What would you have done about this idiot? [Archive]

PTRAVEL

September 14th, 2003, 09:45 PM

"Fly Guy" > wrote in message ...
> PTRAVEL wrote:
>
> > > Why would wireless networking be OK, but not cell phones?
> >
> > Wi-fi is extremely low power compared to cellphones. The range of a
> > cellphone is on the order of a quarter mile to a mile, depending on
> > terrain. The range of wifi is measurable in feet.
>
> A computer putting out a wifi signal is still a significantly more
> powerful radiator of radio signals vs any other (non-transmitting)
> electronic device you'll ever see in use on a plane.

Well, yes . . . what's your point?

>
> > What would you have done?
>
> I'd stop being nosey about what my seat mate is doing. If you were
> watching him and his keyboard and screen to the extent that you *know*
> he was activating his e-mail transmission function then you deserve a
> slap upside the head.

I don't know whether he was activiating his e-mail transmission function --
in fact, I've specifically said I don't know whether he was transmitting or
not. However, he was sitting right next to me, and "two-thumb" typing away
with abandon -- pretty hard to miss.

>
> It is for pure liability reasons that people are told to turn off
> electronic devices that in no way are likely to interfere with the
> operation of a plane.

Well, yes ... the airlines don't want to be liable if one of those things
causes a plane to crash.

> It's actually quite funny that people are told
> to turn off these devices during parts of the flight that they are
> least likely to interfere with the plane (during taxi and take-off and
> landing while all cockpit crew are awake, attentive, at the controls,
> and probably have the runway in sight). Especially during taxi, where
> the plane is most likely crawling along the taxi-way, perhaps many
> minutes away from actually taking off, and immediately after landing,
> where again it could be many minutes before the plane gets to the
> gate.

I'm not particularly concerned with taxiing, though I have no idea what sort
of automatic controls come into play during those periods -- perhaps you do.
However, during takeoff and landing, particularly when using IFR, electronic
devices are, evidently, problematic enough so that the airline requests they
be turned off.

>
> There is no satisfactory reason why all manner of devices could not be
> used during the taxi phase.

Probably not. A couple of airlines are allowing cellphone calls during this
time. What does that have to do with takeoff and landing?

> Unless it's ergonomic - that is, people
> with laptops or other large electronic items would not have the time
> or ability to get out of their seats and stow them over-head the
> minute the plane leaves the taxi-way and is next for take-off. If
> that is the case then again it doesn't mean that using the devices
> during taxi is in itself a threat to the plane - it means the proper
> stowage of the device is not possible during the transition from taxi
> to take-off.
>
> It's ironic (and convoluted) that during cruise phase when the plane
> is probably on auto-pilot and / or being flown by only 1 of the
> cockpit crew that the plane is most vulnerable to electronic
> interference (causing perhaps false altitude or navigation readings).
> But this IS the phase that these devices are allowed to operate.

Not cellphones, and not devices that send or receive radio waves.

User968758

September 14th, 2003, 09:46 PM

What's apparent is that no one who has reponded actually has any factual
knowledge about the dangers of cell phones, Blackberrys, or other electronic
devices. My own "belief" is that, if they were in the slightest bit dangerous,
they'd be banned.

PTRAVEL

September 14th, 2003, 09:46 PM

"mrtravel" > wrote in message
. com...
> PTRAVEL wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> If it is a hazard,
> >>why take this chance in letting them on the plane in the first place?
> >
> >
> > Because people need them at either end of the trip, and no one will put
> > valuables in checked luggage anymore.
> >
>
> So, it is really a matter of life or death, but due to inconvenience
> they are permitted in carryon.....
>
> Sure.........
>

I don't know how to respond to this. Airlines allow all sorts of things in
the cabin which could constitute potential hazards if misused.

>

Frank F. Matthews

September 14th, 2003, 10:18 PM

They are banned. FFM

User968758 wrote:

> What's apparent is that no one who has reponded actually has any factual
> knowledge about the dangers of cell phones, Blackberrys, or other electronic
> devices. My own "belief" is that, if they were in the slightest bit dangerous,
> they'd be banned.

PTRAVEL

September 14th, 2003, 10:23 PM

"mrtravel" > wrote in message
. com...
> PTRAVEL wrote:
> > "mrtravel" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> >
> >>PTRAVEL wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> If it is a hazard,
> >>>>why take this chance in letting them on the plane in the first place?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Because people need them at either end of the trip, and no one will put
> >>>valuables in checked luggage anymore.
> >>>
> >>
> >>So, it is really a matter of life or death, but due to inconvenience
> >>they are permitted in carryon.....
> >>
> >>Sure.........
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't know how to respond to this. Airlines allow all sorts of things
in
> > the cabin which could constitute potential hazards if misused.
> >
>
> But would they crash the plane as some people seem to think a cell phone
> would?

Yes, I suppose they could, e.g. cigarette lighters. I have no idea whether
a cellphone can crash a plane. The airlines seem to think they could and,
more to the point, I've read about a couple of incidents in which it appears
they nearly did. I'm not going to let my distrust of the airlines extend to
the point of risking my personal safety -- if they say, "don't use them,"
then people shouldn't use them.

>

PTRAVEL

September 14th, 2003, 10:25 PM

"Mark Hewitt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
> I think the issue with using electronic devices during take off and
landing
> is the same reason you have to put your tables upright etc.. i.e. if there
> is a major problem they don't want cellphones / laptops etc flying around
> the plane in addition to everything else which might not be secured.

I doubt it, since books, hats, and, for that matter, my noise-reducing
headphones don't have to be secured for takeoff or landoff. The point,
though, is absent definitive data, I'm going to take the airlines at the
word when they say, "don't use electronics during these times."

>
>
>
>

Miguel Cruz

September 14th, 2003, 11:19 PM

PTRAVEL > wrote:
> Yes, I suppose they could, e.g. cigarette lighters. I have no idea
> whether a cellphone can crash a plane. The airlines seem to think they
> could and, more to the point, I've read about a couple of incidents in
> which it appears they nearly did. I'm not going to let my distrust of the
> airlines extend to the point of risking my personal safety -- if they say,
> "don't use them," then people shouldn't use them.

I'm somewhat skeptical of the airline claims - especially given how they
vary from one airline to another - but one thing I'm sure of is that I am in
no position to second-guess them. I do not design aircraft equipment and I
am not a radio engineer. For that reason, when it comes to safety rules, I
do what they say.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Peter Benie

September 14th, 2003, 11:33 PM

In article >,
User968758 > wrote:
>What's apparent is that no one who has reponded actually has any factual
>knowledge about the dangers of cell phones, Blackberrys, or other electronic
>devices.

The CAA recently released a paper on the "Effects of Interference from
Cellular Telephones on Aircraft Avionic Equipment":

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_03.PDF

>My own "belief" is that, if they were in the slightest bit dangerous,
>they'd be banned.

The use of cellular phones while airborne has been banned by the FCC
since 1991. This is due to the phone being visible to too
many cells simultaneously. The FAA ban portable electronic equipment
that has not been checked by the aircraft operator for interference
with navigation and communication systems.

FCC Regulations Sec 22.925
FAR Part 92.21

Peter

mrtravel

September 14th, 2003, 11:44 PM

Frank F. Matthews wrote:

> They are banned. FFM
>
> User968758 wrote:
>
>> What's apparent is that no one who has reponded actually has any factual
>> knowledge about the dangers of cell phones, Blackberrys, or other
>> electronic
>> devices. My own "belief" is that, if they were in the slightest bit
>> dangerous,
>> they'd be banned.

> They are banned. FFM
>

They aren't BANNED from the aircraft. If they were truly that dangerous,
they would NOT be permitted onboard or every one would be checked to see
that it was turned off before take off and then locked away until landing.

(please excuse me for moving your top post to the bottom)

mrtravel

September 15th, 2003, 12:05 AM

Peter Benie wrote:

>>My own "belief" is that, if they were in the slightest bit dangerous,
>>they'd be banned.
>
>
> The use of cellular phones while airborne has been banned by the FCC
> since 1991. This is due to the phone being visible to too
> many cells simultaneously. The FAA ban portable electronic equipment
> that has not been checked by the aircraft operator for interference
> with navigation and communication systems.
>
> FCC Regulations Sec 22.925
> FAR Part 92.21
>

Banned by the FCC for communications issues with multiple cells, not
banned by FAA as a flight hazard, except that it hasn't been checked for
interference by the airline. In fact, AA recently did this for ground
use and found that there was no problem. Now, AA permits usage on the
ground, on the aircraft types that were tested.

However, if cell phones are such a big hazard to flight operations, why
are they permitted onboard the plane?

Paul Middlestat

September 15th, 2003, 12:47 AM

> I don't know how to respond to this. Airlines allow all sorts of things in
> the cabin which could constitute potential hazards if misused.

I have to agree with others. If you are not sure that he was actually
sending & receiving emails I would have ignored the individual. Now had
he pressed the [send] button -- and the aircraft started a barrel roll --
I then would have notified one of the FAs.

When using my Visor (a palm-like product made by Handspring) on one flight
I made the mistake of answering a question about the by use of the unit with
"Just responding to some email." Which freaked the person besides me until
I explained that the device only receives/sends emails when connected to a
computer. I can reply to an emails and then send those message when I was
in the office later in the day.

I adhere to the 'no electronics' rule as announced by the flight crew.
But will stop flying the day the airlines allow cell phone use during the
flight.

Whytoi

September 15th, 2003, 01:12 AM

In article >, Mark
Hewitt > wrote:

> I think the issue with using electronic devices during take off and landing
> is the same reason you have to put your tables upright etc.. i.e. if there
> is a major problem they don't want cellphones / laptops etc flying around
> the plane in addition to everything else which might not be secured.

Maybe airlines should fit self-tensioning seat belts. I note that many
passengers just have their seat belts loosely wrapped around their
belly and pass FAs' safety walk about. In a crash, they fly!

Larry Smith

September 15th, 2003, 02:03 AM

I would have made an issue of it.
The law is the law, and rules are rules.

Whether this dumb**** was actually risking your life, and his, is for the
experts to decide.

Larry Smith

September 15th, 2003, 02:05 AM

Their use, as Frank says, during certain periods IS banned.

September 15th, 2003, 02:59 AM

Whytoi wrote:
> In article >, Mark
> Hewitt > wrote:
>
>
>>I think the issue with using electronic devices during take off and landing
>>is the same reason you have to put your tables upright etc.. i.e. if there
>>is a major problem they don't want cellphones / laptops etc flying around
>>the plane in addition to everything else which might not be secured.
>
>
> Maybe airlines should fit self-tensioning seat belts. I note that many
> passengers just have their seat belts loosely wrapped around their
> belly and pass FAs' safety walk about. In a crash, they fly!

Technically, their top half would fly, leastways till it hit the
bulkhead. The bottom half would crash into the seat in front of them.

PTRAVEL

September 15th, 2003, 05:25 AM

"Paul Middlestat" > wrote in message
m...
> > I don't know how to respond to this. Airlines allow all sorts of things
in
> > the cabin which could constitute potential hazards if misused.
>
> I have to agree with others. If you are not sure that he was actually
> sending & receiving emails I would have ignored the individual. Now had
> he pressed the [send] button -- and the aircraft started a barrel roll --
> I then would have notified one of the FAs.
>
> When using my Visor (a palm-like product made by Handspring) on one
flight
> I made the mistake of answering a question about the by use of the unit
with
> "Just responding to some email." Which freaked the person besides me
until
> I explained that the device only receives/sends emails when connected to a
> computer. I can reply to an emails and then send those message when I was
> in the office later in the day.
>
> I adhere to the 'no electronics' rule as announced by the flight crew.

And the rule is: Turn off all portable electronics (which includes
Blackberries and Visors, whether or not they are transmitting email) until
the plane climbs above 10,000 feet. On what basis do you pick and choose
which rules you'll follow and which you won't?

> But will stop flying the day the airlines allow cell phone use during the
> flight.

LVTravel

September 15th, 2003, 05:26 AM

I do follow the rules when traveling and I feel that regulations are there
for a reason. When flying from LAS to DCA the FA announced many times that
during the last 30 minutes of the flight that the FAA required all to be
buckled into their seats and not get up or the plane would have to be
diverted. When 60 and 45 minutes out of DCA the passengers were again
reminded that once they announced the 30 minute time to land that no one
would be able to get out of their seat and to use the bathroom now. They
then did a countdown at five minute intervals until the 30 minute period was
announced. Everyone on the plane except for one "jerk" complied
immediately. He decided that he needed to use the bathroom just as the
announcement was finished. He was in the bathroom for at least five
minutes. The FAs did not attempt to stop him or to hurry him along. There
were many passengers that commented on the lack of FA involvement. I can
only state that the plane was not diverted. Looks like two regulations were
violated that day, one by the passenger and one by the airline.

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
...
> Flying, today, on CO, SFO to HOU, I was seated next to a Businessman in F.
> Businessman had a Blackberry. In case you don't know what those are,
> they're PDAs that have, built-in, two-way email capability. In other
words,
> they are radios, that send and receive, just like digital cellphones.
>
> After the aircraft was buttoned up and we pushed back, the FA made an
> announcement asking everyone to turn off their portable electronics.
> Businessman simply ignored the announcement, and was busy sending and
> receiving email. When the pilot asked the FAs to be seated for takeoff,
and
> we started our takeoff roll, I turned to him and said, "Are you planning
to
> use that during takeoff?" He gave me a look, but turned it off, at least
> until we completed the initial climb out.
>
> During the flight, I mentioned what happened to an FA, who said she'd tell
> the senior FA to keep an eye on him. Well, he didn't (that's another
story,
> but one I will relate directly to CO, rather than here), and Businessman
had
> his Blackberry out, sending and receiving from initial descent to landing.
> It was clear in Houston, so I figured we were VFR and it probably would be
> alright but, frankly, I wasn't happy about it -- radio transmitters inside
> the cabin don't strike me as a particularly good idea.
>
> What would you have done?
>
>

Please invert everything left of the @ to reply

September 15th, 2003, 07:21 AM

I have been on flights where interference has been found and the FAs roamed
the cabin looking for the offender, after an annoucement was made.

NEXTEL radios are the worst, but there are other documented instances.
Suggest you contact the FAA and look through their archives.

On 14 Sep 2003 20:46:31 GMT, (User968758) wrote:

>What's apparent is that no one who has reponded actually has any factual
>knowledge about the dangers of cell phones, Blackberrys, or other electronic
>devices. My own "belief" is that, if they were in the slightest bit dangerous,
>they'd be banned.

--
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.

September 15th, 2003, 02:11 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message >...
[snip]
> During the flight, I mentioned what happened to an FA, who said she'd tell
> the senior FA to keep an eye on him. Well, he didn't (that's another story,
> but one I will relate directly to CO, rather than here), and Businessman had
> his Blackberry out, sending and receiving from initial descent to landing.
> It was clear in Houston, so I figured we were VFR and it probably would be
> alright but, frankly, I wasn't happy about it -- radio transmitters inside
> the cabin don't strike me as a particularly good idea.
>
> What would you have done?

Taken my clue from the flight crew and not worried about it.

Jonathan Smith

September 15th, 2003, 02:36 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message >...
> "mrtravel" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > PTRAVEL wrote:
> > > "mrtravel" > wrote in message
> > > . com...
> > >
> > >>PTRAVEL wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>> If it is a hazard,
> > >>>>why take this chance in letting them on the plane in the first place?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>Because people need them at either end of the trip, and no one will put
> > >>>valuables in checked luggage anymore.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>So, it is really a matter of life or death, but due to inconvenience
> > >>they are permitted in carryon.....
> > >>
> > >>Sure.........
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't know how to respond to this. Airlines allow all sorts of things
> in
> > > the cabin which could constitute potential hazards if misused.
> > >
> >
> > But would they crash the plane as some people seem to think a cell phone
> > would?
>
> Yes, I suppose they could, e.g. cigarette lighters. I have no idea whether
> a cellphone can crash a plane. The airlines seem to think they could and,
> more to the point, I've read about a couple of incidents in which it appears
> they nearly did. I'm not going to let my distrust of the airlines extend to
> the point of risking my personal safety -- if they say, "don't use them,"
> then people shouldn't use them.

For someone as vocal in a NG and one who is so quick to criticize and
berate parents for ill-behaving children, why so timid here?

If you have a concern regarding your personal SAFETY then you should
open your mouth and tell this jerk to either turn off his BB or you'll
file a complaint with the management. What is your problem? It is
ILLEGAL for him to do what he was doing (at least certain parts) and
you don't have the cajones to say anything?

Oh, it's an adult so.....

js

User968758

September 15th, 2003, 02:46 PM

>I have been on flights where interference has been found and the FAs roamed
>the cabin looking for the offender, after an annoucement was made.
>

>From: "Please invert everything left of the @ to reply"

And if it happened to be in someone's carryon luggage? I still maintain that,
if it were a serious problem, the airlines would ban them. I'm still waiting
for someone who actually knows if this is a serious problem to weigh in.

Paul Middlestat

September 15th, 2003, 04:08 PM

>> I adhere to the 'no electronics' rule as announced by the flight crew.

> And the rule is: Turn off all portable electronics (which includes
> Blackberries and Visors, whether or not they are transmitting email) until
> the plane climbs above 10,000 feet.

> On what basis do you pick and choose which rules you'll follow and which
> you won't?

Moi? It's not all that complicated. When the FAs say to turn off portable
electonic devices, I do so. And it stays off until there is the announcement
that portable electronic devices may be used.

mrtravel

September 15th, 2003, 05:08 PM

Paul Middlestat wrote:

>>> I adhere to the 'no electronics' rule as announced by the flight crew.
>
>
>
>>And the rule is: Turn off all portable electronics (which includes
>>Blackberries and Visors, whether or not they are transmitting email) until
>>the plane climbs above 10,000 feet.
>
>
>>On what basis do you pick and choose which rules you'll follow and which
>>you won't?
>
>
> Moi? It's not all that complicated. When the FAs say to turn off portable
> electonic devices, I do so. And it stays off until there is the announcement
> that portable electronic devices may be used.

And, what about all of the devices accidently left on?

In this case, if it were dangerous, the FA would have made sure he had
it off, especially since that had already known he had it out.

Bob Myers

September 15th, 2003, 07:49 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
...
> I watched him read, and then compose email using the thumb keyboard.
> Perhaps he wasn't actually transmitting or receiving but, instead, was
> composing responses to email he had already received. In that case, he
was
> _still_ using a portable electronic device (one with a fairly powerful
> little computer inside) in contravention of the instructions of the crew.

Frankly, while I'm not very keen on various sorts of wireless devices
(cell phones, etc.) being used in-flight for OTHER reasons, I'm not
overly concerned about the chances for interference between something
like this little PDA and the plane's navigational systems. The potential
for problems here is EXTREMELY slight, and IMHO has been WAY
overblown by the airlines (who are likely far more concerned about
lawyers coming after them than any real, justifiable technical concerns).

Two additional points: there is little to no correlation between the level
of emissions from a given electronic device, and how "powerful" a
computer might be inside it. Also, please note that such devices as
PDAs are NEVER really "off" - in most cases, you're simply shutting
the display off and placing the processor in a low-power (but still running)
condition. (How do you think it keeps track of the time, etc., while it's
"off"?) I've also been looking all over for an "off" button on such things
as my digital wris****ch (hey, it's an "electronic device," isn't it?) but
to no avail. I guess I should be carrying a set of jeweler's screwdrivers,
so that I can remove the battery from the thing before take-off...:-)

Consider the following: if such sources were really a potential threat
to the safety of the flight, then why is it that so many flights seem to
get by just fine while flying instrument approaches over some pretty
RF-rich downtown environments - filled with cell sites, etc.?

