Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
Frankly, unless this isn't the full story, I'm on Alec's side. What's the harm in using your iPad if the plane is still parked? I doubt it actually interferes with the signal. Traveling is already uncomfortable enough for many travelers.
Zach, go back to the top and read what the professionals have written in this thread. Then, you take the job of safety coordinater/babysitter/waitress, and if need be, life saver. The FA's are given huge responsiblity and diminished authority to keep twerps like Baldwin from endangering EVERYONE on the airplane. Unless you designed the Ipad and the avionics suite on that aircraft, you have no knowledge to back up your statement.
Woah, how about calming down a little? No need to get snappy. As far as what you are saying though, I understand how responsible they are and how important safety is. I'm just saying that a simple word game should not be that much of a hindrance to safety. Go on Youtube and type in anything to do with takeoffs or landings and you'll see how many electronics are actually turned on during the so called crucial times of a flight. I really don't think that one iPad would make that much of a difference. Also I state again, flying can be rather uncomfortable for some people so as long as they aren't doing something ridiculous like playing a loud instrument, I don't see what the problem is if anyone (not just Alec Baldwin) wants to play a simple game.
Come on Zach, you're the genious in this thread, defend yourself
Actually Richard, you are clearly the genius since all your generalizations about me were 100% accurate. That's right, i think I'm above everyone else, I park in handicapped spaces because I think I'm entitled to, I'm a terrible person who only cares about himself. You have some nerve putting those accusations on me when you don't even know me. I am all about following rules, thinking about others, and people getting treated equally so I fully support Mr. Baldwin being kicked off since he was rude to the flight attendants and caused a scene.
What I was originally trying to say before you put a bunch of words in my mouth was that it is a sad state for air travel when any person, celebrity or not, gets asked to stop committing a harmless act. Why do I consider playing a game harmless? Well according to the many articles about this incident, the plane was still at the gate when he was asked to turn his device off, Had they been taxing or even being pushed back, then I can see why this request would have been legitimate. But the gate? please. I guess the problem then is that the regulations or rules are too strict if people can't even use an electronical device when the plane is parked and nothing is happening. The only way I could see this changing is if the pilot's happen to be talking to the airport's ground frequency or reviewing their flight plans. If that is indeed the case and the pilots were to find that there is an interference in their signal, then and only then, should a request for all electronic devices to be turned off at that time of the flight take place.
Again, according to this article, it never said anywhere that this is what happened, so until I hear that Mr. Baldwin's device did disturb a frequency of some sort, this policy looks unreasonable. And before you try to accuse me otherwise, I am all for safety as long as it is necessary and not being able to use electronic devices while at the gate just does't appear to be so in this sense. I think it was unnecessary for the Fa's to ask him to turn it off at that moment and that would be the only area, he has legitimate beef with. However, no matter how ridiculous this rule may be it is never right to react the way he did. Basically, I think this was an overreaction by both parties, the airline for requesting the devices be turned off early and Alec for throwing a tantrum, causing a scene, and for forcing all passengers to have to board again.
What I was originally trying to say before you put a bunch of words in my mouth was that it is a sad state for air travel when any person, celebrity or not, gets asked to stop committing a harmless act. Why do I consider playing a game harmless? Well according to the many articles about this incident, the plane was still at the gate when he was asked to turn his device off, Had they been taxing or even being pushed back, then I can see why this request would have been legitimate. But the gate? please. I guess the problem then is that the regulations or rules are too strict if people can't even use an electronical device when the plane is parked and nothing is happening. The only way I could see this changing is if the pilot's happen to be talking to the airport's ground frequency or reviewing their flight plans. If that is indeed the case and the pilots were to find that there is an interference in their signal, then and only then, should a request for all electronic devices to be turned off at that time of the flight take place.
Again, according to this article, it never said anywhere that this is what happened, so until I hear that Mr. Baldwin's device did disturb a frequency of some sort, this policy looks unreasonable. And before you try to accuse me otherwise, I am all for safety as long as it is necessary and not being able to use electronic devices while at the gate just does't appear to be so in this sense. I think it was unnecessary for the Fa's to ask him to turn it off at that moment and that would be the only area, he has legitimate beef with. However, no matter how ridiculous this rule may be it is never right to react the way he did. Basically, I think this was an overreaction by both parties, the airline for requesting the devices be turned off early and Alec for throwing a tantrum, causing a scene, and for forcing all passengers to have to board again.
So now, according to Zach, we have to wait until the situation becomes unsafe before we take action. We shouldn't take the lessons learned from those with millions of hours and many years of experience that caused the rules to be put into effect. We should wait until the systems on the aircraft are interfered with. You are obviously not a professional, or experienced in commercial aviation.
If you are all about following the rules, why would you defend a numb nuts like Baldwin? Simply put, the door was closed on the aircraft. There might have been a gate hold in effect that delayed the push back. There might have been a last minute suitcase to load. The answer is to all of this is neither you nor I know why the aircraft wasn't moving, but it's not important. The important point is he was told to turn off the stuff and he felt too important to follow the directions of a lowely FA. He has no excuse, or defense, for that action. The entitlement attitude that Baldwin has, and you defend, says volumes about your entitlement attitude. That,Zach, is indefensible
If you are all about following the rules, why would you defend a numb nuts like Baldwin? Simply put, the door was closed on the aircraft. There might have been a gate hold in effect that delayed the push back. There might have been a last minute suitcase to load. The answer is to all of this is neither you nor I know why the aircraft wasn't moving, but it's not important. The important point is he was told to turn off the stuff and he felt too important to follow the directions of a lowely FA. He has no excuse, or defense, for that action. The entitlement attitude that Baldwin has, and you defend, says volumes about your entitlement attitude. That,Zach, is indefensible
Once again, I am not defending the way he acted, I'm not even defending him individually. What I am defending is his right to engage in something that wash't harming anyone. That right doesn't apply just to him, it applies to everyone so kindly stop accusing me of feeling entitled. He was simply minding his own business when the stewardess approached him and made him turn off his iPad which according to the article, there was no reason for besides policy.
