Rule Breakers - Where Does it Stop?
Feb 7, 2007 | 11:41 pm
#18
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
I was waiting behind this woman on the PHX T2 Elite TSA line. She was obviously a frequent flyer. She said she is Premier Exec on UA and Platinum on AA. She was bragging about how she would hide things on her to avoid the TSA's liquid/gel rules.
I happened to sit next to her on the flight. She used her Blackberry all the way to the runway. I hinted she should turn them off when we took off at PHX. She basically ignored me and said it did not matter. She did not turn it off. Less than 5 minutes after we took off, she started using it again (I believe transmitting messages). While we were approaching ORD, she started again and turned on another cell phone.
Whether cell phones cause problems in-flight is not the point here. (As it happened, we were in-flight during Superbowl and they patched through the radio broadcast on Channel 9 on UA).
This woman, Marsha something, seems like a big time stock broker type. I started wondering - TSA rule, FAA rule, would she be breaking SEC rules also? I know some of us frequent flyers do not like to put up with stupid rules. However, when do you deem a rule stupid and where do you draw the line?
************
When we got to the gate at ORD, the FAs requested that we let those with connecting flights off first. Amazingly, most of the passengers complied (this rarely happens in my experience). This Marsha did not and squeezed her way through to get off (we were in in row 6 on a Ted flight).
I am so unimpressed by the behavior of this woman.
I happened to sit next to her on the flight. She used her Blackberry all the way to the runway. I hinted she should turn them off when we took off at PHX. She basically ignored me and said it did not matter. She did not turn it off. Less than 5 minutes after we took off, she started using it again (I believe transmitting messages). While we were approaching ORD, she started again and turned on another cell phone.
Whether cell phones cause problems in-flight is not the point here. (As it happened, we were in-flight during Superbowl and they patched through the radio broadcast on Channel 9 on UA).
This woman, Marsha something, seems like a big time stock broker type. I started wondering - TSA rule, FAA rule, would she be breaking SEC rules also? I know some of us frequent flyers do not like to put up with stupid rules. However, when do you deem a rule stupid and where do you draw the line?
************
When we got to the gate at ORD, the FAs requested that we let those with connecting flights off first. Amazingly, most of the passengers complied (this rarely happens in my experience). This Marsha did not and squeezed her way through to get off (we were in in row 6 on a Ted flight).
I am so unimpressed by the behavior of this woman.
Unless you know a lot more about her than you've shared here, the answer to your second to last question: no.
I'd have to double check on some of the following, but using handheld electronics, of the sort you mentioned above, on the ground seems not to be prohibited by the FAA prior to take off and is generally not prohibited after landing -- speaking of domestic US flights.
You wouldn't necessarily know if a device is in "flight mode" or not unless you were staring at what she was doing. Also some cell phones are set to "flight mode".
Did your seatmate claim to not have a connecting flight out of ORD (or maybe even MDW)? How could you validate that to be correct or not?
Last edited by GUWonder; Feb 7, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Feb 8, 2007 | 7:48 am
#20
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 566
Feb 8, 2007 | 8:06 am
#21
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 47,152
Obviously the crazy woman in question leads a very stressful life, and liberally sprinkles stress on other people she encounters - with such stress, her heart must be a ticking timebomb. I could make a bundle treating her...in theory.
That's what I was saying.
I frequently see people like this while spending time connecting at EWR - they're not difficult to spot.
That's what I was saying.
I frequently see people like this while spending time connecting at EWR - they're not difficult to spot.
Feb 8, 2007 | 1:06 pm
#22
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,083
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8100/4.2.0 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)
Heh. Mostly true, although I don't forsee any type of societal revolution triggered by a woman refusing to turn off her Blackberry on an airplane.
Agreed, but maybe a change to the blackberry rule...pilots routinely leaves theirs on.
Originally Posted by ACB
Feb 8, 2007 | 5:23 pm
#23
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: London
Programs: I've got three passports, A couple of visas, Don't even know my real name.
Posts: 909
Feb 8, 2007 | 10:03 pm
#25
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Programs: UA/CO(1K-PLT), AA(PLT), QR, EK, Marriott(PLT), Hilton(DMND)
Posts: 9,538
Anarchy, civil disobedience and active resistance against big government is the only way to rid ourselves of these idiotic rules about what we can and can't carry on board aircraft, when we can and can't use electronics, what we can and can't say and when we can and can't support people trying to rid themselves of their evil occupiers and oppressors.
