It's simpler when a governing agency makes the rule so that the airlines don't have to "fight" over it and be inconsistent. No one is really arguing with the smoking ban, or some other bans.
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.
U.S. Department of Transportation to Pursue Ban on In-Flight Cell Phone Calls
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It is a bit of a safety issue. I can't count how many times right now that the pilot comes on making a statement (i.e, please fasten your seat belts, we're about to hit turbulence, etc) and the person sitting next to me was heavily involved in a movie, had on noise canceling headphones or good earbuds and they start asking "what did he say?, what's going on".
Currently most people do actually hear it and can pass along the info to them. I can only imagine if a large portion of those folks were talking on their phone (probably pretty loudly) and miss it. It it were a real emergency precious time would be lost explaining it over and over. Emergencies don't happen often, thankfully, but being aware of your surroundings is paramount if it does. If you aren't, then you put your life and those around you in jeparody. In the case of an emergency I don't want to be sitting in the window seat with an oblivious person at the aisle.
Having said all that, I suspect they will leave it up to the airlines so you should be happy.
This type of "fight" is generally considered competition elsewhere in the economy . . .
With a conversation with another person people are less likely to need someone else telling you to do that vs. a conversation over the phone where people are generally more oblivious to the surroundings.
----------
Sure, there's that. But in some cases what the majority might decide works for them doesn't make it good or right still. That's where regulations come into play for everyone.
You aren't talking to them, or probably even looking at them. You might even be annoyed that some stranger was listening in on you (shouting!) during your "private" conversation, and ignore them or even start a fight with them for butting in. Some passenger will just be quiet, not start a fight with you, and try to find and book an airline with less idiot blabbermouths next time.
But if your wife next to you tells you to stop shouting in her ear (and you want to stay married), you'll tone it down.
Big difference.
I don't that is the case, the article directly references cellphones(cellular telephones).
This already happens. More than once I've been surrounded by a gang of high school / religious group kids who just have to jabber with someone across the aisle or in a different role, for the whole flight. Or the twits who go on incessantly to the stranger next to them. While I'm not advocating voice calls in-flight, I'm not sure how they would substantially differ from what we already experience.
What then would you use a plane for, if not flying? Color me puzzled.
Really? I've generally not seen many people attending to the garbled announcements at all, I think we're conditioned to ignore them as most are just trivia like altitude, what flyover town is visible, etc.
20 years ago, those of us on-call took our personal pagers with us. No different from having a phone in a theater. And 20 years ago those of us with special-needs kids couldn't get away to fly on business at all, or get out to a movie for a couple of hours. With my phone on vibrate, I/we can leave home occasionally, which is priceless. No way my son could be left with a sitter for a date-night without us being contactable in case of emergency.
Wait ... you don't want us to have our phones on, yet at the same time you want us to use SMS? How exactly would we do that without phones being on?
Last edited:
Exactly! Where in the constitution does it give the government authority to ban something just because it is annoying? This absolutely should be left up to the airlines themselves. And if common sense prevails, I hope the airlines do as that is their right, not the government's.
There are too many passengers who won't pay attention to safety announcements until you tell them the feds will escort them off the plane if they don't follow crew instructions. (Didn't this happen to some TV/Movie celebrity type?)
So yes, federal regulations may be needed.
No, no, no, no, no, that is exactly what we don't need, these calls to tell others that the captain said that they will be landing in 15 minutes.
Reminds me of the time when cell phones were new, I was walking with a friend around the neighborhood (no more than two blocks from his house), and he kept calling his sister every 10 minutes to say, "I'm by the park," or "I'm on this street."
I'm sure who ever you call can live on without knowing that the captain said that they will be landing in 15 minutes. I'm sure that if they're picking you up they already knew that. Break the leach of useless conversations.
As a frequent traveler, and as one who as status on an airline, I would ditch that airline in a ****ing heartbeat if they allowed calls in-flight.
I'm one of those "snooty business travelers" as some-one said earlier. But I'm also not an ******* when it comes to flying. Lots of people are though. Flying is stressful enough for a lot of people, that as a society we should try to make it as stress-free as possible.
Sometimes that comes with just good social manners and adherence to a social contract we all live by. Sometimes it comes in the form of rules and regulations.
I'm one of those "snooty business travelers" as some-one said earlier. But I'm also not an ******* when it comes to flying. Lots of people are though. Flying is stressful enough for a lot of people, that as a society we should try to make it as stress-free as possible.