What I am doing is looking at both sides of the story and regardless of how bad he acted, the stewardess is the one who sparked the conflict this time (though i suppose it isn't their fault if they are foxed to follow a bad rule of the airline's policy). Even if the frequencies were somehow disturbed at that moment, It would have put the people in no danger because they were parked and not moving. If they did, all that would have needed to happen is the pilot report it to the stewardess who then approaches Mr Baldwin and explains the situation and exactly why he has to turn his device off. You tell me what kind of danger that could put anyone in as long as the pilot were to have the person they were in communication with repeat what they may have missed. My point is that i think the airline industry is overly rigid these days and has already downgraded service for all passengers enough, so the least they could do is let people engage in something they own as long as it doesn't put people in immediate direct danger.
Also, just because something is tested by a ton of people doesn't mean it is the best solution (hence the tons of every changing theories out there).
What I am doing is looking at both sides of the story and regardless of how bad he acted, the stewardess is the one who sparked the conflict this time (though i suppose it isn't their fault if they are foxed to follow a bad rule of the airline's policy). Even if the frequencies were somehow disturbed at that moment, It would have put the people in no danger because they were parked and not moving. If they did, all that would have needed to happen is the pilot report it to the stewardess who then approaches Mr Baldwin and explains the situation and exactly why he has to turn his device off. You tell me what kind of danger that could put anyone in as long as the pilot were to have the person they were in communication with repeat what they may have missed. My point is that i think the airline industry is overly rigid these days and has already downgraded service for all passengers enough, so the least they could do is let people engage in something they own as long as it doesn't put people in immediate direct danger.
Also, just because something is tested by a ton of people doesn't mean it is the best solution (hence the tons of every changing theories out there).
You must be the next Thomas Edison, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs all rolled in one really smart guy. You have more knowledge about aviation that the experts in aviation. How can you be so sure there is no harm being done by actions such as Baldwin's? Are you an aeronautical engineer? Are you an avionics engineer? Are you a professional in any aspect of aviation? By your statements, and the ignorance displayed in them, it's obvious you are not. First of all, the title is Flight Attendant, not Stewardess. That term went out when Carter was President.
When Zach goes to the doctor, does he self diagnose, prescribe his own drugs, take his own xrays? No, Zach, You allow the professionals to do their work. How about giving the same consideration to the professional on an airliner.
When the people who have knowledge of aircraft systems, and other safety aspects agree it is safe to leave that stuff on, the rule will change. Until then, I'd success you read all the fine print on the ticket. As a passenger, you are contractually obligated to follow the directions of the crew. Even the rules and directions you think are purposeless.
When Zach goes to the doctor, does he self diagnose, prescribe his own drugs, take his own xrays? No, Zach, You allow the professionals to do their work. How about giving the same consideration to the professional on an airliner.
When the people who have knowledge of aircraft systems, and other safety aspects agree it is safe to leave that stuff on, the rule will change. Until then, I'd success you read all the fine print on the ticket. As a passenger, you are contractually obligated to follow the directions of the crew. Even the rules and directions you think are purposeless.
This discussion is getting heated. Zach has some good points.
I jsut think Mark L's point about rfs/black magic is the best argument for turning off devices WHEN passengers are told to do so.
In all honesty, however, I think Mr. Baldwin was kicked off of the flight because he wouldn't follow instructions and he rubbed the FAs the wrong way.
Why exactly are we attacking Zach so hard?
I jsut think Mark L's point about rfs/black magic is the best argument for turning off devices WHEN passengers are told to do so.
In all honesty, however, I think Mr. Baldwin was kicked off of the flight because he wouldn't follow instructions and he rubbed the FAs the wrong way.
Why exactly are we attacking Zach so hard?
Babs, the real problem I have with Zach is the sense of entitlement that our country is developing and that he's defending. We don't get to pick an choose the rules we follow. The requirement to turn off electronics has been established from lessons learned over the past 40 years of experience. Because, following the rules is inconvenient, he doesn't want to do it. Also, the primary reason for turning off all that gear may be to allow the flight attendants to have the passengers attention during a safety briefing.
Baldwin got the boot for being a jerk. He didn't get the boot for his ipad's rf signal. I completely agree with the call by the FA. She has to know that her directions will be complied with in an emergency.
Baldwin got the boot for being a jerk. He didn't get the boot for his ipad's rf signal. I completely agree with the call by the FA. She has to know that her directions will be complied with in an emergency.
Well put, Richard.
Our country DOES have a sense-of-entitlement problem.
I'm pretty sure if Mr. B would have respected the rules, the FAs and the job they were trying to do, he would have stayed on that plane.
Our country DOES have a sense-of-entitlement problem.
I'm pretty sure if Mr. B would have respected the rules, the FAs and the job they were trying to do, he would have stayed on that plane.
Although Zach will never admit publicly to being in error on this, I hope he, and others like him, take away a positive message from my rants.
Nice work Richard.....the rules are the rules. Period. I don't agree with some of the posted speed limits, but I adhere to them!
He Thinks Hes SPECIAL. but so does my Toilet Paper