WineCountryUA

would not it be more proper to say IF? You are making a number of presumptions based on no first hand knowledge.

fastair

What part of "get off of my company's private property" is unlawful? When refusing to remove oneself from another person's property after lawfully being asked/told to do so, when you refuse to do so, that isn't unlawful?

I have seen more "trespassing" charges used by police at airports than any other charge, when ejecting a person from the terminal. Freedom of assembly does not apply as that applies to public places. An aircraft is not public property, nor are the gates at the airport (they may be publicly owned but are privately leased, for the gates, that is.) The constitution applies, just not the 1st amendment as that applies to public property, not private. Most of the rules in The Constitution do not prohibit private entities from their rights to their property in favor of an individuals right to assemble on it.

flyinbob

One could argue as to whether a made-up FA rule is in fact relevant to the "operation of the aircraft". The rule seems to imply the actual flying or movement of of the aircraft, and not an absolute authority over everyone on board.

cblaisd

LOL

eponymous_coward

You know the FA's behavior for a certainty because you were an eyewitness?

I'm pretty sure businesses have the right to refuse service and escort trespassers from the premises. It doesn't seem clearcut to me. I don't think I would follow your advice were it to get me a split skull, though I admire your dedication to feeling free to confront flight attendants and striking blows for freedom to use a cell phone or occupy an exit row.

notquiteaff

Experience

There are hundreds of pax and a handful of FAs. I think it's quite likely that there are a number of "argumentative" or know-it-all types among the hundreds of pax. If they were given the option to debate whether rules apply to them or are applied correctly on each flight, I think we'd have a lot of delayed flights. If you want to debate, do it where it doesn't impact the other passengers.

Here's an example:

on a recent flight, the UA FA making the boarding announcements included (roughly) this: "Laptop and Kindles aren't allowed in the seat pocket."

I was sitting in row 2 of the 757 and, after the announcement, put my iPad in the seat pocket in front of me. He had seen me use the iPad during the announcements and shortly thereafter came over to me and asked where I put it. When I pointed to the seat pocket, he said that I had to take it out and put it in my bag. I could have told him that it wasn't a Kindle or a laptop, and that I thought there was no rule disallowing iPads (or Kindles for that matter) in the seat pocket, but do you really think I would have won that argument? And of course it wasn't worth deplaning to resolve it "off line" -- I just put the iPad in my laptop bag under my seat. It wasn't even worth it to me to writing to UA about it, even though I had never heard a "Kindle/iPad banned from seat pocket" announcement before or afterwards. I continue to put my iPad in the seat pocket during take-off.

Would you have asked to speak to the captain in this situation? (I am not sure who you mean by boss)

cblaisd

As Patrick Henry might have said: Give me the chance to be boorishly annoying on my cell phone and assault police officers, or give me death.

WillR

I have done the same thing as you vis-a-vis kindle. I have never been in an argument on a plane. I would hope that if you challenged it, the CSD/CSM/lead FA would come and (probably) tell you to do what you were told. That would be a small but significant check on authority.

Similarly, if I was told I couldn't use my kindle because it was a radio transceiver, I would question that - I'm not going to cross the pacific without anything to read! I hope that my 'argument' wouldn't result in an automatic order to leave the plane.


As for your experience - don't I deserve the benefit of the doubt?

I'm actually quite a reasonable person, and usually argue in order to find the best solution to a problem. That's what I do professionally, and what I try to do here

fastair

Not to get off topic, but ua.com specifies the seat pocket is not to be used for carry on items: http://www.united.com/page/article/0,6867,1032,00.html "Please note that all items must be stowed in the overhead bin or under the seat in front of you. They may not be stowed in the seat back pocket."

Again, it isn't on topic, but by policy, the seat pocket is off limits for carry on items. When and to what extent they enforce that is up to them, but there clearly is a rule to back it up, be it a kindle, a laptop, or any other carry on item.

Good Guy

Because "Sky" marshals have killed so many people?

notquiteaff

And I can sort of understand why that policy exists: it's simpler to say "can't put anything in there" than to create a list of prohibited items and then have smart-a$$es like me argue that my Sony Reader is NOT a Kindle and thus is allowed if the Kindle is listed as prohibited (or my netbook isn't a laptop, or ...)

In practice, I have never seen the rule enforced, and even the FA in my post above didn't force people to take every personal item out of the seat pocket, just Kindles and laptops (and my iPad).

cblaisd

But, but, but.... It's a "made-up rule." After all, somebody "made it up." And therefore I don't have to obey it if I want, right? And if somebody tries to make me, I can assault them? Excellent!

