mph in a 55mph zone. The 3am stoplight example is good, but it still has potential to cause injury if someone doesn't look carefully-- the 56 in a 55 is more akin to the harm done by using a cell phone after the door is closed but before takeoff-- ie. very speculative harm potential and unlikely to make any difference, like going 1mph over the limit).
Ari is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 7:08 am
  #99  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Boston MA
Programs: Delta Platinum, Delta Million Miler,Hilton Lifetime Diamond, Hertz Presidents Circle, Delta Sky Club
Posts: 663
Originally Posted by Ari
What you write above is a legitimate arguement.

Your example was flawed-- it showed a "victim" of a policy complaining about its violation. Of course someone who loses an upgrade to someone else based on a violation of policy is going to be pissed off and not think it is acceptable. In the example of the cell phone during taxi-out, no one is hurt (assuming you are able to extrapolate that the "harm" done is the same as during taxi in, something some here are unable to do so they attempt to justify it with other arguments and refuse to address it directly ).

The best example would be speeding 56mph in a 55mph zone. The 3am stoplight example is good, but it still has potential to cause injury if someone doesn't look carefully-- the 56 in a 55 is more akin to the harm done by using a cell phone after the door is closed but before takeoff-- ie. very speculative harm potential and unlikely to make any difference, like going 1mph over the limit).
Thanks for the thought out response - I really do appreciate a good debate.
sweeper20 is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 7:13 am
  #100  
Ari
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,509
Originally Posted by sweeper20
Thanks for the thought out response - I really do appreciate a good debate.
My pleasure; me too.
Ari is offline  
Old May 19, 2010, 7:19 am
  #101  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC (formerly BOS/DCA)
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA
Posts: 60,745
Originally Posted by Ari
Your example was flawed-- it showed a "victim" of a policy complaining about its violation.
What about the pax next to you that doesn't know about engineering. They're a nervous flier to begin with and they look at you disobeying the rules of the airline, which they think are there for safety reasons. This causes them to get nervous, elevated heart rate, etc. They're not the type to say anything as they don't like altercations, but they are really nervous about you breaking a safety rule. Their flight is less enjoyable because of your activity.

What about that victim?
magiciansampras is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.