I salute for the obnoxious stockbroker.
Feb 8, 2007 | 10:18 pm
#26
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 297
Quite right. As obnoxious as this lady was, I support her for having the balls (so to speak) to disregard american aviation security and their idiotic rules.
Anarchy, civil disobedience and active resistance against big government is the only way to rid ourselves of these idiotic rules about what we can and can't carry on board aircraft, when we can and can't use electronics, what we can and can't say and when we can and can't support people trying to rid themselves of their evil occupiers and oppressors.
I salute for the obnoxious stockbroker.
Anarchy, civil disobedience and active resistance against big government is the only way to rid ourselves of these idiotic rules about what we can and can't carry on board aircraft, when we can and can't use electronics, what we can and can't say and when we can and can't support people trying to rid themselves of their evil occupiers and oppressors.
I salute for the obnoxious stockbroker.
These rules exists for a reason not just some sort of draconian measure dreamed up by the aristocracy. The rules in aviation are designed for your and the rest of the traveling publics safety. Much like rules about crossing the street, look both ways or else thy might be smited by the unseen vehicle. If you wanna be a rebel you first need a cause. To rebel for the mere cause of rebelling is sophomoric at best.
Feb 8, 2007 | 10:49 pm
#27
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,077
These rules exists for a reason not just some sort of draconian measure dreamed up by the aristocracy. The rules in aviation are designed for your and the rest of the traveling publics safety. Much like rules about crossing the street, look both ways or else thy might be smited by the unseen vehicle. If you wanna be a rebel you first need a cause. To rebel for the mere cause of rebelling is sophomoric at best.
There are good reasons and there are bad reasons. Guess where a lot of the recent "safety and security" measures fall? Closer to "bad reason" than "good reason".
Feb 8, 2007 | 11:56 pm
#28
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Programs: UA/CO(1K-PLT), AA(PLT), QR, EK, Marriott(PLT), Hilton(DMND)
Posts: 9,538
These rules exists for a reason not just some sort of draconian measure dreamed up by the aristocracy. The rules in aviation are designed for your and the rest of the traveling publics safety. Much like rules about crossing the street, look both ways or else thy might be smited by the unseen vehicle. If you wanna be a rebel you first need a cause. To rebel for the mere cause of rebelling is sophomoric at best.
Feb 9, 2007 | 2:26 am
#29
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend, Moderator, Information Desk, Ambassador, Alaska Airlines
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: FAI
Programs: AS MVP Gold100K, AS 1MM, Maika`i Card, AGR, Hertz PC, Marriott Lifetime Plat, CO, 7H, BA, 8E
Posts: 44,318
You are welcome to follow the rules and believe they make sense - I will continue to break them and encourage others to break them. If people followed the rules, you'd have pictures of the Queen on your bank notes and your Prime Minister would be a smarmy git named Tony.
Although it is a bit before my time, it is similar to smoking on aircraft, and then the transition to smoke-free flights. Smoking is an addictive habit that people acquire, just like utilizing a cellphone or blackberry. It is not an innate trait such as breathing.
Feb 9, 2007 | 2:50 am
#30
Used to be mmsteidl
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: LUX
Programs: AA PLAT for life, AF Platinum, LH Senator, Bonvoy Plat for Life
Posts: 407
Quite an interesting turn that this thread took. First everyone wanted to impose self-justice on her, then all of a sudden she was a social revolutionary.
Both extremes are wrong.
Rules in society are necessary so that many people can live together without bothering the other too much. While we could discuss the sense of some rules, it is not on us to decide which one we like and which one not. A free society should give us the possibility to question rules and vote against them, but not to decide which one to follow and which one not.
This said, there are also institutions that punish wrong behaviour. In this case the FA and maybe everything after, but certainly not the passenger next to the lady by dropping a glass of water or whatever.
Both extremes are wrong.
Rules in society are necessary so that many people can live together without bothering the other too much. While we could discuss the sense of some rules, it is not on us to decide which one we like and which one not. A free society should give us the possibility to question rules and vote against them, but not to decide which one to follow and which one not.
This said, there are also institutions that punish wrong behaviour. In this case the FA and maybe everything after, but certainly not the passenger next to the lady by dropping a glass of water or whatever.