The higher the status, the less direction some [think they] need to follow from CC?

[anat0l]

This is going to turn into another electronics debate again, when:

• The OP didn't intend it to do so, and
• The OP wrote the title of the topic that didn't even hint at this debate (albeit the remainder of the post didn't line up with the topic)

I'll clarify my response to the topic question, which is "No" - just because you have status or "class" doesn't give you any more right than anyone else to not listen to the crew's instructions. And no one should disobey the instructions of the crew.

You may know (or rather, be more familiar) with the instructions of the crew, but that doesn't give you any more right to ignore them or flout them.

If others want to flout the rules then it is up to the crew to enforce them. Dob them in if you wish, though it isn't your compunction to do so. I certainly won't hold it against you if you wish to help the crew do their jobs. Frankly, those people shouldn't be breaking the rules in the first place, irrespective of how "stupid" they may think they are.

 

[rotor]

What do you think about continuing to send/receive messages after the announcement has gone out to switch off, but switching to flight mode by push-back?

"A friend of mine" does this....

My friend also never switches off their phone - only puts it in flight mode. Is he going to cause the plane to crash?

On one of my very few experiences travelling domestic business (and being the only passenger) - it felt a bit weird to watch the FA do the safety briefing...

 

[gypsyinabigtown]

In my humble view, it is an idiotic direction that is imposed upon Qantas by similarly idiotic aviation authorities. (Note that I'm referring here only to the instruction to turn everything electronic completely 'off', even including ebook readers, beyond just switching to airplane mode).
If the FAs are ignoring this stupid instruction, it is commendable at least.
If the FAs are ignoring people 'talking' on their mobile phones, that is a problem in their attitude.

I just wanted to make an observation and put it out there for feedback.

Every week I fly between Sydney and Melbourne, usually returning on the same day, over the past few weeks at least on one of those flights the passenger seated next to me will not turn off their ipad and phone.

yesterday it happened in both directions, both times they had an iPhone and iPad, crew asked for devices to be switched to flight mode, then off. I don't want to get into a debate about safety or whether the radio waves can interfere with navigation equipment, my point is so often now I see non compliance with this request.

like yesterday, when asked, both gentlemen just put their phones in their pocket whilst still on, and the guy last night once the seatbelt sign came on, opened up the cover and continued watching breaking bad whilst we landed as he knew the crew had to remain seated for landing.

maybe this is a touchy topic (if you do this yourself), but to Qantas i ask, what is the protocol here, should I tell them to turn it off properly, call cabin crew and draw there attention, or just say nothing because Qantas really don't care and don't want to deal with upsetting high value customers?

To really stir the topic up, how about an email where you identify your seat and then nominate a passenger from your last flight that didn't comply, then Qantas checks their device next time they are on board...

Keen to hear thoughts/experiences of what you have done, as well as how often you see this behaviour.

 

[ashleyn]

There are too many mixed messages. You must turn your device to flight mode then turn it off, why ? Once it is flight mode isn't the potential for interference with the plane nullified (if that even exists in the first place). Fly Emirates and others who allow in flight use of phones ?? I turn my devices off pre flight but the problems reported here will only get worse until (a) it is a proven hazzard (b) it is strictly enforced, impossible IMHO. Whilst it annoys me when people are breaking the rules, it's not my job to police it so I just ignore it. Would respondents report to the FA if a pax isn't wearing their seatbelt on landing ?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I just wanted to make an observation and put it out there for feedback.

Every week I fly between Sydney and Melbourne, usually returning on the same day, over the past few weeks at least on one of those flights the passenger seated next to me will not turn off their ipad and phone.

yesterday it happened in both directions, both times they had an iPhone and iPad, crew asked for devices to be switched to flight mode, then off. I don't want to get into a debate about safety or whether the radio waves can interfere with navigation equipment, my point is so often now I see non compliance with this request.

like yesterday, when asked, both gentlemen just put their phones in their pocket whilst still on, and the guy last night once the seatbelt sign came on, opened up the cover and continued watching breaking bad whilst we landed as he knew the crew had to remain seated for landing.

maybe this is a touchy topic (if you do this yourself), but to Qantas i ask, what is the protocol here, should I tell them to turn it off properly, call cabin crew and draw there attention, or just say nothing because Qantas really don't care and don't want to deal with upsetting high value customers?

