Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Flight Attendants Union Challenges FAA Decision Allowing Passengers to Use Electronics in All Phases of Flight
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
OK, whatever. If you don't realize their worthlessness, you obviously don't fly very often. I do. And LOL if you have created this fantasyland of "highly trained, responsible for your safety". You don't even want to know how many times they ask "is there a doctor on board" for absolutely idiotic reasons.
Trust me, you're on your own in an airplane, LordJohn, your excellence.
Are people so attached to their gadgets that they can't put them down for a few minutes at the beginning and end of a flight? I'm sure we could all live without them if we really tried. We have for all these years save for maybe the last two decades.
Out of interest do you read a magazine during the ascent/descent portions of a flight - how is that any different to reading a magazine on a mobile device or clearing some emails on an iPad?
And it isn't a few minutes. I used to regularly fly Sydney - Melbourne - about 90 minutes in theory of which 60 minutes was in the air. On take off the seat beltsign would go off after about 8 minutes. That was the trigger for being allowed to turn on electronic devices. On descent though the seatbelt sign would go one with up to 30 minutes to go before landing. So over 50% of the flight is non-electronic devices.
On descent there is no argument that you need to pay attention to a safety briefing - it is just dead time.
Personally I follow the standards set by the pilots I know and I watched the safety briefing on every flight - even on fligths on the same actual aircraft at the same time of day in the same seat.
I never said anything about banning PEDs.
PED are:
1. a distraction during briefings
2. can interfere with nav/comm, which people are less likely to follow instructions and the crew now needs to check each passengers PEDs, in addition preparing the cabin, checking seat belts, gate checking baggage because passengers are to FN cheap to check their bags, etc. As if they crew does not have enough to do already.
3. PEDs held in the hand vs stowed during takeoff/landing are more likely to be dropped, thus becoming a potential hazard.
I work in the aviation industry, now ****!
Last edited:
What a terrible load of tripe. The fact that they ask for medical assistance is because their training is not about how to be a G but about how to safely get 200+ people off an aircraft in the minimum time possible. One of the basic things that delays many people when disembarking in an emergency is that in the panic people forget hpw to undo their safety belts.
I am also not sure who you fly with but the FAs provide a valuable service in addition to their safety responsibilities. Apart from the food and beverage service they probably provide most assistance to those people who do not fly very often. Personally I don't need assistance to find my seat (I know that economy/coach in a 767 starts at row 24 and on a 737 starts at row 4) but for many people who fly maybe once or twice a year it isn't all intuitive.
----------
Umm why would teh flight crew need to check if devices are in flight mode? They don't check if they are off now - especially all of those in the cabin bags above people's heads.
IDK whats the issue and people here complaining about people using their devices during takeoff/arrival. If the person knows what to do or not let them be, if they don't move it will improve my chances of being saved/alive before them.
----------
OMG so much work in those first and last 10 mins.
You guys/gals get paid well enough to do all those things and you should even do more IMO.
----------
OMG so much work in those first and last 10 mins.
You guys/gals get paid well enough to do all those things and you should even do more IMO.
This is just a guess on my part, but what they might be saying is if the devices had to be stowed then if there is an accident then these devices wouldn't become projectiles.
That's just a guess. I always thought the rule was stupid, and the reasoning they gave as to why you couldn't use them on landings and takeoffs were patently false. If cell phones could bring down an airplane then why where they allowed anywhere but in your luggage anyway? And considering that cell phones have been around and common for 20 years why weren't all of the "sensitive electronics" shielded at least on newer airplanes?
You are inferring that somebody looking at their iPhone or iPad will fall off a cliff or be unable to manage the intricacies of their seatbelt. It reminds me of Jerry Seinfeld's bit on the entire flight attendant lecture. On most flights unless I am very distracted I probably know where the emergency exits are before I have reached my seat. And by the time we have taken off I have already identified the weak links just in case something really were to go wrong and I needed to assist them at the emergency exit.