The whole issue of "making up rules" is silly as a purported pretext for justifying assault (can't believe that we're actually arguing that). Yes, sometimes FAs and CSRs have cited rules that don't exist, or aren't exactly what they cite.. Sometimes (and it's always a sign of good manners to assume the best about someone before assuming the worst - until/unless they prove otherwise) the FA or CSR may be genuinely mistaken about what the rule is or how it applies. Sometimes there is room for interpretation. Sometimes a new FA has been told something that's incorrect by another FA. Stuff happens.

UA's rule is pretty clear about seat-pockets (no matter who "made it up"); sometimes you are able to slide by (and I've done that), sometimes not. When the FA knowingly allows it, that, in fact, is when he/she is "making up rules"!

mre5765

I basing it on the OP.
And I've experience plenty of United FAs who make up rules, including ones who demand cell phones off before the door is close. Two days ago in fact.

If the airline industry were deregulated to the point where any airline could fly a route without permission from the govt I would agree with you. But the govt treats routes like spectrum bandwidth.

Too many airline employees, like the one in http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/9441370-post1.html abuse their positions.

Is 'escort' supposed to be new speak for assault? Try that on me.

See above for eyewitness and right to refuse service. I agree that in a police state, asserting ones rights at the time of the violation is not a good idea, and the ALCU agrees. But airline employees and police officers should understand that eventually they will run into a judge that has read the constitution. Violate the constitution at your peril.


Lol. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/trave...seat-back.html .

cblaisd

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're right (although I believe that actual court findings regarding that and related FARs would not bear this out - but we'll assume so for the sake of argument).

How much time should be allowed before the execution of the required FARs that must be complied with before movement or "operation" of the aircraft? E.g., whether I'm flying you in a two-seat Cessna or whether I'm being flown in a 747, a safety briefing must be given passengers and seat belts must be fastened "prior to" the operation/movement of the aircraft. Where would you like the line drawn about what constitutes "prior"? It is not possible for the movement of aircraft to be utterly contemporaneous with the safety briefing and seat-belt fastening, no? (Well, I suppose one could get close if from now on every seat had an FA sitting in the adjacent one to give a briefly that would end and the seat belt being fastened a nanosecond "prior" to the movement of the aircraft. As they waited, they could excitedly share Junior High moments as they read relevantly jejune passages from Ayn Rand. But I digress....)

But that isn't possible, and it means that some things -- under the authority of the pilot-in-command -- must happen before the movement of the aircraft. One of the cues that we've all seen is when the jetbridge goes away. That usually means door closing is imminent. In the interests of leaving in a timely way (or risking the death of a thousand threads about it here) there must be some way of completing the briefing and seat-belting that will happen before the aircraft actually moves.

It seems that for some the implicit attitude is "everyone else is required to comply prior to aircraft movement but I want the 'right' to be the exception and have my compliance come exactly at the point when aircraft movement commences." But, as with most other things we encounter, such DYKWIA attitudes end up hurting everyone.

Indeed! ^^ As Jefferson said, "The tree of revolution needs to be watered with the blood of those who would wish to yammer on their cell phones because their conversations are more important than anyone else, inconvenience others, and pitch police offers down stairs."

And, of course, when judges interpret the Constitution, they "make up" rules.

What is it that you don't understand about United's rule:

Please note that all items must be stowed in the overhead bin or under the seat in front of you. They may not be stowed in the seat back pocket.

Or do you just not like it?

fastair

No, the FAA tells OO what they can allow, it in no way implies that OO or any other carrier cannot be more strict, only that the FAA will not fine them (the carrier) from being less strict.

It's like duty time. The FAA says one thing, a carrier can agree to something more strict. By mutual (both parties involved) consent, a pilot may fly above his contracted max up to the FAA's max, but that requires consent by the pilot(s), the company cannot unilaterally change that rule up to the FAA's max. The govt sets the loosest requirement, a carrier can set higher standards, just like a carrier could remove the seat back pocket and just plaster the emergency card to the seat back and allow nothing ever in the now non-existant pocket. I doubt the FAA would mandate them to add it back so passengers could store items under 3 lbs there. They have no pony in that race and would stay out of it as it doesn't impact safety (the removal of it, provided the emergency card is still there.) Failing to find a govt regulation does not mean that on someone else's property, you are not subject to their rules. Like it or not, when a guest (paying or not) on someone's property, they set the rules, not the guest. If you don't agree, invite me over to your house to be your guest and see what changes I make...they will all be within the limits of the law, just as your interpretation of a carrier's rights are all within the laws.