No, Cellphones, Airplanes, And Government Shouldn't Mix
Having passengers be able to use cellphones in flight would be just one more reason I don't want to fly anywhere -- besides not wanting to have some gropenfrau getting all up in my labia at the airport.
But The New York Times editorial board has it wrong on cellphone usage on planes, because they're calling for the government to choose whether airplanes allow cell calls in flight or not:
Officials at the International Air Transport Association, which represents airlines, has argued that the carriers should decide; some European and Asian airlines, including Virgin Atlantic and Emirates, already allow passengers to make calls from their planes at international roaming rates, usually $1 a minute or more. Many frequent travelers and the unions representing flight attendants, however, want a ban on all flights.We agree. There is no compelling reason to allow cellphone calls on planes other than to provide airlines with another source of revenue. Passengers who really need to communicate with people on the ground can already do so through wireless Internet service provided by many airlines for a fee.
Meanwhile, there are good reasons for restricting calls, not least of which is preserving peace and quiet on planes, which are increasingly flying at or near capacity thanks to multiple airline mergers in recent years.
So far as we can tell, the majority of the flying public is not clamoring for the right to make phone calls at 30,000 feet. The Transportation Department should listen to their quiet voices.
I will go out of my way to not fly any airline that allows this. But, it should be an airline's decision, not the government's, on whether they do?
More regulation, anyone?
via @timcushing








Amy you should see the South Park episode where Mr. Garrison gets so angry at the airline companies he builds his own transportation device. Only because he is gay and into BDSM it is manuevered by a dildo in your mouth and a dildo up your ass. At first people are hesitant until they can't take the airlines anymore and concede.
At the end of the episode a customer figures out that the dildos aren't necessary and Mr.Garrison asks:
"Yeah of course not, but why would anyone want to take them out?"
Ppen at August 8, 2014 11:41 PM
Per NYT: Meanwhile, there are good reasons for restricting calls, not least of which is preserving peace and quiet on planes, which are increasingly flying at or near capacity thanks to multiple airline mergers in recent years.
Whenever I read something like that, I always assume it's from someone who hates rubbing elbows with commoners.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at August 9, 2014 3:56 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/08/no-cellphones-a.html#comment-4924930">comment from Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com)I think there are good reasons for restricting calls in flight -- that you're a captive audience for your seatmate's blah blah blah, and that, as I write in "Good Manners For Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck", research shows that one-sided conversations (unless they are gibberish) are more disturbing to the brain than two-sided ones. (Your brain seems to force you to pay attention, to figure out the other side of the conversation. This is automatic, thanks to "theory of mind," which is, basically, your theory of how others' minds work. It's what tells you that a man kneeling on the street before a woman is probably not asking to borrow her pen. Again, this thinking is automatic; not something you can shut off.)
Amy Alkon
at August 9, 2014 4:55 AM
Amy Alkon
https://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/08/no-cellphones-a.html#comment-4924940">comment from Amy AlkonOne of my Pins on public cellphone calls:
http://www.pinwords.com/pins/1a24cb28e8e111e39dfa6df98f7487d6
My whole Pinterest quote page from "Good Manners for Nice People Who Sometimes Say F*ck": http://www.pinterest.com/amyalkon/good-manners-rudeness/
Amy Alkon
at August 9, 2014 5:00 AM
The goverments only concern should be 'will it cause airplanes to fall from the sky?'
No?
Then there is no reason to outlaw it, let airlines choose
lujlp at August 9, 2014 5:39 AM
If you think that allowing a passenger to escape the environment into their phone is a good idea, you've never had to serve one in a sandwich line, much less get them to hang up and pay attention as a flight attendant.
I was first on the scene to a traffic accident in which the woman's conversation was more important than missing the semi turning in front of her. She was talking to her own father at the time, whom she had just left in the church parking lot down the street.
She never touched the brakes. Fortunately, she was only doing about 30 on contact.
For cell phone users: do you hate your family so much that you want them to hear you die in traffic because you were talking to them?
-----
The cell phone is the BEST way to see how self-centered a person can be.
Radwaste at August 9, 2014 8:15 AM
"If you think that allowing a passenger to escape the environment into their phone is a good idea, you've never had to serve one in a sandwich line, much less get them to hang up and pay attention as a flight attendant."
So? Don't serve them the fucking sandwich. Last I checked food service wasn't required to keep the damn plane up in the air, and people don't pay attention to the flight attendant briefings because they are background noise. A survivable plane crash, with an evacuation, is a once in a blue moon kind of thing.
Southwest has wifi on most their flights now, which means, those of us with iPhones and iPads or Skype have phone service.
I just prefer to text when I am in public places.
Isab at August 9, 2014 8:31 AM
Southwest has wifi on most their flights now, which means, those of us with iPhones and iPads or Skype have phone service.
Southwest doesn't allow Skype-type VOIP services, thank God.
"In order to provide a top-notch WiFi experience, we limit access to certain high bandwidth applications and websites, including Netflix, HBO Go, and VoIP."
Kevin at August 9, 2014 9:04 AM
"In order to provide a top-notch WiFi experience, we limit access to certain high bandwidth applications and websites, including Netflix, HBO Go, and VoIP."
Posted by: Kevin at August 9, 2014 9:
VoIP? You do know what that is, don't you?
http://www.ehow.com/info_8401039_voip-work.html
Isab at August 9, 2014 10:28 AM
"There is no compelling reason to allow cellphone calls on planes other than to provide airlines with another source of revenue."
What reason does he think an airline would find more compelling than that?
Ken R at August 9, 2014 11:07 AM
Isab, apparently you haven't found JACDEC, and you haven't noticed that you have to have the ability to get passenger attention at once.
And there we have it: the "what I'm doing is important" crowd has weighed in.
Radwaste at August 9, 2014 11:49 AM
How did those people who were supposedly hijacked on 9/11 manage to make cell phone calls, while airborne?
jefe at August 10, 2014 1:39 PM
Jefe: It's quite possible to make cell calls while airborne. There are two reasons that airlines originally banned it: (1) there were a lot of concerns about the effects of the phone transmitters on aircraft avionics, and (2) the cell system was designed on the assumption that users are on or near the ground, and a given phone will not be visible in more than two or three cells at a given time. Phones in the air, visible in many cells at once, caused a lot of problems for the system and resulted in other users getting calls dropped and no-service statuses. (This was a huge problem back in the days of the old AMPS systems, which had a very limited number of cell channels available.)
Since then, upgraded avionics have pretty well eliminated the concerns about electromagnetic interference. And cell system routing algorithms have been redesigned to minimize the effects of phones in the air on the system. So the two technical objections are now mostly gone.
Cousin Dave at August 11, 2014 7:33 AM
Leave a comment