Americans To FCC Chair: No Cell Calls On Planes, Please 340
jfruh writes "Who says Americans are politically apathetic? The FCC's proposal to allow cellular data — and, if the airline allows it, voice calls — on airplanes unleashed a flood of responses even before the official comment period began this week. The sentiment was overwhelmingly opposed to people talking on phones in flight. Some correspondents spun terrifying hypotheticals about yapping teens, some accused FCC chair Tom Wheeler of flying on private planes and being out of touch with the full-on horror of in-flight chatter, and one person concluded their letter with the word 'no' with letter 'o' repeated 213 times."
FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should (Score:5, Insightful)
While I find the idea of being trapped next to someone making a phone call on a plane loathsome, the FCC really shouldn't be in the position of banning things just because they're annoying. If there's no technical/safety reason to ban the calls, allow them. The AIRLINES, on the other hand, really SHOULD ban these calls, and most have already said that they would.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod Parent up.
It also occurs to me that with net neutrality now banned, the obvious way to do this would be to invite people to use an in-plane wifi that blocks skype and other voice chat programs.
Come to think of it, an in-plane satellite based high latency wifi system you wouldn't even need to filter for, it just plain wouldn't work.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Couple of things:
1. Net neutrality isn't banned, it's just that the FCC would need to issue new rules to enforce it. The court specifically said that the FCC _could_ enforce net neutrality rules, if it classified ISPs under title II (as common carriers).
2. Even if the rules had remained in place, it wouldn't have prevented inflight providers from blocking certain apps for network performance reasons (Gogo does this this today with video services like Netflix or HBO Go), so long as they were evenhanded abou
Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should (Score:4, Interesting)
Mod Parent up.
Mod the GrandParent down.
Just off the top of my head, here are two things the FCC regulates because of annoyance:
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/loud-commercials [fcc.gov]
http://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/do-not-call-list [fcc.gov]
Has your evening or weekend been disrupted by a call from a telemarketer? If so, you're not alone. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been receiving complaints in increasing numbers from consumers throughout the nation about unwanted and uninvited calls to their homes from telemarketers.
If no-phone-calls is a good public policy, then there's absolutely no reason to leave its enforcement in private hands.
Make it a law and put the weight of the State behind it.
Re:FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should (Score:4, Insightful)
I also don't see how a US government organisation can ban the act of speech for a non-safety related reason - surely that would violate freedom of speech?
Once the FCC and FAA concluded it was no longer a safety concern, their remit for control of it expired and the only entities that could ban it on "annoyance" grounds would be the airlines that operate the aircraft.
Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but individual public libraries aren't the federal government banning them wholesale across an entire swath of private property. Individual libraries have the right to make that decision for themselves. Perhaps they would want to provide specific areas where people could use cell phones, thus people that don't want to be around them can simply stay away from that area. Similarly, why couldn't airlines sell seats in specific sections of the plane (the back perhaps?) where cell phone calls were allowed? That shouldn't be up to the FCC since cell phones have been proven to not crash airplanes through their EMF emissions.
Re: (Score:2)
But I'm not sure that is banning "speech" as it is about banning "speaking". The first is the expression of thought which aligns more with the interpretation of speech in the first amendment. The second is an act of producing sounds from your mouth, which is banned without regard to content.
Re: (Score:2)
And then again, I don't know if public libraries actually kick you out if you are talking.
The librarian may request you to stop talking or to go outside to talk, and others may give you an evil eye, but I'm not sure I've heard of the police dragging someone out. Even if that happened, I would think it would be on grounds of disturbing the peace.
Re: (Score:2)
"But I'm not sure that is banning "speech" as it is about banning "speaking"."
There are probably think-tanks that would pay to have someone with your ability to contort logic into previously unthinkable directions. Also have you considered becoming a corporate attorney?
Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should (Score:4, Insightful)
"But I'm not sure that is banning "speech" as it is about banning "speaking"."
There are probably think-tanks that would pay to have someone with your ability to contort logic into previously unthinkable directions. Also have you considered becoming a corporate attorney?
Doesn't matter. Free speech isn't anything you folks are arguing about. Free speech is not being arrested by the Government for expressing your opinion. Even then, good luck threatening to kill someone, or the famous "Yelling FIRE! in a crowded theater".