Bob M.

Bob Myers

September 15th, 2003, 08:00 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
...
> Well, yes ... the airlines don't want to be liable if one of those things
> causes a plane to crash.

More accurately, the airlines don't want to be liable
if a lawyer can convince a jury in a civil case that
"one of these things" caused a plane to crash. Whether or
not the "thing" in question could possibly have been at
fault is quite another manner.

> I'm not particularly concerned with taxiing, though I have no idea what
sort
> of automatic controls come into play during those periods -- perhaps you
do.
> However, during takeoff and landing, particularly when using IFR,
electronic
> devices are, evidently, problematic enough so that the airline requests
they
> be turned off.

Again, more accurately, the PERCEPTION of a potential
problem here has convinced the airlines that they should
request they be turned off. I am unware of any confirmed
cases of actual interference having ever been documented,
at least with current (i.e., newer than 20 years old or so)
technology at both ends of the path.

During the landing phase, the aircraft is, either directly or
via the pilot's monitoring of various indicators, being directed
using a radio signal which is very, very powerful compared to
any possible interfernce from such devices, and which is being
directed toward it (well, up the intended "glide path") from the
ground. The technology involved here is extremely reliable (as
one would hope it would be, to avoid possible interference from
natural sources and ground-based transmissions), and I have
quite a bit of difficulty understanding how anyone would be
concerned about something like an on-board PDA as a possible
source of interference. Again, a true transmitter such as a cell
phone is a somewhat different story (although I expect the increased
hazard is actually very, very slight). During the takeoff phase, the
pilot is primarily concerned with maintaining the proper heading
and attitude of the aircraft while climbing - and none of the
instruments involved here are likely to be susceptible to any
sort of problems from this sort of source.

Bob M.

Banty

September 15th, 2003, 08:24 PM

In article >, Bob Myers says...
>
>

>
>Consider the following: if such sources were really a potential threat
>to the safety of the flight, then why is it that so many flights seem to
>get by just fine while flying instrument approaches over some pretty
>RF-rich downtown environments - filled with cell sites, etc.?
>
>
>Bob M.
>
>

Could this be that it's more a case of the electronic emmissions being
disruptive, more than being dangerous?

I think that's enough to justify a rule...

Banty

John Bartley I solved my XP problems w/ Service P

September 15th, 2003, 08:47 PM

(User968758) wrote in message >...
> >I have been on flights where interference has been found and the FAs roamed
> >the cabin looking for the offender, after an annoucement was made.
> >
>
> >From: "Please invert everything left of the @ to reply"
>
>
> And if it happened to be in someone's carryon luggage? I still maintain that,
> if it were a serious problem, the airlines would ban them. I'm still waiting
> for someone who actually knows if this is a serious problem to weigh in.

Would the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority be adequate, or
would you like a thunderbolt from Father Odin himself? Read, and be
clueless no more:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/14/1063478068468.html

mrtravel

September 15th, 2003, 11:13 PM

John Bartley I solved my XP problems w/ Service Pack Linux wrote:

> (User968758) wrote in message >...
>
>>>I have been on flights where interference has been found and the FAs roamed
>>>the cabin looking for the offender, after an annoucement was made.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>From: "Please invert everything left of the @ to reply"

>>
>>And if it happened to be in someone's carryon luggage? I still maintain that,
>>if it were a serious problem, the airlines would ban them. I'm still waiting
>>for someone who actually knows if this is a serious problem to weigh in.
>
>
> Would the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority be adequate, or
> would you like a thunderbolt from Father Odin himself? Read, and be
> clueless no more:
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/14/1063478068468.html

************************************************** ******************
The pilot noticed a mobile phone interference signal in his headphones,
according to an incident report lodged with the Australian Transport
************************************************** ********************

How did he know it was a mobile phone? How did he know the signal
originated from inside the aircraft?

If such devices are a danger, why are they permitted on the aircraft?

PTRAVEL

September 16th, 2003, 03:09 AM

"Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
m...
> "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
>...
> > "mrtravel" > wrote in message
> > . com...
> > > PTRAVEL wrote:
> > > > "mrtravel" > wrote in message
> > > > . com...
> > > >
> > > >>PTRAVEL wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> If it is a hazard,
> > > >>>>why take this chance in letting them on the plane in the first
place?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>Because people need them at either end of the trip, and no one will
put
> > > >>>valuables in checked luggage anymore.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>So, it is really a matter of life or death, but due to inconvenience
> > > >>they are permitted in carryon.....
> > > >>
> > > >>Sure.........
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't know how to respond to this. Airlines allow all sorts of
things
> > in
> > > > the cabin which could constitute potential hazards if misused.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But would they crash the plane as some people seem to think a cell
phone
> > > would?
> >
> > Yes, I suppose they could, e.g. cigarette lighters. I have no idea
whether
> > a cellphone can crash a plane. The airlines seem to think they could
and,
> > more to the point, I've read about a couple of incidents in which it
appears
> > they nearly did. I'm not going to let my distrust of the airlines
extend to
> > the point of risking my personal safety -- if they say, "don't use
them,"
> > then people shouldn't use them.
>
> For someone as vocal in a NG and one who is so quick to criticize and
> berate parents for ill-behaving children, why so timid here?

Generally, I don't berate parents for ill-behaving children -- I grit my
teeth and bear it, or complain to the FA.

>
> If you have a concern regarding your personal SAFETY then you should
> open your mouth and tell this jerk to either turn off his BB or you'll
> file a complaint with the management.

I did, on takeoff. As I said, on landing it was clear, we were, I'm
certain, VFR. However, you're right, I should have something on landing as
well.

> What is your problem? It is
> ILLEGAL for him to do what he was doing (at least certain parts) and
> you don't have the cajones to say anything?
>
> Oh, it's an adult so.....

I don't distinguish between adult idiots with Blackberries and adult idiots
with obnoxious children.

>
> js

PTRAVEL

September 16th, 2003, 03:13 AM

"Bob Myers" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I watched him read, and then compose email using the thumb keyboard.
> > Perhaps he wasn't actually transmitting or receiving but, instead, was
> > composing responses to email he had already received. In that case, he
> was
> > _still_ using a portable electronic device (one with a fairly powerful
> > little computer inside) in contravention of the instructions of the
crew.

Unless you're a trained flight engineer, your humble opinion isn't
particularly persuasive. Sorry.

>
> Frankly, while I'm not very keen on various sorts of wireless devices
> (cell phones, etc.) being used in-flight for OTHER reasons, I'm not
> overly concerned about the chances for interference between something
> like this little PDA and the plane's navigational systems. The potential
> for problems here is EXTREMELY slight, and IMHO has been WAY
> overblown by the airlines (who are likely far more concerned about
> lawyers coming after them than any real, justifiable technical concerns).
>
> Two additional points: there is little to no correlation between the level
> of emissions from a given electronic device, and how "powerful" a
> computer might be inside it.

No, but the faster the clock speed, the higher the frequency of EMF emitted.

> Also, please note that such devices as
> PDAs are NEVER really "off" - in most cases, you're simply shutting
> the display off and placing the processor in a low-power (but still
running)
> condition. (How do you think it keeps track of the time, etc., while it's
> "off"?) I've also been looking all over for an "off" button on such
things
> as my digital wris****ch (hey, it's an "electronic device," isn't it?)

You don't see the difference between a digital watch and a device that
transmits and receives email via radio-frequency and/or microwave emissions?

> but
> to no avail. I guess I should be carrying a set of jeweler's
screwdrivers,
> so that I can remove the battery from the thing before take-off...:-)
>
> Consider the following: if such sources were really a potential threat
> to the safety of the flight, then why is it that so many flights seem to
> get by just fine while flying instrument approaches over some pretty
> RF-rich downtown environments - filled with cell sites, etc.?

Because the RF-rich downtown environments are _outside_ the cabin -- there
are no RF-rich environments inside.

>
>
> Bob M.
>
>

User968758

September 16th, 2003, 03:57 AM

>>
>> Would the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority be adequate, or
>> would you like a thunderbolt from Father Odin himself? Read, and be
>> clueless no more:
>>
>> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/14/1063478068468.html
>
>
>************************************************** ******************
>The pilot noticed a mobile phone interference signal in his headphones,
>according to an incident report lodged with the Australian Transport
>************************************************** ********************
>

>
Just pseudo-science. Everything in this article is anecdotal. ("Oooh, there's
interference. A passenger's electronic device must be the cause.") Where are
the scientific experiments which try to assess the effects of standard
electronic devices on aircraft navigation systems etc? I assume there must be
some. But perhaps not.....

mrtravel

September 16th, 2003, 04:40 AM

User968758 wrote:

>>>Would the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority be adequate, or
>>>would you like a thunderbolt from Father Odin himself? Read, and be
>>>clueless no more:
>>>
>>>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/14/1063478068468.html
>>
>>
>>************************************************** ******************
>>The pilot noticed a mobile phone interference signal in his headphones,
>>according to an incident report lodged with the Australian Transport
>>************************************************** ********************
>>
>
>
> Just pseudo-science. Everything in this article is anecdotal.

Definitely. I doubt there was comprehensive testing done.
In fact, AA recently did testing on ground use of cell phones.
They didn't find problems, so now cell phones are approved for use on
the ground for longer periods of time. Cell phones have been around for
a few years..... but were banned in these cases only because the FAA
said they had to be tested first. They weren't banned because they were
dangerous, they were banned because it wasn't shown they were not
dangerous. Using a phone while driving is a far more dangerous event.

DALing

September 16th, 2003, 03:47 PM

still bad information - cell phone usage was banned because the PHONE SYSTEM
can't handle the fast jumping signal. Repeated experiments on elex
interference has shown no effect on properly configured and shielded
aircraft comm systems (let alone CONTROLS). FCC not FAA

"mrtravel" > wrote in message
y.com...
> User968758 wrote:
>
> >>>Would the Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority be adequate, or
> >>>would you like a thunderbolt from Father Odin himself? Read, and be
> >>>clueless no more:
> >>>
> >>>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/14/1063478068468.html
> >>
> >>
> >>************************************************** ******************
> >>The pilot noticed a mobile phone interference signal in his headphones,
> >>according to an incident report lodged with the Australian Transport
> >>************************************************** ********************
> >>
> >
> >
> > Just pseudo-science. Everything in this article is anecdotal.
>
> Definitely. I doubt there was comprehensive testing done.
> In fact, AA recently did testing on ground use of cell phones.
> They didn't find problems, so now cell phones are approved for use on
> the ground for longer periods of time. Cell phones have been around for
> a few years..... but were banned in these cases only because the FAA
> said they had to be tested first. They weren't banned because they were
> dangerous, they were banned because it wasn't shown they were not
> dangerous. Using a phone while driving is a far more dangerous event.
>

scott

September 16th, 2003, 03:48 PM

On 14 Sep 2003 16:47:27 -0700, (Paul
Middlestat) wrote:

>> I don't know how to respond to this. Airlines allow all sorts of things in
>> the cabin which could constitute potential hazards if misused.
>
> I have to agree with others. If you are not sure that he was actually
>sending & receiving emails I would have ignored the individual. Now had
>he pressed the [send] button -- and the aircraft started a barrel roll --
>I then would have notified one of the FAs.
>

After the FA finishes bouncing off the ciling that is. ;-)

Jo Jo

September 16th, 2003, 04:58 PM

When was the last time or even the first time electronic gadgets brought
down a plane? When ? ....hummm... NEVER !
So what is the big deal with the airlines ?

mrtravel

September 16th, 2003, 08:45 PM

DALing wrote:

> still bad information - cell phone usage was banned because the PHONE SYSTEM
> can't handle the fast jumping signal. Repeated experiments on elex
> interference has shown no effect on properly configured and shielded
> aircraft comm systems (let alone CONTROLS). FCC not FAA

Cell phones are banned by the FCC, but this has nothing to do with
safety of the aircraft. I was referring to the FAA ban on the use of
untested electronic equipment.

Bob Myers

September 16th, 2003, 09:12 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
...
> Unless you're a trained flight engineer, your humble opinion isn't
> particularly persuasive. Sorry.

I'm not sure what a "trained flight engineer" would necessarily
know about electromagnetic compliance. As for me, I'm just
an electrical engineer, working in the computer industry for the
past 24 years, with a good deal of that time spent working on
EMC issues.

>
> No, but the faster the clock speed, the higher the frequency of EMF
emitted.
>

True, but irrelevant. The emissions from a digital device are in
many cases related to the processor clock, but this is not the
sole source or even necessarily the dominant source. The level
and frequency of emissions seen outside the product enclosure
are dependent on a large number of factors, and this is just one
of them. Often, not even a particularly important one. (Note that
the "processor clock" itself is most often confined to an
extremely small part of the product, and is often quite well
shielded from the outside.)

> You don't see the difference between a digital watch and a device that
> transmits and receives email via radio-frequency and/or microwave
emissions?

Of course I do - and I can even quantify the expected levels of
interference from each. How about you?

The point was that a blanket "shut down all electronic devices"
directive is oversimplified (as it must be, to cope with the
non-technically-
oriented flying public), and isn't particularly good evidence of an
actual problem.

>
> Because the RF-rich downtown environments are _outside_ the cabin -- there
> are no RF-rich environments inside.

And gee, guess where the antennas for the navigational
instruments, etc., just happen to be located?

By the way, I took a look at the CAA paper that had been referenced
in an earlier post (and thanks to whoever posted that link, by the
way!) - "Effects of Interference from Cellular Telephones on
Aircraft Avionic Equipment." Its contents were not surprising; there
was basically no effect at all noted at field strengths under 30 volts
per meter (which was noted by the authors of the paper as being a
level that would correspond to a 2-watt cell phone in use 30 cm from
the equipment in question). This is an extremely high field strength,
relative to what could reasonably be expected from any consumer
portable equipment other than those which are deliberate transmitters,
such as cell phones. Even in those cases, I have a hard time imagining
any situation in which an active phone in the main cabin could result
in such levels in the proximity of the aircraft avionics, which are both
at some distance from the passengers and shielded. There ARE other
perfectly valid reasons for not using cellular phones and similar
technology in-flight, but as for me, I'm not overly concerned with the
possibility of their interfering with the operation of the aircraft. If
such
a vulnerability does exist, then the aircraft and/or avionics in question
is in SERIOUS need of redesign or repair.

Bob M.

DALing

September 16th, 2003, 09:43 PM

the verification on cellphones actually HAS been done ( no effects on
systems), but the FCC is still the stumbling block (there are probably some
old reports out there on the tests)

"mrtravel" > wrote in message
...
> DALing wrote:
>
> > still bad information - cell phone usage was banned because the PHONE
SYSTEM
> > can't handle the fast jumping signal. Repeated experiments on elex
> > interference has shown no effect on properly configured and shielded
> > aircraft comm systems (let alone CONTROLS). FCC not FAA
>
> Cell phones are banned by the FCC, but this has nothing to do with
> safety of the aircraft. I was referring to the FAA ban on the use of
> untested electronic equipment.
>
>

Jonathan Smith

September 17th, 2003, 01:33 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message >...
> "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "mrtravel" > wrote in message
> > > . com...
> > > > PTRAVEL wrote:
> > > > > "mrtravel" > wrote in message
> > > > > . com...
> > > > >
> > > > >>PTRAVEL wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> If it is a hazard,
> > > > >>>>why take this chance in letting them on the plane in the first
> place?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>Because people need them at either end of the trip, and no one will
> put
> > > > >>>valuables in checked luggage anymore.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>So, it is really a matter of life or death, but due to inconvenience
> > > > >>they are permitted in carryon.....
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Sure.........
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know how to respond to this. Airlines allow all sorts of
> things
> in
> > > > > the cabin which could constitute potential hazards if misused.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > But would they crash the plane as some people seem to think a cell
> phone
> > > > would?
> > >
> > > Yes, I suppose they could, e.g. cigarette lighters. I have no idea
> whether
> > > a cellphone can crash a plane. The airlines seem to think they could
> and,
> > > more to the point, I've read about a couple of incidents in which it
> appears
> > > they nearly did. I'm not going to let my distrust of the airlines
> extend to
> > > the point of risking my personal safety -- if they say, "don't use
> them,"
> > > then people shouldn't use them.
> >
> > For someone as vocal in a NG and one who is so quick to criticize and
> > berate parents for ill-behaving children, why so timid here?
>
> Generally, I don't berate parents for ill-behaving children -- I grit my
> teeth and bear it, or complain to the FA.
>
> >
> > If you have a concern regarding your personal SAFETY then you should
> > open your mouth and tell this jerk to either turn off his BB or you'll
> > file a complaint with the management.
>
> I did, on takeoff. As I said, on landing it was clear, we were, I'm
> certain, VFR. However, you're right, I should have something on landing as
> well.
>
> > What is your problem? It is
> > ILLEGAL for him to do what he was doing (at least certain parts) and
> > you don't have the cajones to say anything?
> >
> > Oh, it's an adult so.....
>
> I don't distinguish between adult idiots with Blackberries and adult idiots
> with obnoxious children.

New leaf?

> >
> > js

Da Parrot-chick

September 17th, 2003, 11:45 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
...
> Flying, today, on CO, SFO to HOU, I was seated next to a Businessman in F.
> Businessman had a Blackberry. In case you don't know what those are,
> they're PDAs that have, built-in, two-way email capability. In other
words,
> they are radios, that send and receive, just like digital cellphones.
>
> After the aircraft was buttoned up and we pushed back, the FA made an
> announcement asking everyone to turn off their portable electronics.
> Businessman simply ignored the announcement, and was busy sending and
> receiving email. When the pilot asked the FAs to be seated for takeoff,
and
> we started our takeoff roll, I turned to him and said, "Are you planning
to
> use that during takeoff?" He gave me a look, but turned it off, at least
> until we completed the initial climb out.
>
> During the flight, I mentioned what happened to an FA, who said she'd tell
> the senior FA to keep an eye on him. Well, he didn't (that's another
story,
> but one I will relate directly to CO, rather than here), and Businessman
had
> his Blackberry out, sending and receiving from initial descent to landing.
> It was clear in Houston, so I figured we were VFR and it probably would be
> alright but, frankly, I wasn't happy about it -- radio transmitters inside
> the cabin don't strike me as a particularly good idea.
>
> What would you have done?

Exactly what you did--tell the FA. Outside of that, there's nothing you can
do. It isn't up to the passengers to enforce basic safety regs.

Whether or not cell phones and EMCs constitute a hazard is beside the point;
it's a safety reg. Refusal to comply guarantees arrest at disembarkation.
If your seatmate was ignoring a direct order to turn off his device and the
FA needed your help to subdue him, that'd be another thing.

Chanchao

September 18th, 2003, 04:51 AM

On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 22:45:01 GMT, "Da Parrot-chick" > wrote some
stuff about "Re: What would you have done about this idiot?", to which I would
like to add the following:

>> After the aircraft was buttoned up and we pushed back, the FA made an
>> announcement asking everyone to turn off their portable electronics.
>> Businessman simply ignored the announcement, and was busy sending and
>> receiving email.

How do you know that? E-mail could have been downloaded already and he was
just replying and answering it. Most of these devices have a 'flight mode'
whereby you can turn the radio part off while continuing to work.

Even some smartphones have them, but I would expect flak from FA's or other
passengers if I wanted to play chess or read (already downloaded) e-mails on
my Nokia 3650 phone for example.