To really stir the topic up, how about an email where you identify your seat and then nominate a passenger from your last flight that didn't comply, then Qantas checks their device next time they are on board...

Keen to hear thoughts/experiences of what you have done, as well as how often you see this behaviour.

personally... my take is that unless you feel your safety is directly impacted by the action of another passenger (for example their electronic device has them so distracted they would impede your exit in an emergency, or their seat is reclined impeding your access in an emergency, or a pax was intoxicated/asleep at an over wing exit during take-off or landing) then I wouldn't be saying anything.

if anyone honestly believes that the safety of their aircraft is being materially compromised by a mobile device being left on, then they shouldn't get out of bed in the morning.

it is a federal offense to disobey a lawful crew instruction. so I'm not advocating that. but I have more chance of winning lotto than my plane being brought down by a cell phone.

 

[Pushka]

I wouldn't be saying anything to another passenger or FA unless safety was being compromised. I asked someone in front of me to put their seat upright well after the FA's had taken landing seats and copped so much abuse. I should have pinged the bell but then thought that would be risking the FA as we were so close to landing and I had this guys seat in my face. He was the type to be in row 8 but raced all Y passengers ahead of him to be the first Y to get off.

Mobile phones. Not the thing I'd do anything about as long as the phones weren't actively being used. I don't believe for an instant that a phone in flight mode and in standby poses any risk.

 

[love_the_life]

The CSM on a flight MEL-CBR the other week had stern words with a guy who would not hang up his mobile call. When I boarded, the guy was standing on the aero bridge near the door talking then I saw him come on board, still talking on the phone and stand in row 3 or so. This went on for a while and the CSM spoke to him; he kept talking and the CSM then told him words to the effect that if the call was that important and he could not hang he would have to leave the plane and take a later flight. The guy did hang up but the CSM followed him down to his seat to check.
I admired the CSM's insistence that the passenger needed to follow the rules.

 

[Rox]

I am in support of the phone ban,
If there is any doubt at all, why take the risk? ( I have been watching way too many air crash investigations where freaky electronic glitches combine in a way that no-one anticipated)
I relish the silence of the mobile free zone, both as I am deliciously uncontactable, and, gee, I can't help that, and can you imagine the horror of a plane load of loud one sided conversations.
And we should respect our flight attendants. They didn't make the rule either.

 

[Must...Fly!]

For electronic devices....putting them to flight mode prior to take-off allows you to turn your device on safely in flight if you wish to use it. I understand EK allow phones on in-flight and I am sure thousands of phones are left on every day in Australian airspace. But this does not change the rule, it is there to follow and if you don't like it, may I kindly suggest that taking a bus or train might be of more interest, as you can talk/use your mobile as much as one wishes!

I wouldn't be saying anything to another passenger or FA unless safety was being compromised. I asked someone in front of me to put their seat upright well after the FA's had taken landing seats and copped so much abuse. I should have pinged the bell but then thought that would be risking the FA as we were so close to landing and I had this guys seat in my face. He was the type to be in row 8 but raced all Y passengers ahead of him to be the first Y to get off.

If a polite request went unnoticed I would be tempted to say something alone the lines of "Well sir/madam if we were to come to a sudden deceleration on the runway or, heaven forbid, slide off it, I would greatly prefer that I have the best chance of not slamming my head in to your seat so as I can exit the plane and the people beside me are not trapped in the row by an unconscious person."

 

[medhead]

Why get involved at all? What is wrong with someone listening to an ipod or texting on a phone? At any given moment on any plane we can assume that at least half of the phones/devices are turned on. Be they in people's hands, jacket pockets or in cabin bags. On big aircraft there could be hundreds of devices active. In none of the aircraft incident reports from any air safety authority has radio waves from devices been blamed for any incident.