Free speech was never about a person's unadulterated right to say whatever they want, whenever they want to, and no response from anyone else allowed.
All of which is to say that if some asshat starts talking on their phone in the plane, and the other passengers beat the bejabbers out of him, the asshat can have them arrested for assault, but his freedom of speech has not been abridged.
No corporate attorney duplicity needed.
Re: (Score:2)
In many Asian countries, people are polite enough to not talk on a phone when on a bus or train. In America, everyone feels entitled to be an ass whenever they want.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the FCC. Their argument will be that they're banning a radio tech (and in a specific context, without regard for what ever someone is saying over that radio), not speech itself. See that person in the seat next to you? Tell 'em how unfair King George's tea taxes are, and how unfair it is that Parliament doesn't ave a seat for us. The FCC won't stop you.
The reason we should shoot this down, is that there's no technical reason to ban the tech. The FCC doing this is merely a horrible. unnecessary, and
Re: (Score:2)
I also don't see how a US government organisation can ban the act of speech for a non-safety related reason - surely that would violate freedom of speech?
Only if you insist on a direct, literal interpretation of that part of the First Amendment.
Which seems kinda silly.
Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree with you, but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call? Reasonable policy exceptions must be allowed.
Well, how many times has the government been sued for that very same issue until now?
Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
forever
if you need to take emergency related calls 24x7 then sit by a phone the whole time. even on the ground cellular service is not 100% reliable on every square inch of the USA
Re: (Score:2)
if you need to take emergency related calls 24x7 then sit by a phone the whole time.
They are. The phone is just a cell phone.
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree with you, but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call?
Why can't the emergency message be sent as a text? Also, the airlines could allow phone calls in part of the plane, such as the back 10 rows. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
I completely agree with you, but how long until an airline gets sued because a passenger was unable to take an emergency-related call? Reasonable policy exceptions must be allowed.
How is that different from a user whose phone battery ran out? Or one who forgot to top up his pay-as-you-go plan? Or one who has turned off their phone in a cinema? Has any cinema ever been sued because someone was unable to take an emergency-related call? What about a person who doesn't have a mobile phone?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: FCC Shouldn't Ban It, But Airlines Should (Score:5, Funny)
If you leave it to the market and then a passenger chooses to buy a ticket on a no-phones airline, then it's the call receiver who is responsible for declining the emergency call. "Our customer wanted to be in a phoneless environment and paid for that, furthermore demonstrating his preference. Sue him for not taking your call."
Furthermore, it's hard to imagine any scenario where anyone could ever have a reasonable expectation for being able to take an emergency call. Even if I fab an extreme over-the-top example (as I, like anyone, would love to do).
Guy happens to be the Last Doctor In The World. He says, "I want to fly on someone else's airplane, but I want to not listen to anyone else talking." So he buys a ticket on a no-phones airline. While waiting in the terminal, he turns off his phone. One second later, the President's wife calls him, and leaves this voice mail: "The President is choking on pizza! What do I do? WHAT DO I DO!?" but since the doctor turned off his phone, he doesn't see the call come in. He boards his flight, oblivious to the coming disaster.
Mid-flight, one of the passengers starts talking to another passenger. The doctor screams, "hey, shut the fuck up!" and everyone quiets down, because you never know when you might want to be on The Last Doctor In The World's good side. The captain makes an announcement over the intercom. The doctor glares, hatefully. He doesn't make a scene, but he writes the captain's name in his no-treatment book. The engines drone on, and he grimaces with discomfort, noting he's never going to treat anyone who works at Boeing, where they make such loud engines.
An hour later, he gets off the plane. He turns on his phone, and sees a bunch of voicemails from the First Lady. He calls her back. "Get your husband to cough up the pizza," he offers, rolling his eyes, but his advice has arrived too late. The president has already asphyxiated to death.
Unfortunately, right after the president's death, a bill arrived on his desk, which would have outlawed mass puppy shredding. It didn't get signed quickly, because it took a while for the then-vice-president to catch up. So one hundred thousand puppies where shredded, while it was still legal to do so. One of those puppies had an important passphrase tattooed on its ear, but now it has been shredded. Without the passphrase, no one was able to stop the nuclear launch that resulted in the deaths of three billion people.