Cheers,
Chanchao

PTRAVEL

September 18th, 2003, 06:30 PM

"Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
m...
> "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "mrtravel" > wrote in message
> > > > . com...
> > > > > PTRAVEL wrote:
> > > > > > "mrtravel" > wrote in message
> > > > > > . com...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>PTRAVEL wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> If it is a hazard,
> > > > > >>>>why take this chance in letting them on the plane in the first
> > place?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>Because people need them at either end of the trip, and no one
will
> > put
> > > > > >>>valuables in checked luggage anymore.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>So, it is really a matter of life or death, but due to
inconvenience
> > > > > >>they are permitted in carryon.....
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>Sure.........
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't know how to respond to this. Airlines allow all sorts
of
> > things
> > in
> > > > > > the cabin which could constitute potential hazards if misused.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But would they crash the plane as some people seem to think a cell
> > phone
> > > > > would?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I suppose they could, e.g. cigarette lighters. I have no idea
> > whether
> > > > a cellphone can crash a plane. The airlines seem to think they
could
> > and,
> > > > more to the point, I've read about a couple of incidents in which it
> > appears
> > > > they nearly did. I'm not going to let my distrust of the airlines
> > extend to
> > > > the point of risking my personal safety -- if they say, "don't use
> > them,"
> > > > then people shouldn't use them.
> > >
> > > For someone as vocal in a NG and one who is so quick to criticize and
> > > berate parents for ill-behaving children, why so timid here?
> >
> > Generally, I don't berate parents for ill-behaving children -- I grit my
> > teeth and bear it, or complain to the FA.
> >
> > >
> > > If you have a concern regarding your personal SAFETY then you should
> > > open your mouth and tell this jerk to either turn off his BB or you'll
> > > file a complaint with the management.
> >
> > I did, on takeoff. As I said, on landing it was clear, we were, I'm
> > certain, VFR. However, you're right, I should have something on landing
as
> > well.
> >
> > > What is your problem? It is
> > > ILLEGAL for him to do what he was doing (at least certain parts) and
> > > you don't have the cajones to say anything?
> > >
> > > Oh, it's an adult so.....
> >
> > I don't distinguish between adult idiots with Blackberries and adult
idiots
> > with obnoxious children.
>
> New leaf?

No, merely consistency.

>
> > >
> > > js

PTRAVEL

September 18th, 2003, 06:31 PM

"Chanchao" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 22:45:01 GMT, "Da Parrot-chick" > wrote
some
> stuff about "Re: What would you have done about this idiot?", to which I
would
> like to add the following:
>
> >> After the aircraft was buttoned up and we pushed back, the FA made an
> >> announcement asking everyone to turn off their portable electronics.
> >> Businessman simply ignored the announcement, and was busy sending and
> >> receiving email.
>
> How do you know that? E-mail could have been downloaded already and he
was
> just replying and answering it. Most of these devices have a 'flight mode'
> whereby you can turn the radio part off while continuing to work.

He may or may not have actually been transmitting and receiving email. He
was composing and reading email with a portable electronic device that was
supposed to be off.

>
> Even some smartphones have them, but I would expect flak from FA's or
other
> passengers if I wanted to play chess or read (already downloaded) e-mails
on
> my Nokia 3650 phone for example.
>
> Cheers,
> Chanchao

Jonathan Smith

September 19th, 2003, 04:48 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message >...
> "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > "mrtravel" > wrote in message
> > > > > . com...
> > > > > > PTRAVEL wrote:
> > > > > > > "mrtravel" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > . com...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>PTRAVEL wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> If it is a hazard,
> > > > > > >>>>why take this chance in letting them on the plane in the first
> place?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>Because people need them at either end of the trip, and no one
> will
> put
> > > > > > >>>valuables in checked luggage anymore.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>So, it is really a matter of life or death, but due to
> inconvenience
> > > > > > >>they are permitted in carryon.....
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>Sure.........
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't know how to respond to this. Airlines allow all sorts
> of
> > > things
> > > in
> > > > > > > the cabin which could constitute potential hazards if misused.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But would they crash the plane as some people seem to think a cell
> phone
> > > > > > would?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, I suppose they could, e.g. cigarette lighters. I have no idea
> whether
> > > > > a cellphone can crash a plane. The airlines seem to think they
> could
> and,
> > > > > more to the point, I've read about a couple of incidents in which it
> appears
> > > > > they nearly did. I'm not going to let my distrust of the airlines
> extend to
> > > > > the point of risking my personal safety -- if they say, "don't use
> them,"
> > > > > then people shouldn't use them.
> > > >
> > > > For someone as vocal in a NG and one who is so quick to criticize and
> > > > berate parents for ill-behaving children, why so timid here?
> > >
> > > Generally, I don't berate parents for ill-behaving children -- I grit my
> > > teeth and bear it, or complain to the FA.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If you have a concern regarding your personal SAFETY then you should
> > > > open your mouth and tell this jerk to either turn off his BB or you'll
> > > > file a complaint with the management.
> > >
> > > I did, on takeoff. As I said, on landing it was clear, we were, I'm
> > > certain, VFR. However, you're right, I should have something on landing
> as
> > > well.
> > >
> > > > What is your problem? It is
> > > > ILLEGAL for him to do what he was doing (at least certain parts) and
> > > > you don't have the cajones to say anything?
> > > >
> > > > Oh, it's an adult so.....
> > >
> > > I don't distinguish between adult idiots with Blackberries and adult
> idiots
> > > with obnoxious children.
> >
> > New leaf?
>
> No, merely consistency.

Here's what happened yesterday and I couldn't help thinking of you.

AA 777 FC old configuration.

3A and 3B - middle-aged couple - 3D, middle-aged man
4A - Mexican ambassadors wife, 4 B me.

Full flight. The only emptuy seat is 4D and that is designated as
crew rest.

About an hour out lunch is about done. Lights get turned down, window
shades are lowered - except for 3A. 3D is pretty bothered by this -
he asked nicely, asked the FA and then the purser. 3A says - no, I
want to look out the window. She keeps both shades up the entire
flight.

The entire cabin was partly illuminated throughout the flight.
No one is happy about this, least of which 3D. You see, he wants to
watch the movie and the full force of this sunlight is right on him
and the TV screen. He tries raising the tray table to block it - no
luck. Finally he wedges two pillows between his head and the tray
table and holds them there for most of the flight.

Where does this women get off insisting that her RIGHT to watch the
clouds go by takes precedence over the other 17 passengers preference
to have a darkened cabin?

js

PTRAVEL

September 19th, 2003, 05:01 PM

"Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
m...

<snip>

> Here's what happened yesterday and I couldn't help thinking of you.
>
> AA 777 FC old configuration.
>
> 3A and 3B - middle-aged couple - 3D, middle-aged man
> 4A - Mexican ambassadors wife, 4 B me.
>
> Full flight. The only emptuy seat is 4D and that is designated as
> crew rest.
>
> About an hour out lunch is about done. Lights get turned down, window
> shades are lowered - except for 3A. 3D is pretty bothered by this -
> he asked nicely, asked the FA and then the purser. 3A says - no, I
> want to look out the window. She keeps both shades up the entire
> flight.
>
> The entire cabin was partly illuminated throughout the flight.
> No one is happy about this, least of which 3D. You see, he wants to
> watch the movie and the full force of this sunlight is right on him
> and the TV screen. He tries raising the tray table to block it - no
> luck. Finally he wedges two pillows between his head and the tray
> table and holds them there for most of the flight.
>
> Where does this women get off insisting that her RIGHT to watch the
> clouds go by takes precedence over the other 17 passengers preference
> to have a darkened cabin?
>
> js

Interesting question. I'm one of those people who likes to look out the
window. This is a by-product of my long-lived flying phobia, which has
gotten much better over the years. I find if I can see out I can keep
myself oriented, especially in turbulence, and I don't feel like I'm in a
closed box, hurtling through space. These days, though, I sleep through
most of my flights, unless there's bad weather. Perhaps this lady had a
similar problem.

If the sun is on the TV screens, or in the face of my neighbors, I lower the
shade (even though it may make me uncomfortable to do so). If someone asks
me nicely, I lower the shade (I once was sitting in the last row of F, and
someone in the bulkhead seat in coach actually snaked his hand around the
partition and lowered my shade -- I told the FA to tell him that if he did
it again, I'd ask the captain to have the police meet the plane. She did,
and he didn't.).

I think, if it's solely a question of someone "preferring" a dim cabin,
either because the light makes viewing the movie difficult or the sun is
shining directly on them, then there is compromise possible, e.g. lowering
the shade most of the way, so that the light is blocked out, but there is
still a little space left that permits seeing the outside.

Again, this is just a question of courtesy. I don't think there is an
absolute right to have the shade up, or an absolute right to have the shade
down. There is only a willingness on the part of passengers to try to limit
the extent to which they create an imposition on others, and to try to
accomodate the needs of others.

mrtravel

September 19th, 2003, 06:25 PM

Jonathan Smith wrote:

> Where does this women get off insisting that her RIGHT to watch the
> clouds go by takes precedence over the other 17 passengers preference
> to have a darkened cabin?
>

What was the movie?

What do you mean by Mexican Ambassador's wife?
Ambassador to or from Mexico?

Da Parrot-chick

September 20th, 2003, 04:08 AM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
...

> Again, this is just a question of courtesy. I don't think there is an
> absolute right to have the shade up, or an absolute right to have the
shade
> down. There is only a willingness on the part of passengers to try to
limit
> the extent to which they create an imposition on others, and to try to
> accomodate the needs of others.

You are right on the money here.

Jonathan Smith

September 21st, 2003, 01:11 PM

mrtravel > wrote in message >...
> Jonathan Smith wrote:
>
> > Where does this women get off insisting that her RIGHT to watch the
> > clouds go by takes precedence over the other 17 passengers preference
> > to have a darkened cabin?
> >
>
> What was the movie?

Not sure which one he was watching.
>
> What do you mean by Mexican Ambassador's wife?
> Ambassador to or from Mexico?

The Mexican ambassador to the UK was my understanding.

TMOliver

September 21st, 2003, 02:48 PM

(Jonathan Smith) vented spleen or mostly
mumbled...

> mrtravel > wrote in message
> >...
>> Jonathan Smith wrote:
>>
>> > Where does this women get off insisting that her RIGHT to watch the
>> > clouds go by takes precedence over the other 17 passengers
>> > preference to have a darkened cabin?
>> >
>>

I agree with the concept that one should not discomfort 17 (if it really
was everyone of the 17 who gave a **** one way or another....)

I suppose she bases her right upon the premise that the airline would have
not bought a/c with windows from Boeing or Airbus unless it was prepared
for the vast shock that folks might want to look out of them.

Obviously, sections or entire a/c without windows could be standard thruout
the world. "Skin" is cheaper than windows and the support structure and
manufacturing complexity they require, but few if any "windowless" a/c dot
the tarmacs of major airports, evidence that vast hordes of passengers (or
enough of the paying sort to matter) want to look out of the windows.

The problem's the cheap technology purchased by the airlines, entertainment
systems not good enough to work in high ambient light. Cursing some poor
sod who wants to look out the window is not the answer, no more than is
cursing the passenger behind or in front of you whose reading light
interrupts your rest. Next you'll be wanting a choice of movies....

Can you imagine the scene if Joe, the dirty old Road warrior in 2A wants to
watch a racy (and some of the airlines movies are beyond the pale for small
children) flick, while Liddle Johnny's a'sittin' in 2B and his Mom and
Little Maybelline in 2 C&D, all three off to Granny's. Mom may raise a
ruckus, but I suspect that few of you here would claim that her rights
extend to what Joe wants to watch.

Take the scenario a step further....

Liddle Johnny is flying along up in 1st, and the evening's movie on a old
central system is "Buckets of Blood and a Bit of Tit", a newly released
popular potboiler which all 17 other pax are lusting to see. Do their
"rights" extend to exposing puir wee Johnny to all that sin?

So before joining the posse to duct tape the lady's window shade shut, it
might be well to consider how you might feel were it your ox in the mire or
goat in the wire....

TMO

devil

September 21st, 2003, 05:03 PM

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 08:48:11 -0700, Jonathan Smith wrote:

> Where does this women get off insisting that her RIGHT to watch the
> clouds go by takes precedence over the other 17 passengers preference
> to have a darkened cabin?

Strength in the numbers, eh?

It does seem to me that if I am offered a window seat, by implication, I
should be able to use it. Otherwise they should offer me a seat with a
*closed window.* Some folks do suffer from a medical condition called
claustrophoby.

I can see that when it's time to sleep, it makes sense to ask people to
close the window. Presumably at some point the guy at the window is going
to sleep too.

But just to watch some goddam movie? Who cares about movies? If you
want to watch a movie, whay don't you stay home and watch TV, or go to
the movie.

Seriously, I don't know that there is a simple answer to this sort of
problem. When the airline promises a window to some folks and a movie to
some others, it seems to me it's for the airline to find a way to solve
the problem and keep everyone happy.

Not the mobs trying to put pressure on the poor woman who thought she had
bought into a window.

(I go for aisle seats anyway...)

Jonathan Smith

September 23rd, 2003, 02:49 PM

TMOliver > wrote in message >...
> (Jonathan Smith) vented spleen or mostly
> mumbled...
>
> > mrtravel > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> Jonathan Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> > Where does this women get off insisting that her RIGHT to watch the
> >> > clouds go by takes precedence over the other 17 passengers
> >> > preference to have a darkened cabin?
> >> >
> >>
>
> I agree with the concept that one should not discomfort 17 (if it really
> was everyone of the 17 who gave a **** one way or another....)

All other window shades were closed.

>
> I suppose she bases her right upon the premise that the airline would have
> not bought a/c with windows from Boeing or Airbus unless it was prepared
> for the vast shock that folks might want to look out of them.

I like to look out of them, too - but not necessarily all the time and
certainly not if it is a significant inconvenience to others.

> Obviously, sections or entire a/c without windows could be standard thruout
> the world. "Skin" is cheaper than windows and the support structure and
> manufacturing complexity they require, but few if any "windowless" a/c dot
> the tarmacs of major airports, evidence that vast hordes of passengers (or
> enough of the paying sort to matter) want to look out of the windows.
>
> The problem's the cheap technology purchased by the airlines, entertainment
> systems not good enough to work in high ambient light.

This was NOT ambient light - it was full force sunshine streaming
across the cabin right on this man and his video screen.

> Cursing some poor
> sod who wants to look out the window is not the answer,

No one was cursing.

> no more than is
> cursing the passenger behind or in front of you whose reading light
> interrupts your rest.

Hardly the same, now is it.

> Next you'll be wanting a choice of movies....

And there are choices - haen't you ever flown long haul first?

> Can you imagine the scene if Joe, the dirty old Road warrior in 2A wants to
> watch a racy (and some of the airlines movies are beyond the pale for small
> children) flick, while Liddle Johnny's a'sittin' in 2B and his Mom and
> Little Maybelline in 2 C&D, all three off to Granny's. Mom may raise a
> ruckus, but I suspect that few of you here would claim that her rights
> extend to what Joe wants to watch.

Have you ever tried to watch the video screen of the person next to
you?

> Take the scenario a step further....
>
> Liddle Johnny is flying along up in 1st, and the evening's movie on a old
> central system is "Buckets of Blood and a Bit of Tit", a newly released
> popular potboiler which all 17 other pax are lusting to see. Do their
> "rights" extend to exposing puir wee Johnny to all that sin?

With individual video screens this is a non issue. Tell me, which
mainstream airlines still use communal screens in first? Certainly
not the intercontinental in my experience.

> So before joining the posse to duct tape the lady's window shade shut, it
> might be well to consider how you might feel were it your ox in the mire or
> goat in the wire....

If someone asked me to accomodate them in a reasonable manner, I
would.

js

TMOliver

September 23rd, 2003, 04:44 PM

(Jonathan Smith) vented spleen or mostly
mumbled...

>
> This was NOT ambient light - it was full force sunshine streaming
> across the cabin right on this man and his video screen.

As usual, either your irony receiver is set too low (or more likely you
don'yt have one...)
>
>> Cursing some poor
>> sod who wants to look out the window is not the answer,
>
> No one was cursing.

You have trouble with hyperbole don't you...

>
>> no more than is
>> cursing the passenger behind or in front of you whose reading light
>> interrupts your rest.
>
> Hardly the same, now is it.

Describe the difference....

>
>> Next you'll be wanting a choice of movies....
>
> And there are choices - haen't you ever flown long haul first?

There's more than a bit of long haul first in the US and canada (and other
places) where communal screens are still the norm (and don't you imagine
that the sensitivities of economy pax or no less important than those in
the front cabin?)

>
>> Can you imagine the scene if Joe, the dirty old Road warrior in 2A
>> wants to watch a racy (and some of the airlines movies are beyond the
>> pale for small children) flick, while Liddle Johnny's a'sittin' in 2B
>> and his Mom and Little Maybelline in 2 C&D, all three off to
>> Granny's. Mom may raise a ruckus, but I suspect that few of you here
>> would claim that her rights extend to what Joe wants to watch.
>
> Have you ever tried to watch the video screen of the person next to
> you?

I doubt you would be filling to face the wrath of some loud and forceful
mom who was telling the entire cabin that you were exposing her little
bambio to dirty movies. I've even witnessed a mother demanding that the
communal movie be terminated because it contained scenes offensive to her
rugrats. How would you deal with that? Transfer the kids to economy?

>
>> Take the scenario a step further....
>>
>> Liddle Johnny is flying along up in 1st, and the evening's movie on a
>> old central system is "Buckets of Blood and a Bit of Tit", a newly
>> released popular potboiler which all 17 other pax are lusting to see.
>> Do their "rights" extend to exposing puir wee Johnny to all that
>> sin?
>
> With individual video screens this is a non issue. Tell me, which
> mainstream airlines still use communal screens in first? Certainly
> not the intercontinental in my experience.

Your expereince in first must be limited to transoceanic jaunts or none at
all...
As earlier stated, communal screens are still widely used in domestic first
and some domestic first in the Western hemisphere can be all night...

Then there's economy, where the issue is the same, simply larger numbers to
please, the reason why many movies are heavy handily handled by editors'
shears or more often, not seen at all on airlines.

As with the reclined seat, reasonably and rationally subject to being
raised during meal service and take offs, landings, and emergencies, yet at
others times subject to the good will of the reclined seat's occupant,
window shades are an issue where individual rights are likely to transcend
the collective perspective.
>
>> So before joining the posse to duct tape the lady's window shade
>> shut, it might be well to consider how you might feel were it your ox
>> in the mire or goat in the wire....
>
> If someone asked me to accomodate them in a reasonable manner, I
> would.
>
....But we're not talking about you. So would I. So would most folks.

We're talking about her and her right to look out the window. Were the
pilot to "order" her to close the shade, the airline enters a very shaky
legal arena in which her claim that her rights as a passenger were violated
and, suffering from a quite well recognized form of claustrophobia and/or
motion sickness aggravated by a lack of a view outside, she had been
irreparably and substantially damaged (and humiliated) by the incident
would likely be upheld in court.

Pilots (and their employers) are unlikely to seek out such potentially
expensive and controversial confrontations, so odds are if you run into the
same scenario, her individual rights may transcend the wishes of the
collective 17. You're really dependent upon her good will in this sort of
issue. Most folks would close their shade. She may choose not to, and
it's unlikely that the airline staff would go to the wall over the issue,
for the pilot's(transmittted to the aircrew) command authority, while it
covers health, safety and operational issues, slips into the in legal limbo
when it comes to this sort of issue. I've been present for two similar
situations (and heard the two airlines offer every possible and some
unlikely compensation, cajole, intimidate, threaten, and finally retreat
from confrontation, in one case asking a women with an infant unable to be
quieted to move back to economy and receive additional pair of round trip
FC ticket as compensation).