Sometimes that comes with just good social manners and adherence to a social contract we all live by. Sometimes it comes in the form of rules and regulations.
In the U.S., the interstate commerce clause, thus covering regulation of both radio transmission (cellular RF can cross state borders), and well as air transportation. Both radio and air travel are also covered by a bunch of federally negotiated International treaties that the government is responsible for enforcing, thus regulating.
This is not only confusing us "the public" but it also seems the FCC has no clue either.
it relaxed restrictions on using "electronics", maybie they should have used a better word, because all devices are electronics.
To make thing worse, some are allowing this....
so depends on which flight you use, they will allowing electronics in airplane mode (which tells you mobile phones)
Anyone have any better rules ?
I'm just glad Australia isn't as confused yet
it relaxed restrictions on using "electronics", maybie they should have used a better word, because all devices are electronics.
To make thing worse, some are allowing this....
so depends on which flight you use, they will allowing electronics in airplane mode (which tells you mobile phones)
Anyone have any better rules ?
I'm just glad Australia isn't as confused yet
I know on Alaska Airlines(gogo) they blocked outgoing facetime calls. It would initiate the call but as soon as the other end picked up the connection was forcefully closed by their gateway.
However if the person on the other end called you back that connection would go through.
Oh, well then by all means, force them, under the threat of imprisonment to shut up for your convenience. Why even bother asking them to turn it down a notch yourself? What are they the department of cabin noise or something?
This wouldn't be an issue if the Airlines could just kick people off the plane. You don't see us having laws against using Cell Phones in movie theaters, do you? Because you can bitch at an usher and they'll kick the **************** out.
What if you ask someone to tone it down as they are shouting (ever notice how most people talk very loudly when on the phone, even though they don't have to) a foot away from your face? And they just give you the finger and carry on.
It makes for an unpleasant experience. I would wager that there would be more incidents of violence on airplanes due to that alone.
All of that in a cramped, tiny environment 35,000 in the air? Hell yeah, bring on the regulations.
Really? That's your argument? The Constitution explicitly details the powers that are granted to the federal government. Controlling your cabin noise is not one of them. It also says that any power that isn't specifically listed as something the federal government can do, is a power that is left the states, if the right is not specifically secured for the people by the Constitution. Flight is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, and therefore, at best, this regulation would have to be passed by the states... Even though it would be just as completely ludicrous.
The argument is that flying isn't a right and given its complexity and that multiples of lives are involved the government not only has a right but even the responsibility to regulate something like that. If some sort of a constitutional rights argument is going going to be made about it then the same kind of argument can be used to answer it.
----------
Like I said, most people don't care about others, but when they put themselves to be in a tight place with others where things need to be under control well, someone needs to regulate things so that those who don't care about others don't start negatively affecting those others.
I used one once. This worked socially because the price to use those phones in-air was something around $5 to $10 per minute (way back when a dollar was worth more). So the number of people who could afford to do this was less than the number of crying babies, and the calls were short. Neighboring passengers tolerated it at that low level.
A flight with one or two crying babies is bad but tolerable. With luck, I won't be seated near them most of the time. A flight with 100+ crying babies might drive me to take a train or steam ship instead.
The Constitution is like the Bible... it's vague as hell on a lot of points. But since you don't think this is "Constitutional":
- Coin and regulate the value of money.
- Administer the seat of government.
- Tax.
- Borrow.
- Spend.
- Punish crimes on the high seas.
- Establish federal courts.
- Pass copyright and patent laws.
- Raise and finance armed forces.
- Establish bankruptcy laws.
- Establish rules for citizenship.
- Call up state militias.
- Administer federal lands.
- Establish rules for the armed forces.
- Establish a postal system.
- Regulate commerce.
- Standardize weights and measures.
- Punish counterfeiting.
- Declare war.
- Pass laws to implement the above.
Look through that list. If this was a constitutional debate and it went to the Supreme court, they'd use the Commerce clause to rule that it was Constitutional.
But for the sake of argument let's break out the Common Sense bat and take a whack at it. People who point to the Constitution and say "ITS NOT IN THERE THEREFORE ITS ILLEGAL FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO XYZ" are no different than the Religious zealots who think the Bible actually says anything about birth control.
The Constitution by design doesn't list everything that the Government Can and Can't do. Hell, most of the Supreme Court rulings in the past 50 years have been about what the intent was, not what is explicitly called out.
The intent of banning cell phones, as far as I'm concerned is safety. Similar to why most states don't allow firearms in bars. It's a combination that doesn't bode well for everyone involved.