One of the people whose gardener died in the nuclear war, sues Samsung for designing a phone that has an off switch, based on the idea that people HAVE TO receive emergency calls, no matter what anyone (even the owner of the phone) wants.
You're on the jury. What's your decision? If you rule in favor of the plaintiff, Samsung owes someone $3 to replace the plant that the dead gardener never got around to watering. And I will harbor a hypothetical-$3 grudge against you, from now to the end of time. OTOH, if you rule for the defendent, then I agree with you, my friend. What's it going to be?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They shouldn't ban it - they should just charge an arm and a leg for the service. Something like $5 per minute.
Phones at the seats are not new to airplanes. The prior phones were too expensive for any casual use - though I have never flown first class, so I don't know if people were being annoying with them up there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We shall all fly at the lowest common denominator, because that's how the US airline industry works. No airline enforces the rules on carry-on bag size so everyone can get on and off the plane in less than 20 minutes, or offers no-crying-baby flights, or more legroom, or still serves real food in coach. If one allows phone calls, the rest will within a week.
Re: (Score:3)
"That's fine, right up until 1 airline allows it, and you start seeing their flight prices just a nudge below everyone elses. "
Very good point. I'm in the airline IT business. Airlines may be deregulated in the US, but every time one does something, the others follow. If Delta raises or lowers their fares by $10, United will do the same thing, often the same day. Same thing goes for inflight service changes -- if something that was free suddenly becomes an "ancillary revenue stream," you can bet that the ot
Allow. (Score:5, Funny)
Allow people to make phone calls while in-flight... However, they should be asked to step outside for the duration of their phone call.
Really? (Score:2)
I personally don't want to see it either but another peice of legislation isn't the required route for this.
Re: (Score:2)
People are running for a government solution when there isn't even a problem yet? And you wonder how they feel that warrentless wiretapping and text scanning isn't seen as a problem by these same kinds of people?
I personally don't want to see it either but another peice of legislation isn't the required route for this.
The FCC does not produce legislation, Congress does.
Imagine (Score:5, Insightful)
A night flight. The plane is quiet.
Suddenly,
"Yeah, I couldn't sleep... No, they've fed us.... HA HA HA HA HA!!! Yeah, that's right! HA HA HA HA HA!!! I know what you mean and there's that.... HA HA HA HA HA!!!! Do you remember that?... HA HA HA HA HA!!!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Imagine (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A night flight. The plane is quiet.
Suddenly...
Mommy... I have to pee... Mommy... I need a glass of water. Mommy... why does the man sitting next to us have this funny mask over his eyes? Is he playing a game? Can I play too? HEY! Do you have an extra mask? What are we playing?
Re: (Score:2)
A night flight. The plane is quiet.
Suddenly...
Mommy... I have to pee... Mommy... I need a glass of water. Mommy... why does the man sitting next to us have this funny mask over his eyes? Is he playing a game? Can I play too? HEY! Do you have an extra mask? What are we playing?
What's your point? That, because one potential annoyance already exists, we should allow all potential annoyances?
Re: (Score:3)
The plane is quiet.
I don't think anyone is going to be sleeping after the engines have shut down.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's the downside of not owning your own airplane. Sucks doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Not any worse then some baby crying the whole time and won't STFU when you're trying to sleep / read / meditate / etc.
Re: (Score:2)
And imagine how much worse it would be if the person was using a cell phone too!
Re: (Score:2)
You realize this happens on planes already, right? People are loud, rude, obnoxious, drink-spilling, stinky, barfing, etc. on airplanes all the time.
I was flying back from Canada, and the guy in the next seat was buying booze for the whole row. It was a night flight (not a red-eye), and we were a little loud. Not rowdy, mind you, just a little animated. You know what happens when somebody gets loud on a plane? The flight attendant asks you to be more quiet and respectful of the other passengers. It only ta
Re: (Score:2)
YOU CAN'T MAKE CALLS IN FLIGHT (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a bit sketchy, but I think you can (Score:4, Insightful)
I've never tried to make a call but I have happily sent texts during a flight before. I can't say I paid much attention to it at the time, but I'm pretty sure I had a good bar or two of reception, at least whilst over land, so I'm guessing a call could have worked ok too. I'm sure the sitting-in-a-metal-tube thing won't help but presumably the windows allow enough RF to pass through.