You may believe that 17 folks have a clear right to require one to shut her
shade. The reality of a number of stubborn (and or selfish) folk in an
increasingly litigious society presents a different conclusion, that 17 may
want and ask, but that the one may not be easily or conveniently - or under
many conditions, legally - required to comply.

TMO

Jonathan Smith

September 24th, 2003, 01:46 PM

TMOliver > wrote in message >...
> (Jonathan Smith) vented spleen or mostly
> mumbled...
>
>
> >
> > This was NOT ambient light - it was full force sunshine streaming
> > across the cabin right on this man and his video screen.
>
>
> As usual, either your irony receiver is set too low (or more likely you
> don'yt have one...)

Or you think you do.

> >
> >> Cursing some poor
> >> sod who wants to look out the window is not the answer,
> >
> > No one was cursing.
>
> You have trouble with hyperbole don't you...

obviously you don't.

> >
> >> no more than is
> >> cursing the passenger behind or in front of you whose reading light
> >> interrupts your rest.
> >
> > Hardly the same, now is it.
>
> Describe the difference....

If you can't tell the difference between a reading light and sunshine
and more importantly, sleeping and watching the videa, I don't think
I'm going to have much success here.

> >> Next you'll be wanting a choice of movies....
> >
> > And there are choices - haen't you ever flown long haul first?
>
> There's more than a bit of long haul first in the US and canada (and other
> places) where communal screens are still the norm

The longest "long haul" over NA is still nothing compared to this 9
hour flight.

And other than some older narrow bodies on transcontinental (5-6 hour
flights)...

> (and don't you imagine
> that the sensitivities of economy pax or no less important than those in
> the front cabin?)

I wouldn't know - perhaps you can enlighten us?

>
> >
> >> Can you imagine the scene if Joe, the dirty old Road warrior in 2A
> >> wants to watch a racy (and some of the airlines movies are beyond the
> >> pale for small children) flick, while Liddle Johnny's a'sittin' in 2B
> >> and his Mom and Little Maybelline in 2 C&D, all three off to
> >> Granny's. Mom may raise a ruckus, but I suspect that few of you here
> >> would claim that her rights extend to what Joe wants to watch.
> >
> > Have you ever tried to watch the video screen of the person next to
> > you?
>
> I doubt you would be filling to face the wrath of some loud and forceful
> mom who was telling the entire cabin that you were exposing her little
> bambio to dirty movies. I've even witnessed a mother demanding that the
> communal movie be terminated because it contained scenes offensive to her
> rugrats. How would you deal with that? Transfer the kids to economy?

Eye shades.

> >> Take the scenario a step further....
> >>
> >> Liddle Johnny is flying along up in 1st, and the evening's movie on a
> >> old central system is "Buckets of Blood and a Bit of Tit", a newly
> >> released popular potboiler which all 17 other pax are lusting to see.
> >> Do their "rights" extend to exposing puir wee Johnny to all that
> >> sin?
> >
> > With individual video screens this is a non issue. Tell me, which
> > mainstream airlines still use communal screens in first? Certainly
> > not the intercontinental in my experience.
>
> Your expereince in first must be limited to transoceanic jaunts or none at
> all...

What's your definition of intercontinental?

> As earlier stated, communal screens are still widely used in domestic first
> and some domestic first in the Western hemisphere can be all night...

I am well aware of the red eyes. And window shades open at night
hardly create an issue for passengers wanting to watch the movie.

> Then there's economy, where the issue is the same, simply larger numbers to
> please, the reason why many movies are heavy handily handled by editors'
> shears or more often, not seen at all on airlines.
>
> As with the reclined seat, reasonably and rationally subject to being
> raised during meal service and take offs, landings, and emergencies, yet at
> others times subject to the good will of the reclined seat's occupant,
> window shades are an issue where individual rights are likely to transcend
> the collective perspective.

The "collective purpose" Was that out of the little red book?

> >> So before joining the posse to duct tape the lady's window shade
> >> shut, it might be well to consider how you might feel were it your ox
> >> in the mire or goat in the wire....
> >
> > If someone asked me to accomodate them in a reasonable manner, I
> > would.
> >
> ...But we're not talking about you. So would I. So would most folks.
>
> We're talking about her and her right to look out the window. Were the
> pilot to "order" her to close the shade, the airline enters a very shaky
> legal arena in which her claim that her rights as a passenger were violated
> and, suffering from a quite well recognized form of claustrophobia and/or
> motion sickness aggravated by a lack of a view outside, she had been
> irreparably and substantially damaged (and humiliated) by the incident
> would likely be upheld in court.

Which of course explains the need for BOTH window shades to be WIDE
open. This is FC, remember?

> Pilots (and their employers) are unlikely to seek out such potentially
> expensive and controversial confrontations, so odds are if you run into the
> same scenario, her individual rights may transcend the wishes of the
> collective 17. You're really dependent upon her good will in this sort of
> issue. Most folks would close their shade. She may choose not to, and
> it's unlikely that the airline staff would go to the wall over the issue,
> for the pilot's(transmittted to the aircrew) command authority, while it
> covers health, safety and operational issues, slips into the in legal limbo
> when it comes to this sort of issue. I've been present for two similar
> situations (and heard the two airlines offer every possible and some
> unlikely compensation, cajole, intimidate, threaten, and finally retreat
> from confrontation, in one case asking a women with an infant unable to be
> quieted to move back to economy and receive additional pair of round trip
> FC ticket as compensation).
>
> You may believe that 17 folks have a clear right to require one to shut her
> shade. The reality of a number of stubborn (and or selfish) folk in an
> increasingly litigious society presents a different conclusion, that 17 may
> want and ask, but that the one may not be easily or conveniently - or under
> many conditions, legally - required to comply.

No one ever suggested that she had a legal obligation to comply.
Maybe PTRAVEL can share his enlightment with you on this. It simply
reinforces my premise that stupid, selfish human tricks are not
restricted to the under 5 set.

done.

js

PTRAVEL

September 25th, 2003, 08:05 PM

"Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
m...

> No one ever suggested that she had a legal obligation to comply.
> Maybe PTRAVEL can share his enlightment with you on this. It simply
> reinforces my premise that stupid, selfish human tricks are not
> restricted to the under 5 set.

A couple of follow-ups to this thread:

1. Yesterday, I returned home to SFO on NW from Philadelphia via
Minneapolis, seated in F (has anyone else noticed that, subjectively,
flights home seem to take much longer than flights leaving home? And I'm
not talking about headwinds.). I was in my usual window seat, passing time
by my usual practice of listening to music with my noise-cancelling
headphones and, as usually happens, I nodded off at one point. I awoke to
find that the person seated behind me had reached around my seat and pulled
my shade down. What chutzpah! Where do these people get nerve? Note:
there was no movie, and no sun. This guy simply wanted a dark cabin.

2. The original topic addressed by this thread was Blackberry use on
aircraft. Coincidently, I returned to my office today to find that my firm
has gotten me a nice, new Blackberry PDA, identical to the one carried by
the idiot referenced in the subject line of this post. From the Blackberry
instruction manual (and the horse's mouth):

"The handheld is not an FAA-approved electronic device for use on aircrafts.
Switch off the handheld when in an aircraft. The effect of the use of the
handheld in an aircraft is unknown. Such use may affect aircraft
instrumentation, communication and performance, may disrupt the network, and
may be illegal."

Even the manufacturer, RIM, acknowledges that using a Blackberry on an
aircraft is a Bad Idea.

>
> done.

Oh, I don't know about that. ;)

>
> js

Jenn

September 25th, 2003, 08:38 PM

In article >,
"PTRAVEL" > wrote:

> "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>
> > No one ever suggested that she had a legal obligation to comply.
> > Maybe PTRAVEL can share his enlightment with you on this. It simply
> > reinforces my premise that stupid, selfish human tricks are not
> > restricted to the under 5 set.
>
> A couple of follow-ups to this thread:
>
> 1. Yesterday, I returned home to SFO on NW from Philadelphia via
> Minneapolis, seated in F (has anyone else noticed that, subjectively,
> flights home seem to take much longer than flights leaving home? And I'm
> not talking about headwinds.). I was in my usual window seat, passing time
> by my usual practice of listening to music with my noise-cancelling
> headphones and, as usually happens, I nodded off at one point. I awoke to
> find that the person seated behind me had reached around my seat and pulled
> my shade down. What chutzpah! Where do these people get nerve? Note:
> there was no movie, and no sun. This guy simply wanted a dark cabin.

so he was polite and didn't wake you to ask -- maybe the glare bothered
him

>
> 2. The original topic addressed by this thread was Blackberry use on
> aircraft. Coincidently, I returned to my office today to find that my firm
> has gotten me a nice, new Blackberry PDA, identical to the one carried by
> the idiot referenced in the subject line of this post. From the Blackberry
> instruction manual (and the horse's mouth):
>
> "The handheld is not an FAA-approved electronic device for use on aircrafts.
> Switch off the handheld when in an aircraft. The effect of the use of the
> handheld in an aircraft is unknown. Such use may affect aircraft
> instrumentation, communication and performance, may disrupt the network, and
> may be illegal."
>
> Even the manufacturer, RIM, acknowledges that using a Blackberry on an
> aircraft is a Bad Idea.
>
> >
> > done.
>
> Oh, I don't know about that. ;)
>
> >
> > js
>
>

Da Parrot-chick

September 25th, 2003, 09:07 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
...

> 2. The original topic addressed by this thread was Blackberry use on
> aircraft. Coincidently, I returned to my office today to find that my
firm
> has gotten me a nice, new Blackberry PDA, identical to the one carried by
> the idiot referenced in the subject line of this post.

<snip>

Be advised that if the company provided you with a PDA, it still owns it and
all the info stored within, so be careful about what you enter into it:

http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1064491052224940.xml?oregonian?lcg

Check out this story on a PDA security encryption firm for lost/stolen PDAs:

http://www.portlandtribune.com/archview.cgi?id=5078

Eric Toline

September 25th, 2003, 09:58 PM

Be advised that if the company provided you with a PDA, it still owns it
and all the info stored within, so be careful about what you enter into
it:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

ok, whats a pda?

Eric

Bob Myers

September 25th, 2003, 10:00 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
...

> I awoke to
> find that the person seated behind me had reached around my seat and
pulled
> my shade down. What chutzpah! Where do these people get nerve? Note:
> there was no movie, and no sun. This guy simply wanted a dark cabin.

Why "chutzpah"? You clearly were not looking out the window
while you were asleep, and the person might even have thought
they were doing you a favor by preventing outside light from
disturbing your sleep (both the aircraft and the sun DO move with
respect to each other, you know).

> 2. The original topic addressed by this thread was Blackberry use on
> aircraft. Coincidently, I returned to my office today to find that my
firm
> has gotten me a nice, new Blackberry PDA, identical to the one carried by
> the idiot referenced in the subject line of this post. From the
Blackberry
> instruction manual (and the horse's mouth):
>
> "The handheld is not an FAA-approved electronic device for use on
aircrafts.
> Switch off the handheld when in an aircraft. The effect of the use of the
> handheld in an aircraft is unknown. Such use may affect aircraft
> instrumentation, communication and performance, may disrupt the network,
and
> may be illegal."

Writers of user's manuals are not necessarily the best source of
legal advice. In this particular case, it is not the FAA that has the
real problem, but rather the FCC. If the Blackberry's wireless
features can (unlike a cell phone) be switched off when the device
is otherwise in use, then it poses no more hazard than any other
PDA, and would be unlikely in the extreme to affect the aircraft
at all. As noted earlier, the concern with the use of cell phones
and similar technologies (which is where the Blackberry or
other "wireless LAN" hardware gets in trouble) is not due to a
potential problem with the aircraft (unless you're in the cockpit,
of course...:-)), but rather the potential for disruption of the
ground-based network below. And hence the FCC interest.

Bob M.

>
> Even the manufacturer, RIM, acknowledges that using a Blackberry on an
> aircraft is a Bad Idea.
>
> >
> > done.
>
> Oh, I don't know about that. ;)
>
> >
> > js
>
>

PTRAVEL

September 25th, 2003, 10:14 PM

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "PTRAVEL" > wrote:
>

<snip>

> >
> > A couple of follow-ups to this thread:
> >
> > 1. Yesterday, I returned home to SFO on NW from Philadelphia via
> > Minneapolis, seated in F (has anyone else noticed that, subjectively,
> > flights home seem to take much longer than flights leaving home? And
I'm
> > not talking about headwinds.). I was in my usual window seat, passing
time
> > by my usual practice of listening to music with my noise-cancelling
> > headphones and, as usually happens, I nodded off at one point. I awoke
to
> > find that the person seated behind me had reached around my seat and
pulled
> > my shade down. What chutzpah! Where do these people get nerve? Note:
> > there was no movie, and no sun. This guy simply wanted a dark cabin.
>
> so he was polite and didn't wake you to ask -- maybe the glare bothered
> him

Oh, come on, Jenn. "He was polite"? My shade is my shade (and there was no
glare). He is certainly free to ask. He is not free to appropriate. What
if the recline of my seat was bothering him? Would it have been polite to
reach around, depress the seat recline button, and put my seat up (slowly
and quietly so I wouldn't notice)?

The discussion on window shades has posited either a film in progress or sun
streaming in through the window and into the eyes of passengers. Neither
pertains here -- it was late afternoon, and there was no glare. There was
only a passenger who prefers to have it dark when he sleeps and, rather than
use eyeshades, took it upon himself to enter the personal space which the
airline had reserved to me and put down my shade.

PTRAVEL

September 25th, 2003, 10:27 PM

"Bob Myers" > wrote in message
...
>
> "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > I awoke to
> > find that the person seated behind me had reached around my seat and
> pulled
> > my shade down. What chutzpah! Where do these people get nerve? Note:
> > there was no movie, and no sun. This guy simply wanted a dark cabin.
>
> Why "chutzpah"? You clearly were not looking out the window
> while you were asleep,

So what? I was "out" only for a short while. As I always do, I awoke
disoriented, immediately turned to look at the window and found the shade
pulled down which, in and of itself, was also disorienting.

>and the person might even have thought
> they were doing you a favor by preventing outside light from
> disturbing your sleep (both the aircraft and the sun DO move with
> respect to each other, you know).

Again, so what? I would have been more comfortable if I'd taken off my
shoes, too, but it would have been an equal invasion by the pax behind me if
he had taken it upon himself to remove in the interest of "doing me a
favor." If the sun was in his eyes, he could tell the FA, who would have no
hesitancy about waking me. Incidently, given the placement of window in
relation to my seat, and the seat behind me (remember, this was F), I can't
imagine a circumstance in which the sun _could_ have shined through my
window onto the passenger seated behind me.

>
>
> > 2. The original topic addressed by this thread was Blackberry use on
> > aircraft. Coincidently, I returned to my office today to find that my
> firm
> > has gotten me a nice, new Blackberry PDA, identical to the one carried
by
> > the idiot referenced in the subject line of this post. From the
> Blackberry
> > instruction manual (and the horse's mouth):
> >
> > "The handheld is not an FAA-approved electronic device for use on
> aircrafts.
> > Switch off the handheld when in an aircraft. The effect of the use of
the
> > handheld in an aircraft is unknown. Such use may affect aircraft
> > instrumentation, communication and performance, may disrupt the network,
> and
> > may be illegal."
>
> Writers of user's manuals are not necessarily the best source of
> legal advice.

This has nothing to do with legal advice. The manufacturer warns against
using the Blackberry on a plane. Why is there even discussion about this?

> In this particular case, it is not the FAA that has the
> real problem, but rather the FCC.

According to you. Not according to RIM.

> If the Blackberry's wireless
> features can (unlike a cell phone) be switched off when the device
> is otherwise in use, then it poses no more hazard than any other
> PDA, and would be unlikely in the extreme to affect the aircraft
> at all.

And other PDAs must be switched off, too. The requirement is that "all
personal electronic devices," be turned off.

> As noted earlier, the concern with the use of cell phones
> and similar technologies (which is where the Blackberry or
> other "wireless LAN" hardware gets in trouble) is not due to a
> potential problem with the aircraft (unless you're in the cockpit,
> of course...:-)), but rather the potential for disruption of the
> ground-based network below. And hence the FCC interest.

Again, according to you, not according to RIM.

>
> Bob M.
>
> >
> > Even the manufacturer, RIM, acknowledges that using a Blackberry on an
> > aircraft is a Bad Idea.
> >
> > >
> > > done.
> >
> > Oh, I don't know about that. ;)
> >
> > >
> > > js
> >
> >
>
>

PTRAVEL

September 25th, 2003, 10:29 PM

"Eric Toline" > wrote in message
...
>
> Be advised that if the company provided you with a PDA, it still owns it
> and all the info stored within, so be careful about what you enter into
> it:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> ok, whats a pda?

"Personal Digital Assistant"

As Da Parrot Chick pointed out, there is no expectation of privacy with
respect to a company-provided PDA or, for that matter, computer or
cellphone.

>
> Eric
>

Eric Toline

September 25th, 2003, 11:06 PM

Re: PDA privacy & security (was: Re: What would you have doneabout...

Group: rec.travel.air Date: Thu, Sep 25, 2003, 2:29pm (EDT-3) From:
(PTRAVEL)
"Eric Toline" > wrote in message
...
Be advised that if the company provided you with a PDA, it still owns it
and all the info stored within, so be careful about what you enter into
it:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

ok, whats a pda?

"Personal Digital Assistant"<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

ok, terrific. Now I know the name but what is it & what does it do?

Eric

S Viemeister

September 25th, 2003, 11:08 PM

PTRAVEL wrote:
>
> "Bob Myers" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > I awoke to
> > > find that the person seated behind me had reached around my seat and
> > pulled
> > > my shade down. What chutzpah! Where do these people get nerve? Note:
> > > there was no movie, and no sun. This guy simply wanted a dark cabin.
> >
> > Why "chutzpah"? You clearly were not looking out the window
> > while you were asleep,
>
> So what? I was "out" only for a short while. As I always do, I awoke
> disoriented, immediately turned to look at the window and found the shade
> pulled down which, in and of itself, was also disorienting.
>
> >and the person might even have thought
> > they were doing you a favor by preventing outside light from
> > disturbing your sleep (both the aircraft and the sun DO move with
> > respect to each other, you know).
>
> Again, so what? I would have been more comfortable if I'd taken off my
> shoes, too, but it would have been an equal invasion by the pax behind me if
> he had taken it upon himself to remove in the interest of "doing me a
> favor." If the sun was in his eyes, he could tell the FA, who would have no
> hesitancy about waking me. Incidently, given the placement of window in
> relation to my seat, and the seat behind me (remember, this was F), I can't
> imagine a circumstance in which the sun _could_ have shined through my
> window onto the passenger seated behind me.
>
Are you quite sure that it was the passenger behind you? Could a flight
attendant have noticed that you were asleep, and thoughtfully closed the
blind for you?

mrtravel

September 25th, 2003, 11:31 PM

Eric Toline wrote:

>
> Re: PDA privacy & security (was: Re: What would you have doneabout...
>
> Group: rec.travel.air Date: Thu, Sep 25, 2003, 2:29pm (EDT-3) From:
> (PTRAVEL)
> "Eric Toline" > wrote in message
> ...
> Be advised that if the company provided you with a PDA, it still owns it
> and all the info stored within, so be careful about what you enter into
> it:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> ok, whats a pda?
>
>
> "Personal Digital Assistant"<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> ok, terrific. Now I know the name but what is it & what does it do?
>
> Eric

It slices, dices, and makes julienne fries.

Eric Toline

September 26th, 2003, 12:52 AM

Re: PDA privacy & security (was: Re: What would you have doneabout...

Group: rec.travel.air Date: Thu, Sep 25, 2003, 10:31pm (EDT+4) From:
(mrtravel)
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
ok, whats a pda?