If these devices were so dangerous as to risk the aircraft's viability then they should be screened at security and put in the hold.

Why is it any of the business of any passenger to help the airline enforce a stupid rule?

What's wrong is that they've failed to obey a direction from the crew. That indicates a pattern if behaviour. The next instruction they fail to obey might just risk my life in an emergency.

As for screening and putting in the hold. A ludicrous suggestion given the cost of the devices, that they can be used in flight mode after takeoff and that the risk of damage. If passengers can't follow directions from the airline and its staff they shouldn't be in the aircraft.

Other than that, unless you are involved in testing for electronic interference in aircraft, your assumptions are meaningless.

 

[anat0l]

This thread is a farce.

No one is actually addressing the topic question, irrespective of the fact that the OP content is incongruent with that question.

If we wanted to have another vitriolic thread about the merits of the electronic devices being turned off, there's already enough threads out there that the mods, in their wisdom, should do a thread merge.

That said, by inference on some of the posts on this thread (albeit not a strong one), the number of people who seem they are entitled to disobey crew instructions does take me by surprise.

 

[Pushka]

If a polite request went unnoticed I would be tempted to say something alone the lines of "Well sir/madam if we were to come to a sudden deceleration on the runway or, heaven forbid, slide off it, I would greatly prefer that I have the best chance of not slamming my head in to your seat so as I can exit the plane and the people beside me are not trapped in the row by an unconscious person."

Believe me, he was not the sort to do this with. He was just a tool. And when he pushed past everyone else to be first to disembark, well, no doubt somewhere along the way Karma will catch up with him.

 

[mannej]

Why get involved at all? What is wrong with someone listening to an ipod or texting on a phone? At any given moment on any plane we can assume that at least half of the phones/devices are turned on. Be they in people's hands, jacket pockets or in cabin bags. On big aircraft there could be hundreds of devices active. In none of the aircraft incident reports from any air safety authority has radio waves from devices been blamed for any incident.

If these devices were so dangerous as to risk the aircraft's viability then they should be screened at security and put in the hold.

Why is it any of the business of any passenger to help the airline enforce a stupid rule?

You are not quite correct regarding the investigation claim you made.
There is a cross air accident that according to one of the investigations may have been caused by a system malfunction due to mobile phone interference...

 

[medhead]

This thread is a farce.

No one is actually addressing the topic question, irrespective of the fact that the OP content is incongruent with that question.

If we wanted to have another vitriolic thread about the merits of the electronic devices being turned off, there's already enough threads out there that the mods, in their wisdom, should do a thread merge.

That said, by inference on some of the posts on this thread (albeit not a strong one), the number of people who seem they are entitled to disobey crew instructions does take me by surprise.

My position is fairly clear that safety comes first. That includes safety trumping status. Even if my post doesn't directly address the topic, it does do so by implication. Nothing anybody says can change my position of safety first. So there is little room for discussion.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

My position is fairly clear that safety comes first. That includes safety trumping status. Even if my post doesn't directly address the topic, it does do so by implication. Nothing anybody says can change my position of safety first. So there is little room for discussion.

'safety first' seems to apply only for the things airlines tell you. mobile phones likely represent an almost zero risk and zero consequence. other items are far more important including rear facing seats, three point seat belts, not carrying between 300 and 600 litres of flammable alcohol in overhead bins, providing smoke hoods, pilots who are not fatigued, not having passengers absorbed in tv - with headphones attached - during takeoff and landing. remember when exit rows could never be assigned until check-in? strictly on safety grounds we were told. but hey wait.... pay for it and suddenly the safety rule has gone out the window.

the FAA is currently reviewing the use of iPads and certain other electronic devices with the view to them being usable throughout the flight (from take off to landing). the scope of the study does not include mobile phones. the next stage seems fairly obvious... although it might take a while.