Also, some of the passengers of 'flight 93' made calls to their loved ones during the 9/11 hijackings.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would be fine with SMS texting only. But allowing people to talk on their phone, would be a huge discomfort to passengers. The problem is most people (including me) talk louder when on the phone. A little of this falls on the lack of good technology to allow quiet conversations to take place on phone calls. In the end I hope FCC continues the ban of talking on the phone while in flight, but allowing texting.
The silly thing about this debate is that the FCC regulates RF spectrum, and the FAA regulates aviation safety, but the only thing anyone can say about cell phones on airplanes is that people use them in an annoying manner... sometimes. Complain to your airline, friends, business associates, and family... but please do not stand in the way of technology to prevent what you think might be a mild annoyance.
More distressing than apathy (Score:2, Insightful)
This is worse than apathy.
Americans are now wholly incapable of thinking for themselves. Instead of insisting that airlines provide the service they want, and voting with their money, they want to tell the government to force everyone to go along with those who shout the loudest. If there's no safety issue with cell phones, is it even the government's business? Most airlines will ban phone usage, except perhaps in business class or wherever else warranted. Some won't, and for those who can't cut the (to
Re:More distressing than apathy (Score:5, Informative)
The FCC regulations that banned cell phone usage on planes were based on the idea that the phones EM emissions might interfere with the operation of the airplane's equipment. That has absolutely nothing to do with "regulating behavior they find annoying" and is exactly the type of regulation that the FCC was intended to oversee.
In the time since those regulations were put in place, it's become increasingly clear that cell phones won't cause interference with the plane's equipment. The FCC is now considering revising the regulations according to the new information. This is what they should be doing and it should be encouraged.
In the process of reconsidering those regulations, they asked for input from the public. This is also what they should be doing and it should be encouraged.
It's not the FCC's fault that a bunch of people freaked out and submitted "OMG Nooooo!" comments that had absolutely nothing to do with what the FCC is actually regulating. I feel sorry for whoever has to sort through all of those comments to see if there is anything valid buried in them.
Who really gains from this? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who really wins if the FAA/FCC ban inflight cell coverage? The airlines that have built a pay service for internet connections. If we allow cellular coverage in the air, they lose a revenue stream. The airlines already have processes in place for annoying passengers. If you are really annoyed by the person next to you they don't need new rules to deal with yapping on a cell phone. On the other hand, I would enjoy being able to read news while traveling. I would enjoy getting work done with reference materials available while traveling. Please don't knee jerk away a gain for consumers.
Nobody wins. Airlines are prevented from providing inflight cellular service. Consumers are prevented from having more choices.
Unless the executive branch of government wants more control of our personal lives, in that case at least some entity wins.
An interesting factoid... (Score:2)
Many cellphones - even if in airplane mode - still allow the GPS antenna to be used. You won't be able to download maps while in airplane mode, but if you are just using a simple app like "GPSTest" (which displays coordinates/speed), it works just fine.
not their job (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope inflight mobile use stays banned. (Score:4, Interesting)
Thankfully I have a shorter commute these days, but my last job involved an hour-and-a-half trip each direction on the train. The thing that bothered me most wasn't the time, the crowded trains, the hours i had to get up in the morning. No, it was the people yapping on their phones. Imagine a 5:50 AM commuter train with totally dead people half-asleep, then some idiot starts screaming into their phone and doesn't shut up for the entire trip. Now imagine that same scenario, but now you're inches away from that idiot crammed into a coach seat for a 14 hour flight to Japan. I fly a fair amount of these incredibly long trips for work, and I think I'd rather poke a hole in my eardrums with a sharp instrument than listen to 14 hours of inane banter or some exec screaming at his subordinate or assistant.
People just don't get that (a) you don't need to shout anymore, and (b) no one wants to hear about the divorce case you're working on, the colon polyp you had removed, your escapades out at the bar last night, your cat, your dog, your kids or any of the large number of conversations I've heard.