"Personal Digital Assistant"<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

ok, terrific. Now I know the name but what is it & what does it do?
Eric

It slices, dices, and makes julienne fries.<<<<<

Cute but don't give up your day job for a career in comedy.

Eric

PTRAVEL

September 26th, 2003, 01:21 AM

"Eric Toline" > wrote in message
...
>
> Re: PDA privacy & security (was: Re: What would you have doneabout...
>
> Group: rec.travel.air Date: Thu, Sep 25, 2003, 2:29pm (EDT-3) From:
> (PTRAVEL)
> "Eric Toline" > wrote in message
> ...
> Be advised that if the company provided you with a PDA, it still owns it
> and all the info stored within, so be careful about what you enter into
> it:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> ok, whats a pda?
>
>
> "Personal Digital Assistant"<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> ok, terrific. Now I know the name but what is it & what does it do?

It's a small computer that fits in a pocket. Basic PDAs keep calendars,
phone books, email, etc. With they right software, they can also use GPS
for mappig directions, can play games, keep finances, provide tranlsation,
etc.

>
> Eric
>

PTRAVEL

September 26th, 2003, 01:22 AM

"S Viemeister" > wrote in message
...
> PTRAVEL wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Myers" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > I awoke to
> > > > find that the person seated behind me had reached around my seat and
> > > pulled
> > > > my shade down. What chutzpah! Where do these people get nerve?
Note:
> > > > there was no movie, and no sun. This guy simply wanted a dark
cabin.
> > >
> > > Why "chutzpah"? You clearly were not looking out the window
> > > while you were asleep,
> >
> > So what? I was "out" only for a short while. As I always do, I awoke
> > disoriented, immediately turned to look at the window and found the
shade
> > pulled down which, in and of itself, was also disorienting.
> >
> > >and the person might even have thought
> > > they were doing you a favor by preventing outside light from
> > > disturbing your sleep (both the aircraft and the sun DO move with
> > > respect to each other, you know).
> >
> > Again, so what? I would have been more comfortable if I'd taken off my
> > shoes, too, but it would have been an equal invasion by the pax behind
me if
> > he had taken it upon himself to remove in the interest of "doing me a
> > favor." If the sun was in his eyes, he could tell the FA, who would
have no
> > hesitancy about waking me. Incidently, given the placement of window in
> > relation to my seat, and the seat behind me (remember, this was F), I
can't
> > imagine a circumstance in which the sun _could_ have shined through my
> > window onto the passenger seated behind me.
> >
> Are you quite sure that it was the passenger behind you? Could a flight
> attendant have noticed that you were asleep, and thoughtfully closed the
> blind for you?

Nope. First, no FA would do something like that. However, my F seat has 2
windows. The one that had the shade pulled down was the once next to my
head, closest to the pax in back of me. The one in front of that, which was
also entirely in space, and easiest for an FA to reach, was left alone.

S Viemeister

September 26th, 2003, 01:22 AM

PTRAVEL wrote:
>
> "S Viemeister" > wrote
> > Are you quite sure that it was the passenger behind you? Could a flight
> > attendant have noticed that you were asleep, and thoughtfully closed the
> > blind for you?
>
> Nope. First, no FA would do something like that. However, my F seat has 2
> windows. The one that had the shade pulled down was the once next to my
> head, closest to the pax in back of me. The one in front of that, which was
> also entirely in space, and easiest for an FA to reach, was left alone.

Oh, well - it was a thought.

DALing

September 26th, 2003, 02:47 PM

depending on model, everything from "mail" to "schedule", "memo", "to do
lists", play music, and run computer programs or act as a phone. I use mine
as a digital "day-timer" ( cheap one)
"Eric Toline" > wrote in message
...
>
> Re: PDA privacy & security (was: Re: What would you have doneabout...
>
> Group: rec.travel.air Date: Thu, Sep 25, 2003, 2:29pm (EDT-3) From:
> (PTRAVEL)
> "Eric Toline" > wrote in message
> ...
> Be advised that if the company provided you with a PDA, it still owns it
> and all the info stored within, so be careful about what you enter into
> it:<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> ok, whats a pda?
>
>
> "Personal Digital Assistant"<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> ok, terrific. Now I know the name but what is it & what does it do?
>
> Eric
>

Jonathan Smith

September 26th, 2003, 03:31 PM

S Viemeister > wrote in message >...
> PTRAVEL wrote:
> >
> > "S Viemeister" > wrote
> > > Are you quite sure that it was the passenger behind you? Could a flight
> > > attendant have noticed that you were asleep, and thoughtfully closed the
> > > blind for you?
> >
> > Nope. First, no FA would do something like that.

I've seen them do it time and time again on the eastbound
transatlantics. After dinner they'll go around and close all the FC
shades still open (and next to sleeping passengers) knowing full well
that in just a few hours it's sunrise.

> However, my F seat has 2
> > windows. The one that had the shade pulled down was the once next to my
> > head, closest to the pax in back of me. The one in front of that, which was
> > also entirely in space, and easiest for an FA to reach, was left alone.
>
> Oh, well - it was a thought.

Ptravel - had the person tapped you on the shoulder and asked you to
please pull down the shade (for whatever reason), how would you have
reacted? Be honest with yourself - no need to post your response.

js

Eric Toline

September 26th, 2003, 04:49 PM

Re: PDA privacy & security (was: Re: What would you havedoneabout...

Group: rec.travel.air Date: Fri, Sep 26, 2003, 1:47pm (EDT+4) From:

Responding to my question about what is a PDA, DALing said:

" daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com (DALing)
depending on model, everything from "mail" to "schedule", "memo", "to do
lists", play music, and run computer programs or act as a phone. I use
mine as a digital "day-timer" ( cheap one)"
=================================
Ah, ok. Fortunately my life is not that complicated where I would need
or want one.

thanks, Eric

Da Parrot-chick

September 26th, 2003, 05:37 PM

"Eric Toline" > wrote in message
...
>
> Re: PDA privacy & security (was: Re: What would you havedoneabout...
>
> Group: rec.travel.air Date: Fri, Sep 26, 2003, 1:47pm (EDT+4) From:
>
> Responding to my question about what is a PDA, DALing said:
>
> " daling43[delete]-at-hotmail.com (DALing)
> depending on model, everything from "mail" to "schedule", "memo", "to do
> lists", play music, and run computer programs or act as a phone. I use
> mine as a digital "day-timer" ( cheap one)"
> =================================
> Ah, ok. Fortunately my life is not that complicated where I would need
> or want one.
>
> thanks, Eric

Savor this time in your life, Eric, and count your blessings.

PTRAVEL

September 26th, 2003, 05:53 PM

"Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
m...
> S Viemeister > wrote in message
>...
> > PTRAVEL wrote:
> > >
> > > "S Viemeister" > wrote
> > > > Are you quite sure that it was the passenger behind you? Could a
flight
> > > > attendant have noticed that you were asleep, and thoughtfully closed
the
> > > > blind for you?
> > >
> > > Nope. First, no FA would do something like that.
>
> I've seen them do it time and time again on the eastbound
> transatlantics. After dinner they'll go around and close all the FC
> shades still open (and next to sleeping passengers) knowing full well
> that in just a few hours it's sunrise.

Now that you mention it, you're right -- I've seen this, too. However,
never on domestic US flights.

>
>
> > However, my F seat has 2
> > > windows. The one that had the shade pulled down was the once next to
my
> > > head, closest to the pax in back of me. The one in front of that,
which was
> > > also entirely in space, and easiest for an FA to reach, was left
alone.
> >
> > Oh, well - it was a thought.
>
> Ptravel - had the person tapped you on the shoulder and asked you to
> please pull down the shade (for whatever reason), how would you have
> reacted? Be honest with yourself - no need to post your response.

In this instance, I would have said, "Sorry, no." Another pax' personal
preference doesn't override mine without an Awfully Good Reason. "The sun
is shining in my eyes," is an Awfully Good Reason, as is, "The sun coming in
your window has washed out the video screen making it impossible to view."
"I like it dim in the cabin," isn't.

I'm not sure I get your point. What the passenger did was okay, because if
he had asked me, I would have refused?

>
> js

Eric Toline

September 26th, 2003, 06:04 PM

Re: PDA privacy & security (was: Re: What would youhavedoneabout...

Group: rec.travel.air Date: Fri, Sep 26, 2003, 4:37pm (EDT+4) From:
(Da=A0Parrot-chick)

"Eric Toline" > wrote in message
...

Re: PDA privacy & security (was: Re: What would you havedoneabout...

Ah, ok. Fortunately my life is not that complicated where I would need
or want one.
thanks, Eric

Savor this time in your life, Eric, and count your
blessings.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Ok, if you say so, 1..2...3.....14.....35.....76.......97........

Eric

scott

September 26th, 2003, 07:35 PM

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:53:08 -0700, "PTRAVEL"
> wrote:

>
>In this instance, I would have said, "Sorry, no." Another pax' personal
>preference doesn't override mine without an Awfully Good Reason. "The sun
>is shining in my eyes," is an Awfully Good Reason, as is, "The sun coming in
>your window has washed out the video screen making it impossible to view."
>"I like it dim in the cabin," isn't.
>
>I'm not sure I get your point. What the passenger did was okay, because if
>he had asked me, I would have refused?
>
>>
>> js
>

Just put it back up and forget it. It isn't worth getting upset over
it.

PTRAVEL

September 26th, 2003, 08:37 PM

"scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 09:53:08 -0700, "PTRAVEL"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >In this instance, I would have said, "Sorry, no." Another pax' personal
> >preference doesn't override mine without an Awfully Good Reason. "The
sun
> >is shining in my eyes," is an Awfully Good Reason, as is, "The sun coming
in
> >your window has washed out the video screen making it impossible to
view."
> >"I like it dim in the cabin," isn't.
> >
> >I'm not sure I get your point. What the passenger did was okay, because
if
> >he had asked me, I would have refused?
> >
> >>
> >> js
> >
>
> Just put it back up and forget it. It isn't worth getting upset over
> it.

I wasn't upset, merely irked. This thread was about someone using a
Blackberry during takeoff and landing, but drifted.

>

Jonathan Smith

September 27th, 2003, 11:50 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message >...
> "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> m...
> > S Viemeister > wrote in message
> >...
> > > PTRAVEL wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "S Viemeister" > wrote
> > > > > Are you quite sure that it was the passenger behind you? Could a
> flight
> > > > > attendant have noticed that you were asleep, and thoughtfully closed
> the
> > > > > blind for you?
> > > >
> > > > Nope. First, no FA would do something like that.
> >
> > I've seen them do it time and time again on the eastbound
> > transatlantics. After dinner they'll go around and close all the FC
> > shades still open (and next to sleeping passengers) knowing full well
> > that in just a few hours it's sunrise.
>
> Now that you mention it, you're right -- I've seen this, too. However,
> never on domestic US flights.

Well, it happened on the red eye transcon. Even funnier, it happened
last night on an LA-SYD - what is interesting is that it's a 14 hour
flight and sunrise isn't until the last hour or so - during which time
the house lights are already up and breakfast is being served.

> >
> >
> > > However, my F seat has 2
> > > > windows. The one that had the shade pulled down was the once next to
> my
> > > > head, closest to the pax in back of me. The one in front of that,
> which was
> > > > also entirely in space, and easiest for an FA to reach, was left
> alone.
> > >
> > > Oh, well - it was a thought.
> >
> > Ptravel - had the person tapped you on the shoulder and asked you to
> > please pull down the shade (for whatever reason), how would you have
> > reacted? Be honest with yourself - no need to post your response.
>
> In this instance, I would have said, "Sorry, no." Another pax' personal
> preference doesn't override mine without an Awfully Good Reason. "The sun
> is shining in my eyes," is an Awfully Good Reason, as is, "The sun coming in
> your window has washed out the video screen making it impossible to view."
> "I like it dim in the cabin," isn't.

I thought you were sleeping - so really the question I was asking was
- if you are sleeping and a fellow passenger had two choices - to do
something you wouldn't notice without your approval - or to wake you
up to ask your permission. Personally, I'd rather not be awakened.

>
> I'm not sure I get your point. What the passenger did was okay, because if
> he had asked me, I would have refused?

I would never wake up a fellow passenger without a very good reason.

js

PTRAVEL

September 28th, 2003, 12:30 AM

"Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
m...
> "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
>...

<snip>

> > In this instance, I would have said, "Sorry, no." Another pax' personal
> > preference doesn't override mine without an Awfully Good Reason. "The
sun
> > is shining in my eyes," is an Awfully Good Reason, as is, "The sun
coming in
> > your window has washed out the video screen making it impossible to
view."
> > "I like it dim in the cabin," isn't.
>
> I thought you were sleeping - so really the question I was asking was
> - if you are sleeping and a fellow passenger had two choices - to do
> something you wouldn't notice without your approval - or to wake you
> up to ask your permission. Personally, I'd rather not be awakened.

Oh, I misunderstood. I guess I don't think either is a viable choice. That
passenger didn't have any basis for waking me up, nor did he have any basis
for invading my personal space and changing a shade which the airline
reserved for my use, alone. If he had an Awfully Good Reason, he could have
asked the FA, who would have used his/her judgment as to whether either
imposition was justified. I don't see it as being any different than a
passenger deciding to move my luggage in the overhead bin, or place
something under the seat in front of me. Neither is justified without an
Awfully Good Reason.

>
> >
> > I'm not sure I get your point. What the passenger did was okay, because
if
> > he had asked me, I would have refused?
>
> I would never wake up a fellow passenger without a very good reason.

I had misunderstood the point you were making. I agree -- it is
inappropriate to wake a passenger without an Awfully Good Reason.

>
> js

psmith

September 28th, 2003, 05:04 PM

"mrtravel" > wrote in message
...
> DALing wrote:
>
> > still bad information - cell phone usage was banned because the PHONE
SYSTEM
> > can't handle the fast jumping signal. Repeated experiments on elex
> > interference has shown no effect on properly configured and shielded
> > aircraft comm systems (let alone CONTROLS). FCC not FAA
>
> Cell phones are banned by the FCC, but this has nothing to do with
> safety of the aircraft. I was referring to the FAA ban on the use of
> untested electronic equipment.

Well, the question was: What would you do? My answer is: Mind my own
business-I am not the enforcer of these rules, and it is none of my business
what he does, within reason. I say this because I am confident that this is
not a safety issue. If I were really afraid that this were dangerous,and
that the plane might crash, I would tell the FA.
>
>

mrtravel

September 28th, 2003, 07:58 PM

psmith wrote:
>
> Well, the question was: What would you do? My answer is: Mind my own
> business-I am not the enforcer of these rules, and it is none of my business
> what he does, within reason. I say this because I am confident that this is
> not a safety issue. If I were really afraid that this were dangerous,and
> that the plane might crash, I would tell the FA.
>

\Agreed.. According to the OP, if it were that dangerous, the cabin crew
would be more viligent.

Jonathan Smith

September 28th, 2003, 10:16 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message >...
> "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> >...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > In this instance, I would have said, "Sorry, no." Another pax' personal
> > > preference doesn't override mine without an Awfully Good Reason. "The
> sun
> > > is shining in my eyes," is an Awfully Good Reason, as is, "The sun
> coming in
> > > your window has washed out the video screen making it impossible to
> view."
> > > "I like it dim in the cabin," isn't.
> >
> > I thought you were sleeping - so really the question I was asking was
> > - if you are sleeping and a fellow passenger had two choices - to do
> > something you wouldn't notice without your approval - or to wake you
> > up to ask your permission. Personally, I'd rather not be awakened.
>
> Oh, I misunderstood. I guess I don't think either is a viable choice. That
> passenger didn't have any basis for waking me up, nor did he have any basis
> for invading my personal space and changing a shade which the airline
> reserved for my use, alone.

I would agree that the seat you are sitting in is yours - but the
armrest between seats, the window, and the overhead bins, at least in
my opinio, consitute community space.

> If he had an Awfully Good Reason, he could have
> asked the FA, who would have used his/her judgment as to whether either
> imposition was justified. I don't see it as being any different than a
> passenger deciding to move my luggage in the overhead bin,

Someone here once posted that if luggage is found in the overhead bin
in FC and it blonged to someone in coach, he had the right to have it
removed from "his" space. That wasn't you, was it?

> or place
> something under the seat in front of me. Neither is justified without an
> Awfully Good Reason.

I would agree, your foot space is your foot space.

> > >
> > > I'm not sure I get your point. What the passenger did was okay, because
> if
> > > he had asked me, I would have refused?
> >
> > I would never wake up a fellow passenger without a very good reason.
>
> I had misunderstood the point you were making. I agree -- it is
> inappropriate to wake a passenger without an Awfully Good Reason.

So - that leaves the passenger three alternatives - to have someone do
it for him (either by waking you or asking the FA), to do it himself
(which was the case here) or to endure the inconvenience of having it
open (and the degree of inconvenience is subjective).

Seems the passenger did the most prudent thing. He bothered no one
unnecessarily. Isn't that what you preach?

js

Please invert everything left of the @ to reply

September 28th, 2003, 10:23 PM

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:07:17 GMT, "Da Parrot-chick" > wrote:

>http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1064491052224940.xml?oregonian?lcg

Can't see this - URL broken

--
Nobody but a fool goes into a federal counterrorism operation without duct tape - Richard Preston, THE COBRA EVENT.

PTRAVEL

September 29th, 2003, 12:03 AM

"Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
m...
> "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > In this instance, I would have said, "Sorry, no." Another pax'
personal
> > > > preference doesn't override mine without an Awfully Good Reason.
"The
> > sun
> > > > is shining in my eyes," is an Awfully Good Reason, as is, "The sun
> > coming in
> > > > your window has washed out the video screen making it impossible to
> > view."
> > > > "I like it dim in the cabin," isn't.
> > >
> > > I thought you were sleeping - so really the question I was asking was
> > > - if you are sleeping and a fellow passenger had two choices - to do
> > > something you wouldn't notice without your approval - or to wake you
> > > up to ask your permission. Personally, I'd rather not be awakened.
> >
> > Oh, I misunderstood. I guess I don't think either is a viable choice.
That
> > passenger didn't have any basis for waking me up, nor did he have any
basis
> > for invading my personal space and changing a shade which the airline
> > reserved for my use, alone.
>
> I would agree that the seat you are sitting in is yours - but the
> armrest between seats, the window, and the overhead bins, at least in
> my opinio, consitute community space.

Armrests are shared between the two adjacent seats (except in F). They're
certainly not accessible by any other passenger. Overhead bins are, of
course, "community property," though it's beyond rude when passengers simply
grab the first available space, regardless of how far back they are sitting.
Windows? Absolutely not -- other passengers can't crowd into my space to
look out or, for that matter, require me to raise my shade if I want it
down.

>
> > If he had an Awfully Good Reason, he could have
> > asked the FA, who would have used his/her judgment as to whether either
> > imposition was justified. I don't see it as being any different than a
> > passenger deciding to move my luggage in the overhead bin,
>
> Someone here once posted that if luggage is found in the overhead bin
> in FC and it blonged to someone in coach, he had the right to have it
> removed from "his" space. That wasn't you, was it?

A number of people have posted about this. I've never said I had the
"right" to do this. I said that, particularly when I fly in F, if someone
seated well back in coach has parked his bag in the F overhead bin, I don't
see anything wrong with giving it to an FA to gate check (I've never done
this, as I almost always board early enough to get bin space by my seat).

>
> > or place
> > something under the seat in front of me. Neither is justified without
an
> > Awfully Good Reason.
>
> I would agree, your foot space is your foot space.