While I never want to hurt anyone's feelings, I don't feel that it is my role to validate the flight attendants sense of self importance. I cannot wait until the FAA implements this everywhere.
It's pointless, that's why. I'm a pilot, by the way. Why would you want to restrict people's freedom and comfort when there is no justification for doing so? The possibility of electronic interference with aircraft instruments has been bunk for years, it just took the FAA a decade to finally catch up. They probably would still prohibit it if politicians and their aids weren't regularly inconvenienced by the rule.
I feel like this is just another power trip on the part of flight attendants. They want to feel important, like people have to listen to them. People stuck in low-wage careers often feel like that, public school teachers being a great example.
Last edited:
Pretty stupid IMO
Wow..."become dangerous projectiles," huh? So since they were allowed on aircraft before the ban on use, did that make them less prone to being projectiles then?
I worked in and around military aircraft for 12+ years...pilots use iPads as kneeboards, with the devices on during takeoff, flight, and landing. They haven't had any problems.
I sure hope that this isn't actually stewardesses that are suggesting this garbage. Hopefully it is just misguided union reps.
Wow..."become dangerous projectiles," huh? So since they were allowed on aircraft before the ban on use, did that make them less prone to being projectiles then?
I worked in and around military aircraft for 12+ years...pilots use iPads as kneeboards, with the devices on during takeoff, flight, and landing. They haven't had any problems.
I sure hope that this isn't actually stewardesses that are suggesting this garbage. Hopefully it is just misguided union reps.
I don't really get why flight attendants would care. The projectile argument is bogus, so what is the real underlying issue?
OMG so much work in those first and last 10 mins.
You guys/gals get paid well enough to do all those things and you should even do more IMO.
People like you are what is wrong with society. I suggest you do some research before you make outlandish posts like that. http://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/flight-attendant-salary-SRCH_KO0,16.htm
Seems like there are plenty of theories about it all already posted in the thread.
----------
That certainly makes sense...in that nonsense type of way.
----------
Yeah, no difference at all...until someone reclines into someone else's laptop and a fight breaks out, or someone freaks out for whatever reason, or dozens of other things that could and do happen when a bunch of random people (plenty of whom can and do have issues of all kinds) are in a small confined space for long period of times.
----------
It's not like there have been plenty of all kinds of incidents where people have survived.Flying sucks anyways so I don't bother but I have to ask: what the hell is a safety briefing for anyways? That plane goes down you're basically DEAD. Having my head between my legs is useless. Maybe between the hot chick next to me.... Now that might be worth mashing my face into. But otherwise, WTF?
You are still on a plane that belongs to a company and thus private property of that company, which needs to follow FAA regulations, but can also have regulations of its own as well in addition to those from FAA.
So do I, and your argument is ridiculous.
1) Magazines and books are distractions as well. Going to ban those also? This is a ridiculous argument.
2) Cellphones and aviation equipment work on different frequencies. Unless someone pulls a jammer out of their backpack, or you're flying a plane built in 1949, there's going to be absolutely no interference. As a pilot, I regularly forget to put my phone in airplane mode. Absolutely no impact, other than to my battery life. We even use iPads throughout the flight.
3) Again, see every other loose object in the aircraft. I'd much rather be hit by an iPhone than a large book.
To be fair, I don't think you realize how confused the general public can be over small stuff.
Work retail sometime, you'll realize that even simple stuff can be confusing to many people.
That being said, maybe they should just ask people to put it down during the safety speech. Sure, some people might not, but those people wouldn't have been paying attention either way unless you actively went around telling them, "Pay attention". Then half the time they might end up arguing with you anyways about how, "I've seen this a million times" or "I'll do what I want to!"
Except they don't instruct you to put away your SkyMall magazine during these announcements. Electronic devices were restricted due to fear of interference and have remained restricted ever since. Now that the FAA has acknowledged that this is no longer the case (if it ever was), people want to change the reason for the ban?