The other thing that's nice for the truly crazy business people I know (I'm not one of them) is that airplane time is dead time -- no one is sending you messages, no one can reach you, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
People just don't get that (a) you don't need to shout anymore
I heard this was because mobile phones don't echo (instantly) back your own voice like a landline does. Either the echo convinces your brain that you're talking too loudly, or the fact that you don't hear it on a mobile phone convinces your brain that something's broken and you need to shout louder. I'd guess the former, given that today's young'uns still seem to be doing it, dagnabbit.
cell phone conversations are allowed on trains (Score:3, Insightful)
and i don't find them the least bit annoying.
i think it would be very similar for airplanes.
Re: (Score:2)
Please mod parent up.
Re:cell phone conversations are allowed on trains (Score:4, Informative)
The popularity of QuietCars on trains (even commuter trains now) seems to indicate that they *are* annoying enough...
Darth Vader wrote in? (Score:3)
one person concluded their letter with the word 'no' with letter 'o' repeated 213 times.
Ah. The voice of reason.
Is this really a *problem*? (Score:2)
Airlines have had wired phones on seat backs for years without any problems or public outcry. The only difference between them and cell phones are that the users don't have to pay the airline to use their cell phones.
Sure it's annoying to have the person next to you yacking on a cell phone, but it's also annoying to have them snoring, talking loudly, crying, etc.
We need to stop making a big deal out of the fact the we're annoyed and appreciate the fact that we can travel thousands of miles without anybody
Better hardware or education (Score:3, Insightful)
Philosophically speaking, it doesn't make sense to ban people talking on the phone and not ban people talking to the person next to them. I've never heard anyone asking the FCC (or slightly more reasonably the FAA) to regulate the volume people can speak on the plane.
Practically speaking, people tend to speak more loudly when they are speaking on the phone. Normally, this is not necessary. Part of the problem is that unlike landlines (remember them?), you don't get the feedback in the earpiece of your own voice when you're speaking on a mobile phone. Psychologically, this creates a desire to "speak up". This could be helped immensely big changing the way the hardware works.
You could also require the use of some sort of external headset that provides feedback and eliminates background noise better than the existing phones.
Most importantly, educating people that they don't need to speak that loudly into mobile phones could go a long way. And not only on airplanes.
Re: (Score:3)
Being forced to hear only one end of a conversation is vastly more irritating than hearing both parties.
Annoying but Not Dangerous (Score:3)
Cellphones on plane would be annoying, but as long as it's not dangerous, that's purely a business problem. The FCC shouldn't be getting involved with enforcing various people's aesthetics on others; that's not it's job.
213 times? (Score:2)
I like that person.
I have to wonder though (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple solution (Score:3)
Make those drop-down oxygen masks a little bigger, and they can double as CONES OF SILENCE. These will work especially well with the rumored iShoe phone
That scene from Commando.... (Score:2)
...where Schwarzenegger kills that guy sitting next to him on the plane. That would be me. And I don't want to go to prison. I would only fly on airlines that prohibit it. But based on the disdain they show for they customers, I'm sure they all would allow it.
Call me crazy (Score:3)
But isn't this all moot? Unless you are using a satellite phone how exactly is a cell phone supposed to get a signal within a flying plane? I am no expert, but isn't the signals transmitted by ground based stations? I am not sure that they A) have the range, or B) are omni-directional (i.e up). Perhaps at low altitude close to a tower, or on the runway, but I am not sure how well cell technology is going to operate at 30,000ft over nothing.
http://www.911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html [911myths.com]
Seems to indicate that it may be possible, but likely not, and even if it was, impractical.
Wifi is an interesting idea, as it could be used for connectivity. Then again the connection that is used is a satellite one, which likely has some bandwidth restrictions, and is likely costly to operate beyond a certain point.
So for the most part this is a moot argument in the first place.
FCC's role (Score:3)
The FCC's role in all of this should be is there a safety reason not to allow the phones on planes. The fact that it will be annoying and obnoxious should be left up to the market to decide. If some airlines offer cell free flights, and the public wants that, then those airlines will profit by increased ridership. If not, then their competitors will benefit. Not every problem needs to be solved by the government.