Someone did that to me once -- a woman in a bulkhead seat didn't want to put
her bag in the overhead, so she shoved it in the space beneath her seat. Of
course, that was the underseat storage space for me, who was sitting
directly behind her. I removed it and handed it to an FA who explained the
way of the world to the woman.

>
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure I get your point. What the passenger did was okay,
because
> > if
> > > > he had asked me, I would have refused?
> > >
> > > I would never wake up a fellow passenger without a very good reason.
> >
> > I had misunderstood the point you were making. I agree -- it is
> > inappropriate to wake a passenger without an Awfully Good Reason.
>
> So - that leaves the passenger three alternatives - to have someone do
> it for him (either by waking you or asking the FA), to do it himself
> (which was the case here) or to endure the inconvenience of having it
> open (and the degree of inconvenience is subjective).

Exactly right. As I said, there was absolutely no reason to have _my_ shade
down, other than this clown wanted a dark cabin -- there was no sun, no
glare (and no movie). He would, indeed, have no choice but to "endure" the
fact that I like to look out the window.

>
> Seems the passenger did the most prudent thing. He bothered no one
> unnecessarily. Isn't that what you preach?

He bothered me. More to the point, he imposed on me. Not imposing on
others is what I preach (and practice).

>
> js

mrtravel

September 29th, 2003, 07:35 AM

Jonathan Smith wrote:

> "P
>
> I would agree that the seat you are sitting in is yours - but the
> armrest between seats, the window, and the overhead bins, at least in
> my opinio, consitute community space.

Community space, maybe, but that doesn't mean people in economy should
put things in the first class cabin. Extra overhead space is one of the
FC benefits. I also don't think it is fair when the people in the back
of the plane don't take their baggage all of the way to the back.
Instead, they put it in the forward part of economy, which leaves the
people in the forward section of economy not enough places to put their
bags.

Bob Myers

September 29th, 2003, 08:36 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
...
> > > "The handheld is not an FAA-approved electronic device for use on
> > aircrafts.
> > > Switch off the handheld when in an aircraft. The effect of the use of
> the
> > > handheld in an aircraft is unknown. Such use may affect aircraft
> > > instrumentation, communication and performance, may disrupt the
network,
> > and
> > > may be illegal."
> >
> > Writers of user's manuals are not necessarily the best source of
> > legal advice.
>
> This has nothing to do with legal advice. The manufacturer warns against
> using the Blackberry on a plane. Why is there even discussion about this?

Gee, and here I kind of thought the inclusion of the
phrase "may be illegal" would have had something to do
with the law.

> > In this particular case, it is not the FAA that has the
> > real problem, but rather the FCC.
>
> According to you. Not according to RIM.

Yes, I think we all understand at this point who wrote what.
Simply having RIM putting these words in their user's manual
does not make them correct. I have put words in similar
user's manuals myself (you may have missed an earlier posting in
which I mentioned that I have been employed in the computer
industry for quite some time, and am familiar with these issues).
I won't mention my employer's name, as it should also remain
very clear that I do not speak for them here.

> > If the Blackberry's wireless
> > features can (unlike a cell phone) be switched off when the device
> > is otherwise in use, then it poses no more hazard than any other
> > PDA, and would be unlikely in the extreme to affect the aircraft
> > at all.
>
> And other PDAs must be switched off, too. The requirement is that "all
> personal electronic devices," be turned off.

"Other PDAs" are not required to be switched off during most
of the flight. And while all such devices ARE to be switched off
(actually, at the discretion of the airline and their policies) during
the takeoff and landing phases, the actual hazard posed by such
devices IS extremely small. So small as to be negligible.

This IS at the discretion of the airline, by the way, and is not an
FAA mandate. (Cell phone/wireless use, as I mentioned, is under
the FCC, not the FAA, and the requirements on those originate
with that agency.) There is no FAA regulation which absolutely
prohibits the use of "personal electronic devices" during takeoff
and landing. I used to fly, myself, and if I wanted to take off while
I had a (non-wireless) PDA turned on and sitting on the seat next
to be, I was free to do that as "pilot-in-command." (There are now,
in fact, PDAs and PDA-like devices used quite often by private pilots
for managing their checklists, etc..

> > As noted earlier, the concern with the use of cell phones
> > and similar technologies (which is where the Blackberry or
> > other "wireless LAN" hardware gets in trouble) is not due to a
> > potential problem with the aircraft (unless you're in the cockpit,
> > of course...:-)), but rather the potential for disruption of the
> > ground-based network below. And hence the FCC interest.
>
> Again, according to you, not according to RIM.

Again, I know what I wrote, and what RIM wrote; I'm not sure
why you think further distinguishing these is necessary. My comments
come from familiarity with typical emission levels from these
devices, studies which have been performed on their interaction
with avionics, and FAA and FCC regulations. I also understand
why RIM would put verbage like this in their user's manuals. And
please note that I specified that the Blackberry was not a problem
IF the "wireless" parts (i.e., the transmitter) can be switched off
during otherwise "normal PDA" operation.

And, once again - yes, using a Blackberry (IF the wireless mode is
enabled), wireless LANs, cell phones, and similar technology on
board an aircraft IS a bad idea, per FCC regulations. Under FAA
regulations, an airline is further within its rights if it chooses to
restrict
the use of these and other devices during ANY phase of the flight,
since they are at least in large part responsible for determining whether
or not something might constitute a hazard to safe operation, or even
be possibly perceived as such (and therefore a liability headache that
you'd just as soon do without). But from a purely technical
perspective, I can say with confidence that the likelihood of such
devices actually causing a problem with the operation of the aircraft
is so slight as to be negligible. So the bottom line is:

1. Comply with what the airline asks you to do, always, but...

2. If you happen to see the person next to you using a PDA or some
such, don't over-react. You are NOT about to experience a horrible
death in a tragic, Solitaire-caused aviation disaster.

Bob M.

Jonathan Smith

October 2nd, 2003, 12:06 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message >...
> "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> > > > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > In this instance, I would have said, "Sorry, no." Another pax'
> personal
> > > > > preference doesn't override mine without an Awfully Good Reason.
> "The
> sun
> > > > > is shining in my eyes," is an Awfully Good Reason, as is, "The sun
> coming in
> > > > > your window has washed out the video screen making it impossible to
> view."
> > > > > "I like it dim in the cabin," isn't.
> > > >
> > > > I thought you were sleeping - so really the question I was asking was
> > > > - if you are sleeping and a fellow passenger had two choices - to do
> > > > something you wouldn't notice without your approval - or to wake you
> > > > up to ask your permission. Personally, I'd rather not be awakened.
> > >
> > > Oh, I misunderstood. I guess I don't think either is a viable choice.
> That
> > > passenger didn't have any basis for waking me up, nor did he have any
> basis
> > > for invading my personal space and changing a shade which the airline
> > > reserved for my use, alone.
> >
> > I would agree that the seat you are sitting in is yours - but the
> > armrest between seats, the window, and the overhead bins, at least in
> > my opinio, consitute community space.
>
> Armrests are shared between the two adjacent seats (except in F). They're
> certainly not accessible by any other passenger.

They are shared because of their proximity to more than one passenger.

> Overhead bins are, of
> course, "community property," though it's beyond rude when passengers simply
> grab the first available space, regardless of how far back they are sitting.

Why? Because it is less convenient for you though more convenient for
them?

> Windows? Absolutely not -- other passengers can't crowd into my space to
> look out or, for that matter, require me to raise my shade if I want it
> down.

Or lower it if you want it up? If your shade is up - can I look out
of your window, or do I need to ask if it's ok first?

> >
> > > If he had an Awfully Good Reason, he could have
> > > asked the FA, who would have used his/her judgment as to whether either
> > > imposition was justified. I don't see it as being any different than a
> > > passenger deciding to move my luggage in the overhead bin,
> >
> > Someone here once posted that if luggage is found in the overhead bin
> > in FC and it blonged to someone in coach, he had the right to have it
> > removed from "his" space. That wasn't you, was it?
>
> A number of people have posted about this. I've never said I had the
> "right" to do this. I said that, particularly when I fly in F, if someone
> seated well back in coach has parked his bag in the F overhead bin, I don't
> see anything wrong with giving it to an FA to gate check (I've never done
> this, as I almost always board early enough to get bin space by my seat).

But didn't you say that it is inconsiderate to move other peoples
belongings in the overhead bin?

I am getting a little confused with your sense of what is and isn't
appropriate. Seems the rules change based on whether or not it is
convenient for you.

> >
> > > or place
> > > something under the seat in front of me. Neither is justified without
> an
> > > Awfully Good Reason.
> >
> > I would agree, your foot space is your foot space.
>
> Someone did that to me once -- a woman in a bulkhead seat didn't want to put
> her bag in the overhead, so she shoved it in the space beneath her seat. Of
> course, that was the underseat storage space for me, who was sitting
> directly behind her. I removed it and handed it to an FA who explained the
> way of the world to the woman.

Perhaps she thought that the space under HER seat belonged to her?

> >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not sure I get your point. What the passenger did was okay,
> because
> if
> > > > > he had asked me, I would have refused?
> > > >
> > > > I would never wake up a fellow passenger without a very good reason.
> > >
> > > I had misunderstood the point you were making. I agree -- it is
> > > inappropriate to wake a passenger without an Awfully Good Reason.
> >
> > So - that leaves the passenger three alternatives - to have someone do
> > it for him (either by waking you or asking the FA), to do it himself
> > (which was the case here) or to endure the inconvenience of having it
> > open (and the degree of inconvenience is subjective).
>
> Exactly right. As I said, there was absolutely no reason to have _my_ shade
> down, other than this clown wanted a dark cabin

Why is he a clown to want a darkened cabin? Personally, I prefer a
darkened cabin - the reason is quite simple - you can always add light
if you want it but it is much more challenging to get rid of it. I
can read, write, or work using my personal light - no problem.

> -- there was no sun, no
> glare (and no movie). He would, indeed, have no choice but to "endure" the
> fact that I like to look out the window.

If I remember right, you were sleeping at the time. I would have
fully agreed with you that had you been using the window at the time
he should have asked and you would have been well within your "rights"
to have refused. But look, you were asleep - so instead of waking
you, he closed the shade. You weren't using the window and he was
bothered by the shade being open. You didn't lose anything and he
gained. Why the stick up your butt?

> >
> > Seems the passenger did the most prudent thing. He bothered no one
> > unnecessarily. Isn't that what you preach?
>
> He bothered me. More to the point, he imposed on me. Not imposing on
> others is what I preach (and practice).

How did he impose on you? You were asleep.

"I nodded off at one point. I awoke to
find that the person seated behind me had reached around my seat and
pulled
my shade down. What chutzpah! Where do these people get nerve?
Note:
there was no movie, and no sun. This guy simply wanted a dark cabin."

The guy was inconvenienced by your shade being open and rather than
wake you OR rather than "endure" the inconvenience, elected to close
it. Big deal. This is somehow an "impostion" on YOU? Well, at least
you are consistent - the mere presence of children is an
inconveneince, so why not the mere presence of other passengers.

js

PTRAVEL

October 2nd, 2003, 04:22 PM

"Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
m...
> "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
>...

<snip>

> > Armrests are shared between the two adjacent seats (except in F).
They're
> > certainly not accessible by any other passenger.
>
> They are shared because of their proximity to more than one passenger.

Right, but they're not shared with other passengers. I once had someone sit
behind me who tried to put their bare feet on the arm rest. I realized it
when I looked down and saw a dirty foot nudging my arm. Needless to say, I
wasn't amused.

>
> > Overhead bins are, of
> > course, "community property," though it's beyond rude when passengers
simply
> > grab the first available space, regardless of how far back they are
sitting.
>
> Why? Because it is less convenient for you though more convenient for
> them?

No. Because it forces people in the front to put their bags in the back,
and then have to flight their way upstream to get back to their seats during
boarding. And, of course, the process is repeated upon disembarking. One
person's selfishness and laziness disrupts the entire boarding and
disembarking process.

>
> > Windows? Absolutely not -- other passengers can't crowd into my space
to
> > look out or, for that matter, require me to raise my shade if I want it
> > down.
>
> Or lower it if you want it up? If your shade is up - can I look out
> of your window, or do I need to ask if it's ok first?

You're not welcome to stand in the space between my knees and the seat in
front of me and look out. Don't even bother asking.

>
> > >
> > > > If he had an Awfully Good Reason, he could have
> > > > asked the FA, who would have used his/her judgment as to whether
either
> > > > imposition was justified. I don't see it as being any different
than a
> > > > passenger deciding to move my luggage in the overhead bin,
> > >
> > > Someone here once posted that if luggage is found in the overhead bin
> > > in FC and it blonged to someone in coach, he had the right to have it
> > > removed from "his" space. That wasn't you, was it?
> >
> > A number of people have posted about this. I've never said I had the
> > "right" to do this. I said that, particularly when I fly in F, if
someone
> > seated well back in coach has parked his bag in the F overhead bin, I
don't
> > see anything wrong with giving it to an FA to gate check (I've never
done
> > this, as I almost always board early enough to get bin space by my
seat).
>
> But didn't you say that it is inconsiderate to move other peoples
> belongings in the overhead bin?

No, I didn't. I said it's inconsiderate for people seated in the back to
use front bins. It is, however, inconsiderate to try to force your bag into
an already-full bin, smashing everyone else's carryons in the process.

>
> I am getting a little confused with your sense of what is and isn't
> appropriate. Seems the rules change based on whether or not it is
> convenient for you.

Not even close.

>
> > >
> > > > or place
> > > > something under the seat in front of me. Neither is justified
without
> > an
> > > > Awfully Good Reason.
> > >
> > > I would agree, your foot space is your foot space.
> >
> > Someone did that to me once -- a woman in a bulkhead seat didn't want to
put
> > her bag in the overhead, so she shoved it in the space beneath her seat.
Of
> > course, that was the underseat storage space for me, who was sitting
> > directly behind her. I removed it and handed it to an FA who explained
the
> > way of the world to the woman.
>
> Perhaps she thought that the space under HER seat belonged to her?

She obviously thought that, but she was wrong, as explained to her by the
FA. I suppose it's possible that there are people out there who have never
been near an aircraft, or seen a movie or television show about an aircraft,
who think that, metal bar barrier notwithstanding, the space under their own
seat is theirs to use.

>
> > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure I get your point. What the passenger did was okay,
> > because
> > if
> > > > > > he had asked me, I would have refused?
> > > > >
> > > > > I would never wake up a fellow passenger without a very good
reason.
> > > >
> > > > I had misunderstood the point you were making. I agree -- it is
> > > > inappropriate to wake a passenger without an Awfully Good Reason.
> > >
> > > So - that leaves the passenger three alternatives - to have someone do
> > > it for him (either by waking you or asking the FA), to do it himself
> > > (which was the case here) or to endure the inconvenience of having it
> > > open (and the degree of inconvenience is subjective).
> >
> > Exactly right. As I said, there was absolutely no reason to have _my_
shade
> > down, other than this clown wanted a dark cabin
>
> Why is he a clown to want a darkened cabin?

He was a clown because (1) he thought that his preference for a darkened
cabin overrode everyone else in the F section, and (2) he thought it was
perfectly alright to stick his arm in my space and pull down my shade.

> Personally, I prefer a
> darkened cabin - the reason is quite simple - you can always add light
> if you want it but it is much more challenging to get rid of it. I
> can read, write, or work using my personal light - no problem.

Then, whenever you fly, you should pull down your own shade.

>
> > -- there was no sun, no
> > glare (and no movie). He would, indeed, have no choice but to "endure"
the
> > fact that I like to look out the window.
>
> If I remember right, you were sleeping at the time.

Yep. And then I woke up.

>I would have
> fully agreed with you that had you been using the window at the time
> he should have asked and you would have been well within your "rights"
> to have refused. But look, you were asleep - so instead of waking
> you, he closed the shade. You weren't using the window and he was
> bothered by the shade being open. You didn't lose anything and he
> gained. Why the stick up your butt?

When I get up to use the john, I don't use my seat or pillow, either. Do
you think it's okay to sit in someone else's seat and take a quick snooze
with your head on their pillow?

>
> > >
> > > Seems the passenger did the most prudent thing. He bothered no one
> > > unnecessarily. Isn't that what you preach?
> >
> > He bothered me. More to the point, he imposed on me. Not imposing on
> > others is what I preach (and practice).
>
> How did he impose on you? You were asleep.

He pulled down my shade, which he had no right to do. I also woke up, most
likely because of his intrusion.

>
> "I nodded off at one point. I awoke to
> find that the person seated behind me had reached around my seat and
> pulled
> my shade down. What chutzpah! Where do these people get nerve?
> Note:
> there was no movie, and no sun. This guy simply wanted a dark cabin."

Yes, that's what I wrote.

>
> The guy was inconvenienced by your shade being open and rather than
> wake you OR rather than "endure" the inconvenience, elected to close
> it. Big deal. This is somehow an "impostion" on YOU?

Of course. He knew I wanted my shade up -- I had left it up. He imposed
his preference on me by intruding into my space. This isn't rocket science.
I think you just like to be contrary.

>Well, at least
> you are consistent - the mere presence of children is an
> inconveneince, so why not the mere presence of other passengers.

Ah, I knew it! This has nothing to do with shades and bins at all. You
didn't like my objection to screaming infants and bratty children on planes,
and still haven't gotten over it.

I don't object to the "mere presence" of anyone, child or otherwise. I
object to unwarranted imposition. I've been both consistent and clear about
this. Your hyperbole that you attribute to me is just that -- your
hyperbole, and doesn't represent views that I hold. It's a cheap tactic
(and that's a euphemism) to make something up, attribute it to me, and then
attack it as supposedly representing my views.

>
> js

Jonathan Smith

October 3rd, 2003, 06:58 AM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message >...
> "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> >...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Armrests are shared between the two adjacent seats (except in F).
> They're
> > > certainly not accessible by any other passenger.
> >
> > They are shared because of their proximity to more than one passenger.
>
> Right, but they're not shared with other passengers. I once had someone sit
> behind me who tried to put their bare feet on the arm rest. I realized it
> when I looked down and saw a dirty foot nudging my arm. Needless to say, I
> wasn't amused.
>
> >
> > > Overhead bins are, of
> > > course, "community property," though it's beyond rude when passengers
> simply
> > > grab the first available space, regardless of how far back they are
> sitting.
> >
> > Why? Because it is less convenient for you though more convenient for
> > them?
>
> No. Because it forces people in the front to put their bags in the back,
> and then have to flight their way upstream to get back to their seats during
> boarding. And, of course, the process is repeated upon disembarking. One
> person's selfishness and laziness disrupts the entire boarding and
> disembarking process.

Bins are shared space. Deal with it. Would I do this? No, of course
not. How would I react if I saw this being done? Probably less
gracefully than you might expect. The point remains - you are in a
public place and you don't have any rights different than anyone else.

> >
> > > Windows? Absolutely not -- other passengers can't crowd into my space
> to
> > > look out or, for that matter, require me to raise my shade if I want it
> > > down.
> >
> > Or lower it if you want it up? If your shade is up - can I look out
> > of your window, or do I need to ask if it's ok first?
>
> You're not welcome to stand in the space between my knees and the seat in
> front of me and look out. Don't even bother asking.

The floor between your feet is yours during the flight.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > If he had an Awfully Good Reason, he could have
> > > > > asked the FA, who would have used his/her judgment as to whether
> either
> > > > > imposition was justified. I don't see it as being any different
> than a
> > > > > passenger deciding to move my luggage in the overhead bin,
> > > >
> > > > Someone here once posted that if luggage is found in the overhead bin
> > > > in FC and it blonged to someone in coach, he had the right to have it
> > > > removed from "his" space. That wasn't you, was it?
> > >
> > > A number of people have posted about this. I've never said I had the
> > > "right" to do this. I said that, particularly when I fly in F, if
> someone
> > > seated well back in coach has parked his bag in the F overhead bin, I
> don't
> > > see anything wrong with giving it to an FA to gate check (I've never
> done
> > > this, as I almost always board early enough to get bin space by my
> seat).
> >
> > But didn't you say that it is inconsiderate to move other peoples
> > belongings in the overhead bin?
>
> No, I didn't.