 

[medhead]

'safety first' seems to apply only for the things airlines tell you. mobile phones likely represent an almost zero risk and zero consequence. other items are far more important including rear facing seats, three point seat belts, not carrying between 300 and 600 litres of flammable alcohol in overhead bins, providing smoke hoods, pilots who are not fatigued, not having passengers absorbed in tv - with headphones attached - during takeoff and landing. remember when exit rows could never be assigned until check-in? strictly on safety grounds we were told. but hey wait.... pay for it and suddenly the safety rule has gone out the window.

the FAA is currently reviewing the use of iPads and certain other electronic devices with the view to them being usable throughout the flight (from take off to landing). the scope of the study does not include mobile phones. the next stage seems fairly obvious... although it might take a while.

As clearly stated in my other post. Safety first means following all crew directions related to safety. Regardless of any of the points you mention, passengers are directed to turn off devices for safety reasons. (Sorry the FAA has not changed anything yet). If any passenger fails to follow that direction they are a potential threat to my safety. No if, no buts, my position is final, no correspondence will be entered into.

 

[anat0l]

'safety first' seems to apply only for the things airlines tell you. mobile phones likely represent an almost zero risk and zero consequence. other items are far more important including rear facing seats, three point seat belts, not carrying between 300 and 600 litres of flammable alcohol in overhead bins, providing smoke hoods, pilots who are not fatigued, not having passengers absorbed in tv - with headphones attached - during takeoff and landing. remember when exit rows could never be assigned until check-in? strictly on safety grounds we were told. but hey wait.... pay for it and suddenly the safety rule has gone out the window.

the FAA is currently reviewing the use of iPads and certain other electronic devices with the view to them being usable throughout the flight (from take off to landing). the scope of the study does not include mobile phones. the next stage seems fairly obvious... although it might take a while.

The merits of that argument are up for debate in another thread.

But first and foremost you are required by law to follow any and all crew instructions. Having status or being more educated than the FA is no excuse to flout their instructions. If they tell you to turn devices off, do it.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether higher status people are entitled to disregard or ignore crew directions. This is not an electronic devices thread.

 

[spentan]

This discussion has been done to death.

It's really quite simple.

To answer the OP's question:

Following direction (or the lack thereof) from cabin crew has nothing to do with status. It has everything to do with the specific direction he/she is ignoring.

Some General information:

An electronic device in flight mode, is extremely different to an electronic device that has not been set to flight mode.

Once an electronic device has been switched to flight mode. It ensures that all cellular communication is off.

The device can still function as a communication-free device, and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth can be switched on at the user's discretion.

Even though Wi-Fi and Bluetooth are considered "radio transmitters", they are permitted for use on many carriers and airplanes.

A device in Flight mode, with Wi-Fi and BT turned off, cannot interfere with Airplane electronics. End Of Story.

The FCC, many carriers and others allow devices (with Bluetooth and/or Wi-Fi) during flight.

The premise that a mobile device can cause a safety risk to the plane's electronics, is ridiculous. If so, it would be treated a dangerous good, and therefore would not be allowed on-board.

What if grandma forgets to turn off her mobile device. What if a terrorist decides to bring 10 mobile phones on board so that he can turn them on to cause harm?

 

[Skyring]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss whether higher status people are entitled to disregard or ignore crew directions.

No! In fact, I'd say that those of high status can be more pigheaded, more convinced of their "rightness" than the general passenger herd.

If passengers are allowed to disobey clear directions from those legally responsible for their safety, then it sets a poor example at best, a danger to life and limb at worst - such as in an emergency.

 

[anat0l]

No! In fact, I'd say that those of high status can be more pigheaded, more convinced of their "rightness" than the general passenger herd.

If passengers are allowed to disobey clear directions from those legally responsible for their safety, then it sets a poor example at best, a danger to life and limb at worst - such as in an emergency.

At last... the first post of the thread except mine which seems to actually address the topic.

To answer the OP's question:

Following direction (or the lack thereof) from cabin crew has nothing to do with status. It has everything to do with the specific direction he/she is ignoring.

No it doesn't. Ignoring the direction of the crew is ignoring the direction of the crew - that's intentional disobedience, period. You are not entitled to that, no matter who you are. (Including Tony Hancock).