I'd Rather They Be Passionate About Net Neutrality (Score:3)
Getting up in arms about cell phones on planes is all fine and good. Frankly, however, I'd rather see people be getting upset about the net neutrality ruling and demanding the FCC appeal the outcome. That will have a greater long term impact than conversations on planes.
Re:Allow it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nice compromise, but seating space is already at cattle-car tightness now. I can only imagine what it would squeeze everyone down to if you had to accommodate a frickin' room with soundproofing.
Personally, and as a guy who travels on business a lot, I MUCH prefer that cell phone usage remain banned (data usage okay, but no cell usage).
Why? Two reasons:
1) people are annoying enough - imagine 100-200 of them in a tiny cabin practically yelling into their cell phones.
2) I love not having to answer emails or phone calls while in-flight.
Re:Allow it... (Score:5, Insightful)
" (data usage okay, but no cell usage)."
The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety. If it's an annoyance issue then the airlines should be the ones making rules about it. We don't need the FCC legislating cell phone use in movie theaters and cell phone use in planes can be dealt with the same way - anyone who won't stop talking on their phone in the theater/plane will be made to leave.
Re:Allow it... (Score:5, Funny)
anyone who won't stop talking on their phone in the plane will be made to leave.
Now there's something we can all agree on!
Re: (Score:2)
Well... I'd like to think the FAA should become involved. Allowing behaviour which is pretty much guaranteed to piss of passengers and crews to the point of pulling out weapons (i.e. that shooting in a Florida theater the other day over texting) should be considered a flight safety issue and should be regulated by air safety authorities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No thats the CDC (assuming they smell like they are ROTTING)
Re: (Score:3)
"If you complain to a flight attendant about a passenger that smells, they'll usually deal with it."
One has to ask... how? Do they hose the offending passenger down with Febreze?
Re: (Score:3)
The FCC's job here is to create rules to promote safety.
No, the FCC's job here is to regulate the use of a limited public resource so that it remains productive and usable. The only "safety" feature of the FCC rules are the standards for RF emissions to protect people from injury from RF energy.
The current cell phone ban from the FCC has nothing to do with safety, it is a side effect of the existing regulation based on ITU treaties regarding the use of specific bands of of frequencies. The allocation for a major part of the cell phone frequencies is LAND mobi
Re: (Score:2)
Preferably one which is neither pressurized nor filled with air, and equipped with an ejection mechanism.
Nobody wants to be stuck on a long flight with some wanker who insists on being on a conference call the whole time. Or some idiot having a fight with his wife. Or someone making kissy-face noises to his girlfriend.
Things will eventually get ugly, and people will get hurt if this happens. I figure und
Re: Allow it... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nice idea, but it doesn't work.
I fly a fair amount.
The "noise" that noise-cancelling headphones cancel are sounds that have a consistent volume, like the constant drone (no pun intended) of the aircraft engines. The headphones do not cancel sounds like other people's conversations, at least not very well.
Re: Allow it... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, frequent and sane fliers do. The rest of us who might fly once or twice in our lifetimes would prefer not to hear conference calls on that 12 hour day of flying.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, because someone curling up to go to sleep wants to wear headphones.
Re: (Score:2)
You have the cause and effect reversed. Sanity is not the reason for carrying the headphones. Carrying the headphones is the reason for the sanity.
Re: (Score:3)
Allow cell phone calls on airplanes, but only from inside a soundproof booth in the back of the plane.
Mile-High Booth
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Allow it... (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder how much it would cost to outfit that sound-proofed booth with a trap door floor?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
okay hows about this lets say you have a 5 by 10 section of airplane (total 50 seats) of those 12 folks are trying to deal with Pteromerhanophobia claustrophobia and or acrophobia (and may be drinking) also you have 9 vets with cracked heads (PTSD and Schizoaffective with a side order of Bipolar) add to to that a few GangBangers.
Do you really want to be in seat F5 when somebody has a panic attack (in D2) and starts getting violent??
Re: (Score:2)
Even texting on cell phones in theaters get you shot now, so...
Re: (Score:2)
I would much prefer that people be allowed to talk on their phones. Then I do not have to have them chatting me up while I am trying to read or enjoy some music.
Um. RIght. Chatting you up.
The Elle forum is --> thataway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are mutated sea bass.
Are they ill-tempered?
Very.