Yes, you did - though you did couch it in the Awfully Good reason
framework. I guess moving someone's luggage because it is in YOUR bin
is an Awfully Good reason.

>I said it's inconsiderate for people seated in the back to
> use front bins. It is, however, inconsiderate to try to force your bag into
> an already-full bin, smashing everyone else's carryons in the process.

OK - so?

> >
> > I am getting a little confused with your sense of what is and isn't
> > appropriate. Seems the rules change based on whether or not it is
> > convenient for you.
>
> Not even close.

Too close that you are having a problem seeing it. You have provided,
consistently, your subjective interpretation of what is proper or
improper. When others disagree, you simply expound on it more
providing more and more scenarios. Yet you continually fail to
understand that your perspectives are not universally shared and as
you build more and more scenarios you come up with more and more
examples of exceptions - exceptions that at face have little
difference but you justify the behavior because it is consistent with
what you do irrespective of what you may have said earlier. The bit
about moving other's luggage is just one such example.

> > > >
> > > > > or place
> > > > > something under the seat in front of me. Neither is justified
> without
> an
> > > > > Awfully Good Reason.
> > > >
> > > > I would agree, your foot space is your foot space.
> > >
> > > Someone did that to me once -- a woman in a bulkhead seat didn't want to
> put
> > > her bag in the overhead, so she shoved it in the space beneath her seat.
> Of
> > > course, that was the underseat storage space for me, who was sitting
> > > directly behind her. I removed it and handed it to an FA who explained
> the
> > > way of the world to the woman.
> >
> > Perhaps she thought that the space under HER seat belonged to her?
>
> She obviously thought that, but she was wrong, as explained to her by the
> FA. I suppose it's possible that there are people out there who have never
> been near an aircraft, or seen a movie or television show about an aircraft,
> who think that, metal bar barrier notwithstanding, the space under their own
> seat is theirs to use.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm not sure I get your point. What the passenger did was okay,
> > > because
> > > if
> > > > > > > he had asked me, I would have refused?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would never wake up a fellow passenger without a very good
> reason.
> > > > >
> > > > > I had misunderstood the point you were making. I agree -- it is
> > > > > inappropriate to wake a passenger without an Awfully Good Reason.
> > > >
> > > > So - that leaves the passenger three alternatives - to have someone do
> > > > it for him (either by waking you or asking the FA), to do it himself
> > > > (which was the case here) or to endure the inconvenience of having it
> > > > open (and the degree of inconvenience is subjective).
> > >
> > > Exactly right. As I said, there was absolutely no reason to have _my_
> shade
> > > down, other than this clown wanted a dark cabin
> >
> > Why is he a clown to want a darkened cabin?
>
> He was a clown because (1) he thought that his preference for a darkened
> cabin overrode everyone else in the F section, and (2) he thought it was
> perfectly alright to stick his arm in my space and pull down my shade.

Your space - too funny.

> > Personally, I prefer a
> > darkened cabin - the reason is quite simple - you can always add light
> > if you want it but it is much more challenging to get rid of it. I
> > can read, write, or work using my personal light - no problem.
>
> Then, whenever you fly, you should pull down your own shade.

Generally I will under two conditions - when I plan to sleep knowing
that the sun will rise before I wake up and when asked - either by the
flight attendant or a fellow passenger. I have never been asked to
close my shade without a reason. I have never had a shade closed on
me when I was using the window.

> >
> > > -- there was no sun, no
> > > glare (and no movie). He would, indeed, have no choice but to "endure"
> the
> > > fact that I like to look out the window.
> >
> > If I remember right, you were sleeping at the time.
>
> Yep. And then I woke up.

So, open the shade.

> >I would have
> > fully agreed with you that had you been using the window at the time
> > he should have asked and you would have been well within your "rights"
> > to have refused. But look, you were asleep - so instead of waking
> > you, he closed the shade. You weren't using the window and he was
> > bothered by the shade being open. You didn't lose anything and he
> > gained. Why the stick up your butt?
>
> When I get up to use the john, I don't use my seat or pillow, either. Do
> you think it's okay to sit in someone else's seat and take a quick snooze
> with your head on their pillow?

I think it was already agreed that the seat you are assigned is yours
to do with what you like without fear of having someone else use it.

> >
> > > >
> > > > Seems the passenger did the most prudent thing. He bothered no one
> > > > unnecessarily. Isn't that what you preach?
> > >
> > > He bothered me. More to the point, he imposed on me. Not imposing on
> > > others is what I preach (and practice).
> >
> > How did he impose on you? You were asleep.
>
> He pulled down my shade, which he had no right to do. I also woke up, most
> likely because of his intrusion.

no "right" to do?

> >
> > "I nodded off at one point. I awoke to
> > find that the person seated behind me had reached around my seat and
> > pulled
> > my shade down. What chutzpah! Where do these people get nerve?
> > Note:
> > there was no movie, and no sun. This guy simply wanted a dark cabin."
>
> Yes, that's what I wrote.
>
> >
> > The guy was inconvenienced by your shade being open and rather than
> > wake you OR rather than "endure" the inconvenience, elected to close
> > it. Big deal. This is somehow an "impostion" on YOU?
>
> Of course. He knew I wanted my shade up -- I had left it up. He imposed
> his preference on me by intruding into my space. This isn't rocket science.
> I think you just like to be contrary.

Not at all - here's a scenario from two nights ago. On a very long
haul in the dark. I'm sitting in the A seat, he's in the J seat - top
deck 747. He's reading, I'm watching a movie. His personal light
(not the overhead) is on. He falls asleep bumping the personal light
which is now shinning up and across the cabin. The flight attendant,
at the request of another passenger, goes and turns it off. Had she
not done it, I would have - seeing how the control is on the armrest.
Would I have been wrong in doing this? Would you have suggested that
I wake the man up and ask him to turn off is light?

> >Well, at least
> > you are consistent - the mere presence of children is an
> > inconveneince, so why not the mere presence of other passengers.
>
> Ah, I knew it! This has nothing to do with shades and bins at all. You
> didn't like my objection to screaming infants and bratty children on planes,
> and still haven't gotten over it.

I don't like your attitude toward a lot of things - so?

> I don't object to the "mere presence" of anyone, child or otherwise. I
> object to unwarranted imposition. I've been both consistent and clear about
> this. Your hyperbole that you attribute to me is just that -- your
> hyperbole, and doesn't represent views that I hold. It's a cheap tactic
> (and that's a euphemism) to make something up, attribute it to me, and then
> attack it as supposedly representing my views.

You object to anything that you think impacts on your "rights".

Not that you are at all interested in extending these "rights" to
others.

js

mrtravel

October 3rd, 2003, 07:57 AM

AJC wrote:

> Apparently not, or at least not in the US. There was discussion on
> this newsgroup several years ago concerning an incident on a US
> domestic flight where a passenger was obliged by the crew to have one
> item of another passenger's cabin baggage under the seat in front of
> him. Apparently the crew were within their rights to insist on this as
> there was no other available space. A google search may find the
> thread, or maybe someone else here can remember more details.
> --==++AJC++==--

Did he ever mention if he complaint to the airline later?
Why should a passenger have to put up with losing legroom because
someone else brought too much stuff on the plane?

There was available space.. That is why they have nifty gate check tags.

PTRAVEL

October 3rd, 2003, 03:42 PM

"Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
m...
> "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
>...

<snip>

> > No. Because it forces people in the front to put their bags in the
back,
> > and then have to flight their way upstream to get back to their seats
during
> > boarding. And, of course, the process is repeated upon disembarking.
One
> > person's selfishness and laziness disrupts the entire boarding and
> > disembarking process.
>
> Bins are shared space. Deal with it. Would I do this? No, of course
> not. How would I react if I saw this being done? Probably less
> gracefully than you might expect. The point remains - you are in a
> public place and you don't have any rights different than anyone else.

There you go talking about "rights," again. This has nothing to do with
rights -- only courtesy and consideration. Whether or not someone has the
"right" to do this is meaningless -- it is rude and selfish.

>
> > >
> > > > Windows? Absolutely not -- other passengers can't crowd into my
space
> > to
> > > > look out or, for that matter, require me to raise my shade if I want
it
> > > > down.
> > >
> > > Or lower it if you want it up? If your shade is up - can I look out
> > > of your window, or do I need to ask if it's ok first?
> >
> > You're not welcome to stand in the space between my knees and the seat
in
> > front of me and look out. Don't even bother asking.
>
> The floor between your feet is yours during the flight.

But not the shade? Oh, please.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > If he had an Awfully Good Reason, he could have
> > > > > > asked the FA, who would have used his/her judgment as to whether
> > either
> > > > > > imposition was justified. I don't see it as being any different
> > than a
> > > > > > passenger deciding to move my luggage in the overhead bin,
> > > > >
> > > > > Someone here once posted that if luggage is found in the overhead
bin
> > > > > in FC and it blonged to someone in coach, he had the right to have
it
> > > > > removed from "his" space. That wasn't you, was it?
> > > >
> > > > A number of people have posted about this. I've never said I had
the
> > > > "right" to do this. I said that, particularly when I fly in F, if
> > someone
> > > > seated well back in coach has parked his bag in the F overhead bin,
I
> > don't
> > > > see anything wrong with giving it to an FA to gate check (I've never
> > done
> > > > this, as I almost always board early enough to get bin space by my
> > seat).
> > >
> > > But didn't you say that it is inconsiderate to move other peoples
> > > belongings in the overhead bin?
> >
> > No, I didn't.
>
> Yes, you did - though you did couch it in the Awfully Good reason
> framework. I guess moving someone's luggage because it is in YOUR bin
> is an Awfully Good reason.

I never said that moving someone's luggage because it was in "my" bin
(whatever that means) is acceptable. What I DID say was, if all the bins in
my immediate area were full, and any bin contained someone's carryon who was
seated in the back of the plane and I was in F, I think it appropriate to
ask the FA to gate check that carryon.

>
> >I said it's inconsiderate for people seated in the back to
> > use front bins. It is, however, inconsiderate to try to force your bag
into
> > an already-full bin, smashing everyone else's carryons in the process.
>
> OK - so?

There're a lot of different kinds of inconsideration one can encounter on a
flight. They're all wrong.

>
> > >
> > > I am getting a little confused with your sense of what is and isn't
> > > appropriate. Seems the rules change based on whether or not it is
> > > convenient for you.
> >
> > Not even close.
>
> Too close that you are having a problem seeing it. You have provided,
> consistently, your subjective interpretation of what is proper or
> improper. When others disagree, you simply expound on it more
> providing more and more scenarios. Yet you continually fail to
> understand that your perspectives are not universally shared and as
> you build more and more scenarios you come up with more and more
> examples of exceptions - exceptions that at face have little
> difference but you justify the behavior because it is consistent with
> what you do irrespective of what you may have said earlier. The bit
> about moving other's luggage is just one such example.

You're the only one, here, who thinks it's okay for other people to intrude
into your seat space and pull down your shade.

<snip>

> > > Why is he a clown to want a darkened cabin?
> >
> > He was a clown because (1) he thought that his preference for a darkened
> > cabin overrode everyone else in the F section, and (2) he thought it was
> > perfectly alright to stick his arm in my space and pull down my shade.
>
> Your space - too funny.

That's right -- my space.

>
> > > Personally, I prefer a
> > > darkened cabin - the reason is quite simple - you can always add light
> > > if you want it but it is much more challenging to get rid of it. I
> > > can read, write, or work using my personal light - no problem.
> >
> > Then, whenever you fly, you should pull down your own shade.
>
> Generally I will under two conditions - when I plan to sleep knowing
> that the sun will rise before I wake up and when asked - either by the
> flight attendant or a fellow passenger. I have never been asked to
> close my shade without a reason. I have never had a shade closed on
> me when I was using the window.

I've had it happen twice, once as I described in this post, and once when a
coach passenger snaked his arm around the bulkhead and into my last-row-in-F
space and pulled down my shade. When I pushed it back up, he pushed it down
again. This happened several times, until I called the FA and told her what
was happening, and asked her to tell the bulkhead coach pax that, if he did
it one more time, I'd ask the pilot to have the police meet the plane when
we land. She told him, and the nuisance was abated.

>
> > >
> > > > -- there was no sun, no
> > > > glare (and no movie). He would, indeed, have no choice but to
"endure"
> > the
> > > > fact that I like to look out the window.
> > >
> > > If I remember right, you were sleeping at the time.
> >
> > Yep. And then I woke up.
>
> So, open the shade.

Presumably, I woke up because of the moron intruding into my space and
pulling down the shade. I sleep extremely lightly on planes, and it takes
very little change in the environment to wake me up.

>
> > >I would have
> > > fully agreed with you that had you been using the window at the time
> > > he should have asked and you would have been well within your "rights"
> > > to have refused. But look, you were asleep - so instead of waking
> > > you, he closed the shade. You weren't using the window and he was
> > > bothered by the shade being open. You didn't lose anything and he
> > > gained. Why the stick up your butt?
> >
> > When I get up to use the john, I don't use my seat or pillow, either.
Do
> > you think it's okay to sit in someone else's seat and take a quick
snooze
> > with your head on their pillow?
>
> I think it was already agreed that the seat you are assigned is yours
> to do with what you like without fear of having someone else use it.

So why do you distinguish between the seat and the window? It's all your
space.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Seems the passenger did the most prudent thing. He bothered no
one
> > > > > unnecessarily. Isn't that what you preach?
> > > >
> > > > He bothered me. More to the point, he imposed on me. Not imposing
on
> > > > others is what I preach (and practice).
> > >
> > > How did he impose on you? You were asleep.
> >
> > He pulled down my shade, which he had no right to do. I also woke up,
most
> > likely because of his intrusion.
>
> no "right" to do?

That's correct -- no "right," as in no entitlement.

>
> > >
> > > "I nodded off at one point. I awoke to
> > > find that the person seated behind me had reached around my seat and
> > > pulled
> > > my shade down. What chutzpah! Where do these people get nerve?
> > > Note:
> > > there was no movie, and no sun. This guy simply wanted a dark cabin."
> >
> > Yes, that's what I wrote.
> >
> > >
> > > The guy was inconvenienced by your shade being open and rather than
> > > wake you OR rather than "endure" the inconvenience, elected to close
> > > it. Big deal. This is somehow an "impostion" on YOU?
> >
> > Of course. He knew I wanted my shade up -- I had left it up. He
imposed
> > his preference on me by intruding into my space. This isn't rocket
science.
> > I think you just like to be contrary.
>
> Not at all - here's a scenario from two nights ago. On a very long
> haul in the dark. I'm sitting in the A seat, he's in the J seat - top
> deck 747. He's reading, I'm watching a movie. His personal light
> (not the overhead) is on. He falls asleep bumping the personal light
> which is now shinning up and across the cabin. The flight attendant,
> at the request of another passenger, goes and turns it off. Had she
> not done it, I would have - seeing how the control is on the armrest.
> Would I have been wrong in doing this? Would you have suggested that
> I wake the man up and ask him to turn off is light?

No. First of all, the FA handled the situation, which is fine. Self-help
remedies that involve intruding into someone else's space are not. Second,
according to your scenario, he had accidently bumped the light so that it
was shining across the entire cabin, disturbing others. The FA was quite
justified in turning off the light.

>
> > >Well, at least
> > > you are consistent - the mere presence of children is an
> > > inconveneince, so why not the mere presence of other passengers.
> >
> > Ah, I knew it! This has nothing to do with shades and bins at all. You
> > didn't like my objection to screaming infants and bratty children on
planes,
> > and still haven't gotten over it.
>
> I don't like your attitude toward a lot of things - so?

So . . . I think your objections are more the result of your dislike of me
than anything else.

>
> > I don't object to the "mere presence" of anyone, child or otherwise. I
> > object to unwarranted imposition. I've been both consistent and clear
about
> > this. Your hyperbole that you attribute to me is just that -- your
> > hyperbole, and doesn't represent views that I hold. It's a cheap tactic
> > (and that's a euphemism) to make something up, attribute it to me, and
then
> > attack it as supposedly representing my views.
>
> You object to anything that you think impacts on your "rights".

You're the only person in this thread who has talked about rights. I've
always, and only, talked about courtesy.

>
> Not that you are at all interested in extending these "rights" to
> others.

Again, you make up positions that I don't hold and then attack them. It's
dishonest and more than a little childish.

>
> js

PTRAVEL

October 3rd, 2003, 03:42 PM

"AJC" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 06:57:36 GMT, mrtravel >
> wrote:
>
> >AJC wrote:
> >
> >> Apparently not, or at least not in the US. There was discussion on
> >> this newsgroup several years ago concerning an incident on a US
> >> domestic flight where a passenger was obliged by the crew to have one
> >> item of another passenger's cabin baggage under the seat in front of
> >> him. Apparently the crew were within their rights to insist on this as
> >> there was no other available space. A google search may find the
> >> thread, or maybe someone else here can remember more details.
> >> --==++AJC++==--
> >
> >Did he ever mention if he complaint to the airline later?
> >Why should a passenger have to put up with losing legroom because
> >someone else brought too much stuff on the plane?
> >
> >There was available space.. That is why they have nifty gate check tags.
> >
> >
>
> I can't remember any more details, I was flabbergasted when I read the
> story. Hopefully some of the other 'oldtimers' here can help out.

I remember that thread. I think it happened to Ellen.

> --==++AJC++==--

October 3rd, 2003, 05:54 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message >...
> "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> m...
[snip]
> >I would have
> > fully agreed with you that had you been using the window at the time
> > he should have asked and you would have been well within your "rights"
> > to have refused. But look, you were asleep - so instead of waking
> > you, he closed the shade. You weren't using the window and he was
> > bothered by the shade being open. You didn't lose anything and he
> > gained. Why the stick up your butt?
>
> When I get up to use the john, I don't use my seat or pillow, either. Do
> you think it's okay to sit in someone else's seat and take a quick snooze
> with your head on their pillow?

First, answer the question. Inquiring minds want to know. But second,
yes, I've been known to utilize an empty seat next to me whilst the
passenger was gone to do all manner of things. (They aren't gone
long so naps are outta the question but...)

[snip]
> > How did he impose on you? You were asleep.
>
> He pulled down my shade, which he had no right to do. I also woke up, most
> likely because of his intrusion.
[snip]

This part I tend to agree with. I've been in a similar situation and
have tended to restrain myself for that very reason. Pretty hard to
reach over and close it without waking someone.

But I lived in a large family, 9 folks in a 5 bedroom house. Old
style, no "family" room. All space in the house was constantly in
shared use. Kinda lose the whole "my space/your space" concept
in that situation. Ya tend to learn the age old lesson of sharing
everything. To be honest, if I became aware that light was glaring
on the passenger, I'd be the one to close it, probably without being
asked. If I wanted to peer out, I'd stick my own head in there
to handle the issue. Folks, we're packed in like sardines for several
hours. One for all and all for one ya know?

PTRAVEL

October 3rd, 2003, 06:16 PM

"me" > wrote in message
om...
> "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> > m...
> [snip]
> > >I would have
> > > fully agreed with you that had you been using the window at the time
> > > he should have asked and you would have been well within your "rights"
> > > to have refused. But look, you were asleep - so instead of waking
> > > you, he closed the shade. You weren't using the window and he was
> > > bothered by the shade being open. You didn't lose anything and he
> > > gained. Why the stick up your butt?
> >
> > When I get up to use the john, I don't use my seat or pillow, either.
Do
> > you think it's okay to sit in someone else's seat and take a quick
snooze
> > with your head on their pillow?
>
>
> First, answer the question. Inquiring minds want to know.

