tedward

On the eve of the VP debate, I was thinking about last Friday, when I was on Delta 1789 watching the first US presidential debate on CNN. The plane took off just before the debate got started, and as soon as the TVs were switched on, half the plane tuned in. (Given that it was a domestic flight, I was surprised that the other half wasn't interested.)

I was also surprised that the FAs took their time before getting out of their seats to sell earbuds, and that they went on with their usual long, if not seemingly longer, droning messages about how they offer complimentary beverage service and your choice of three snack items.

Every time the PA came on, the screens blanked out, and the audio stopped. One would think that, given the importance of the presidential debate, they would have been a little more sensitive to the people trying to watch. I'm sure they're required to say certain things for safety, but wouldn't it be a good idea to allow people to watch the debate with as little interruption as possible?

Thoughts?

Redhead

Sadly, I'm actually surprised that 50% wanted to watch the debate. I know an incredible number of educated people who just consider the debates boring and think their vote doesn't count anyway.

It would have been nice but you could get people saying the same thing about a baseball game, a certain tv show, anything. I agree that the debates are much more important but I just don't see them doing anything about it

rjque

My partner flew VX SFO-SAN during the debate and he said that nearly the entire plane watched. He also said the entire plane broke out into a chant of "Obama, Obama!" when the debate finished.

I watched the Obama nomination acceptance speech on a DL flight. About half the plane was watching and everyone who did was very irritated at the occasional announcements re snacks for sale.


[Sentence edited by moderator as off-topic for this thread.]

N965VJ

Unfortunately, I have to agree.

tedward

[Off-topic comments deleted by moderator.]

That aside, I don't know why the crew wouldn't be more sensitive to [the importance of this] sort of thing. I've been on plenty of flights where the pilot came on the PA and announced a major sports score; they obviously know what's going on down on the ground.

I'm not saying that Delta needs to put in a policy about keeping quiet when a major televised event is going on; I'm just surprised that the crew doesn't take it upon themselves to do that. I know the question was raised by Redhead: where do you draw the line? I think that's a pretty subjective thing, but with a couple dozen channels available and half the plane tuned into the same event, I think the decision is clear.


[Off-topic comments deleted by moderator.]

croberts134

I suppose if it was that important to you, you wouldn't have scheduled a flight during that time...

tedward

That's beside the point, but the flight was scheduled before the debate was.

Ocn Vw 1K

Just a brief moderator "in-flight" announcement before continuing with the overall, very good discussion. To keep the thread open, we need to continue to limit it to the travel aspects of watching a debate in-flight and not to the merits of the candidates' positions or the merits of political debates. Thank you, Ocn Vw 1K, Moderator, TravelBuzz.

DiscoPapa

Frankly, I'm surprised that the live TV on Delta actually worked! Consider yourself lucky, my friend.

choster

I would submit the opposite conclusion of the OP. Today, with widespread deployment of DVRs, ready availability of online video from a multitude of websites, and clips and in some cases complete reruns beaming 24-hours on cable and satellite news networks from around the world, airlines and others who provide access to television can care far less about running programming uninterrupted.

Thirty years ago, when few people owned VCRs, your only option to see a debate (or a major speech, or a party convention) was to witness it in person, listen to it on the radio, or watch it on network broadcast television. Broadcast television and radio were thus a vital medium for receiving information; if you didn't see it during broadcast, you would very likely become a less-informed citizen for it. Missing a debate was much more important than, say, missing a football game.

Nowadays, in contrast, someone who cares about watching the event uninterrupted can easily record it for later (and even access those recordings on the road with devices like the SlingBox), catch one of its half-dozen repeats on C-SPAN, or stream or download it from an archival website (e.g. http://www.c-spanarchives.org/librar...art=&clipStop= .), not to mention readily obtain transcripts plus millions of words of commentary in varying languages and of varying quality without even having to wait for the next day's newspaper to arrive. Missing the initial broadcast doesn't leave you in the dark, because you can access it later at your leisure-- a presidential debate isn't any more important to watch in real time than a big football game.

Of course, I've of the opinion that the crew should minimize announcements and other interruptions in general. But in this day and age they do not need paternalistically to decide which entertainments are worthier of interruption than others.

N965VJ

True, but there’s something to be said for watching in real time, before I chance to hear or read some pundit saying who they think won a debate.