The question was obviously rhetorical. Insisting on an answer would
strongly suggest what you have up your butt.

> But second,
> yes, I've been known to utilize an empty seat next to me whilst the
> passenger was gone to do all manner of things. (They aren't gone
> long so naps are outta the question but...)

Which is non-responsive to my question. I have no idea what "utilize" means
in the context in which you've used it. Did you put your magazine on it?
Your carryon? Did you sit in someone else's seat during a rough patch of
turbulence? Those circumstances are either non-intrusive or justified under
the circumstances. Did you "utilize" someone else's seat by making yourself
comfy with their pillow and blanket? If so, you imposed.

>
> [snip]
> > > How did he impose on you? You were asleep.
> >
> > He pulled down my shade, which he had no right to do. I also woke up,
most
> > likely because of his intrusion.
> [snip]
>
> This part I tend to agree with. I've been in a similar situation and
> have tended to restrain myself for that very reason. Pretty hard to
> reach over and close it without waking someone.

Earlier in this thread I explained why I like to keep the shade open. I've
been on flights were my assigned "window" seat was actually next to
windowless part of the fuselage (some 767s are like this). The only way I'd
be able to see out would be peering between the seat and the fuselage at the
window next to the pax in front of me. If that pax wanted his window down,
for whatever reason, I would never dream of snaking my hand between the
fuselage and the seat and raising it.

>
> But I lived in a large family, 9 folks in a 5 bedroom house. Old
> style, no "family" room. All space in the house was constantly in
> shared use. Kinda lose the whole "my space/your space" concept
> in that situation. Ya tend to learn the age old lesson of sharing
> everything. To be honest, if I became aware that light was glaring
> on the passenger, I'd be the one to close it, probably without being
> asked.

I would as well. The light wasn't glaring on the passenger. That's the
whole point -- there was no sun in his eyes, there was no movie playing, in
short there was no reason to have my shade down other than that passengers
personal preference to have a dark cabin. My personal preference is to have
a light cabin. The compromise is the one designed by the aircraft
manufacturer -- individually-controlled shades: he could keep his down, and
I could keep mine up.

> If I wanted to peer out, I'd stick my own head in there
> to handle the issue.

Not sure I follow that. You'd stick your head in someone else's space?
(that doesn't sound right). Sorry, I don't buy it. Flying out of SNA
heading to the east coast, most flight paths that head towards a mid-country
hub take you very close to Meteor Crater in Arizona. I've been on a lot of
flights in which the pilot would announce that the crater can be seen off
the right side of the aircraft. I have, on occassion, invited interested
passengers on the left to take a look out of my window to see this sight,
but it's always been by-invitation-only. I simply can't imagine someone
leaning across me to look out without obtaining my consent first.

> Folks, we're packed in like sardines for several
> hours.

All the more reason to be respectful of other passenger's personal
space.And, FWIW, this happened in F, which is considerably less
sardine-like.

> One for all and all for one ya know?

Which is why a request to me or, failing that, a request to the FA would
have been appropriate. Invading my space was not.

Jonathan Smith

October 3rd, 2003, 06:35 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message >...
> "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> m...
> > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> >...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > No. Because it forces people in the front to put their bags in the
> back,
> > > and then have to flight their way upstream to get back to their seats
> during
> > > boarding. And, of course, the process is repeated upon disembarking.
> One
> > > person's selfishness and laziness disrupts the entire boarding and
> > > disembarking process.
> >
> > Bins are shared space. Deal with it. Would I do this? No, of course
> > not. How would I react if I saw this being done? Probably less
> > gracefully than you might expect. The point remains - you are in a
> > public place and you don't have any rights different than anyone else.
>
> There you go talking about "rights," again. This has nothing to do with
> rights -- only courtesy and consideration. Whether or not someone has the
> "right" to do this is meaningless -- it is rude and selfish.

You WROTE:

"He pulled down my shade, which he had no right to do. I also woke
up, most
likely because of his intrusion."

> > > > > Windows? Absolutely not -- other passengers can't crowd into my
> space
> to
> > > > > look out or, for that matter, require me to raise my shade if I want
> it
> > > > > down.
> > > >
> > > > Or lower it if you want it up? If your shade is up - can I look out
> > > > of your window, or do I need to ask if it's ok first?
> > >
> > > You're not welcome to stand in the space between my knees and the seat
> in
> > > front of me and look out. Don't even bother asking.
> >
> > The floor between your feet is yours during the flight.
>
> But not the shade? Oh, please.

Where did you ever get the idea that the shade is a sacred possession
of yours?

> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If he had an Awfully Good Reason, he could have
> > > > > > > asked the FA, who would have used his/her judgment as to whether
> either
> > > > > > > imposition was justified. I don't see it as being any different
> than a
> > > > > > > passenger deciding to move my luggage in the overhead bin,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Someone here once posted that if luggage is found in the overhead
> bin
> > > > > > in FC and it blonged to someone in coach, he had the right to have
> it
> > > > > > removed from "his" space. That wasn't you, was it?
> > > > >
> > > > > A number of people have posted about this. I've never said I had
> the
> > > > > "right" to do this. I said that, particularly when I fly in F, if
> someone
> > > > > seated well back in coach has parked his bag in the F overhead bin,
> I
> don't
> > > > > see anything wrong with giving it to an FA to gate check (I've never
> done
> > > > > this, as I almost always board early enough to get bin space by my
> seat).
> > > >
> > > > But didn't you say that it is inconsiderate to move other peoples
> > > > belongings in the overhead bin?
> > >
> > > No, I didn't.
> >
> > Yes, you did - though you did couch it in the Awfully Good reason
> > framework. I guess moving someone's luggage because it is in YOUR bin
> > is an Awfully Good reason.
>
> I never said that moving someone's luggage because it was in "my" bin
> (whatever that means) is acceptable. What I DID say was, if all the bins in
> my immediate area were full, and any bin contained someone's carryon who was
> seated in the back of the plane and I was in F, I think it appropriate to
> ask the FA to gate check that carryon.

Ok - fine. It's ok if YOU move someone's luggage if they put it in a
bin closer to you than to them? Since bins are shared space and the
luggage is in that bin - what makes you think you can ask to have it
gate checked? Why not have your own luggage gate checked if there
isn't any space? Oh, that would be "inconvenient"?

> > >I said it's inconsiderate for people seated in the back to
> > > use front bins. It is, however, inconsiderate to try to force your bag
> into
> > > an already-full bin, smashing everyone else's carryons in the process.
> >
> > OK - so?
>
> There're a lot of different kinds of inconsideration one can encounter on a
> flight. They're all wrong.

Having you gate check my bag because it is in a space you consider to
be more yours than mine isn't inconsiderate????

> >
> > > >
> > > > I am getting a little confused with your sense of what is and isn't
> > > > appropriate. Seems the rules change based on whether or not it is
> > > > convenient for you.
> > >
> > > Not even close.
> >
> > Too close that you are having a problem seeing it. You have provided,
> > consistently, your subjective interpretation of what is proper or
> > improper. When others disagree, you simply expound on it more
> > providing more and more scenarios. Yet you continually fail to
> > understand that your perspectives are not universally shared and as
> > you build more and more scenarios you come up with more and more
> > examples of exceptions - exceptions that at face have little
> > difference but you justify the behavior because it is consistent with
> > what you do irrespective of what you may have said earlier. The bit
> > about moving other's luggage is just one such example.
>
> You're the only one, here, who thinks it's okay for other people to intrude
> into your seat space and pull down your shade.

I think it was prudent for the person NOT to wake you.

>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Why is he a clown to want a darkened cabin?
> > >
> > > He was a clown because (1) he thought that his preference for a darkened
> > > cabin overrode everyone else in the F section, and (2) he thought it was
> > > perfectly alright to stick his arm in my space and pull down my shade.
> >
> > Your space - too funny.
>
> That's right -- my space.

Too bad.

> > > > Personally, I prefer a
> > > > darkened cabin - the reason is quite simple - you can always add light
> > > > if you want it but it is much more challenging to get rid of it. I
> > > > can read, write, or work using my personal light - no problem.
> > >
> > > Then, whenever you fly, you should pull down your own shade.
> >
> > Generally I will under two conditions - when I plan to sleep knowing
> > that the sun will rise before I wake up and when asked - either by the
> > flight attendant or a fellow passenger. I have never been asked to
> > close my shade without a reason. I have never had a shade closed on
> > me when I was using the window.
>
> I've had it happen twice, once as I described in this post, and once when a
> coach passenger snaked his arm around the bulkhead and into my last-row-in-F
> space and pulled down my shade. When I pushed it back up, he pushed it down
> again. This happened several times, until I called the FA and told her what
> was happening, and asked her to tell the bulkhead coach pax that, if he did
> it one more time, I'd ask the pilot to have the police meet the plane when
> we land. She told him, and the nuisance was abated.

I don't believe your story. Too convenient.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > -- there was no sun, no
> > > > > glare (and no movie). He would, indeed, have no choice but to
> "endure"
> the
> > > > > fact that I like to look out the window.
> > > >
> > > > If I remember right, you were sleeping at the time.
> > >
> > > Yep. And then I woke up.
> >
> > So, open the shade.
>
> Presumably, I woke up because of the moron intruding into my space and
> pulling down the shade. I sleep extremely lightly on planes, and it takes
> very little change in the environment to wake me up.

Learn to deal with it - you aren't alone in the world. Your "space"
is shared whether you like it or not. Shared with people who have
attitudes, behaviors, norms, mores, and ehtics different than yours.

> > > >I would have
> > > > fully agreed with you that had you been using the window at the time
> > > > he should have asked and you would have been well within your "rights"
> > > > to have refused. But look, you were asleep - so instead of waking
> > > > you, he closed the shade. You weren't using the window and he was
> > > > bothered by the shade being open. You didn't lose anything and he
> > > > gained. Why the stick up your butt?
> > >
> > > When I get up to use the john, I don't use my seat or pillow, either.
> Do
> > > you think it's okay to sit in someone else's seat and take a quick
> snooze
> > > with your head on their pillow?
> >
> > I think it was already agreed that the seat you are assigned is yours
> > to do with what you like without fear of having someone else use it.
>
> So why do you distinguish between the seat and the window? It's all your
> space.

You get a seat assignment - and that seat may be an aisle, middle or
window. But an aisle seat doesn't give you control over the aisle -
why do you believe that the window belongs to the window seat? The
best you get is the space between the armrests.

> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Seems the passenger did the most prudent thing. He bothered no
> one
> > > > > > unnecessarily. Isn't that what you preach?
> > > > >
> > > > > He bothered me. More to the point, he imposed on me. Not imposing
> on
> > > > > others is what I preach (and practice).
> > > >
> > > > How did he impose on you? You were asleep.
> > >
> > > He pulled down my shade, which he had no right to do. I also woke up,
> most
> > > likely because of his intrusion.
> >
> > no "right" to do?
>
> That's correct -- no "right," as in no entitlement.
>

There's the "right" word - why is it that you can use it but when I
repeat your statements you make such a big fuss about it.

> > > >
> > > > "I nodded off at one point. I awoke to
> > > > find that the person seated behind me had reached around my seat and
> > > > pulled
> > > > my shade down. What chutzpah! Where do these people get nerve?
> > > > Note:
> > > > there was no movie, and no sun. This guy simply wanted a dark cabin."
> > >
> > > Yes, that's what I wrote.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The guy was inconvenienced by your shade being open and rather than
> > > > wake you OR rather than "endure" the inconvenience, elected to close
> > > > it. Big deal. This is somehow an "impostion" on YOU?
> > >
> > > Of course. He knew I wanted my shade up -- I had left it up. He
> imposed
> > > his preference on me by intruding into my space. This isn't rocket
> science.
> > > I think you just like to be contrary.
> >
> > Not at all - here's a scenario from two nights ago. On a very long
> > haul in the dark. I'm sitting in the A seat, he's in the J seat - top
> > deck 747. He's reading, I'm watching a movie. His personal light
> > (not the overhead) is on. He falls asleep bumping the personal light
> > which is now shinning up and across the cabin. The flight attendant,
> > at the request of another passenger, goes and turns it off. Had she
> > not done it, I would have - seeing how the control is on the armrest.
> > Would I have been wrong in doing this? Would you have suggested that
> > I wake the man up and ask him to turn off is light?
>
> No. First of all, the FA handled the situation, which is fine. Self-help
> remedies that involve intruding into someone else's space are not. Second,
> according to your scenario, he had accidently bumped the light so that it
> was shining across the entire cabin, disturbing others. The FA was quite
> justified in turning off the light.

He wasn't using it - and it was bothering someone else. Had I been
sitting next to him as opposed to across the aisle, I wouldn't have
bothered an FA, I soimply would have pushed the little button on the
armrest. What would you have done?

> >
> > > >Well, at least
> > > > you are consistent - the mere presence of children is an
> > > > inconveneince, so why not the mere presence of other passengers.
> > >
> > > Ah, I knew it! This has nothing to do with shades and bins at all. You
> > > didn't like my objection to screaming infants and bratty children on
> planes,
> > > and still haven't gotten over it.
> >
> > I don't like your attitude toward a lot of things - so?
>
> So . . . I think your objections are more the result of your dislike of me
> than anything else.

I don't agree that the person closing the shade was being
inconsiderate. I think he did exactly what was the most considerate -
he didn't bother you by waking you, he didn't bother the FA who has a
lot more important things to do than reach over three people to close
a shade and he eliminated excessive light (his apparent opinion) which
may or may not have been bothering other people.

On the other hand - any time someone does something that even has a
potential to inconvenience you - you go off. Could that be any more
arrogant?

> > I don't object to the "mere presence" of anyone, child or
otherwise. I
> > > object to unwarranted imposition. I've been both consistent and clear
> about
> > > this. Your hyperbole that you attribute to me is just that -- your
> > > hyperbole, and doesn't represent views that I hold. It's a cheap tactic
> > > (and that's a euphemism) to make something up, attribute it to me, and
> then
> > > attack it as supposedly representing my views.
> >
> > You object to anything that you think impacts on your "rights".
>
> You're the only person in this thread who has talked about rights. I've
> always, and only, talked about courtesy.

No - YOU said that the person had NO RIGHT to intrude on YOUR space.

> > Not that you are at all interested in extending these "rights" to
> > others.
>
> Again, you make up positions that I don't hold and then attack them. It's
> dishonest and more than a little childish.

When have you ever demonsttrated any consideration for others
preferences? I have yet to see you post anything but whining
complaints about how others have inconvenienced you or intruded on you
or interfered with YOU.

speaking of childish...

js

PTRAVEL

October 3rd, 2003, 07:15 PM

"Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
m...
> "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > No. Because it forces people in the front to put their bags in the
> > back,
> > > > and then have to flight their way upstream to get back to their
seats
> > during
> > > > boarding. And, of course, the process is repeated upon
disembarking.
> > One
> > > > person's selfishness and laziness disrupts the entire boarding and
> > > > disembarking process.
> > >
> > > Bins are shared space. Deal with it. Would I do this? No, of course
> > > not. How would I react if I saw this being done? Probably less
> > > gracefully than you might expect. The point remains - you are in a
> > > public place and you don't have any rights different than anyone else.
> >
> > There you go talking about "rights," again. This has nothing to do with
> > rights -- only courtesy and consideration. Whether or not someone has
the
> > "right" to do this is meaningless -- it is rude and selfish.
>
> You WROTE:
>
> "He pulled down my shade, which he had no right to do. I also woke
> up, most
> likely because of his intrusion."

Yes, I did. And he had no right to do it. It was rude and discourteous.

<snip>

> > > The floor between your feet is yours during the flight.
> >
> > But not the shade? Oh, please.
>
> Where did you ever get the idea that the shade is a sacred possession
> of yours?

Where did you ever get the idea that floor between your feet is a sacred
possession of yours? I got my idea from the same place.

Personal space is personal space. This is a social convention that allows
us to live in close proximity to our fellow human beings. This is the
socio-biological equivalent of the Golden Rule: Keep out of other's personal
space as you would want them to keep out of yours.

> > I never said that moving someone's luggage because it was in "my" bin
> > (whatever that means) is acceptable. What I DID say was, if all the
bins in
> > my immediate area were full, and any bin contained someone's carryon who
was
> > seated in the back of the plane and I was in F, I think it appropriate
to
> > ask the FA to gate check that carryon.
>
> Ok - fine. It's ok if YOU move someone's luggage if they put it in a
> bin closer to you than to them?

That's not what I said, is it?

> Since bins are shared space and the
> luggage is in that bin - what makes you think you can ask to have it
> gate checked?

Because forcing people in the front of the plane to swim upstream to stow
and then reclaim their bags because you are too lazy to keep your carryon
near your seat is rude, selfish and inconsiderate.

> Why not have your own luggage gate checked if there
> isn't any space? Oh, that would be "inconvenient"?

Of course it would be inconvenient. It would also be inconvenient if, for
example, you decided that you liked my seat better and told me to go sit in
the back of the plane. It would be similarly inconvenient if you didn't
wash for 5 days before boarding, or talked loudly throughout the flight, or
any myriad of things that are rude, selfish and inconsiderate. That's the
very definition of "rude, selfish and inconsiderate": causing unwarranted
inconvenience to someone else. However, "inconvenience" isn't the
touchstone for objection to someone else's actions -- rudeness, selfishness
and discourtesy are.

<snip>

> > There're a lot of different kinds of inconsideration one can encounter
on a
> > flight. They're all wrong.
>
> Having you gate check my bag because it is in a space you consider to
> be more yours than mine isn't inconsiderate????

Putting your bag in the front of the plane, causing front-seated passengers
to inconvenience everyone else by fighting their way back to the front
during boarding, and fighting their way to the back during disembarkation is
inconsiderate. Courtesy begets courtesy. If you manifest rudeness and
discourtesy to me, don't expect consideration in return.

I would never suggest gate-checking someone elses bag if they were in the
same immediate vicinity (or, for some reason, were seated in the front, but
stowed their carryon in the back), even if it meant there was no room left
and I would have to gate-check my own carryon.

<snip>

> > You're the only one, here, who thinks it's okay for other people to
intrude
> > into your seat space and pull down your shade.
>
> I think it was prudent for the person NOT to wake you.

And I think it was rude, selfish and inconsiderate to invade my personal
space and close my shade when I wanted it open. Besides, it's almost
certain that that idiot woke me anyway.

<snip>

> > > Your space - too funny.
> >
> > That's right -- my space.
>
> Too bad.

"Too bad"? Oh, wait -- I remember these kinds of arguments from junior
high. I know the response to this -- um -- "Well, tough!"

As I've related in this thread, this is the second time I've had a pax
seated behind me pull something like this. The first time the FA got
involved, and made it clear to the pax that it was, indeed, _my_ space.

<snip>

> > I've had it happen twice, once as I described in this post, and once
when a
> > coach passenger snaked his arm around the bulkhead and into my
last-row-in-F
> > space and pulled down my shade. When I pushed it back up, he pushed it
down
> > again. This happened several times, until I called the FA and told her
what
> > was happening, and asked her to tell the bulkhead coach pax that, if he
did
> > it one more time, I'd ask the pilot to have the police meet the plane
when
> > we land. She told him, and the nuisance was abated.
>
> I don't believe your story. Too convenient.

I don't care what you believe. Do a google search on my name -- I've
related the story before.

<snip>

> > Presumably, I woke up because of the moron intruding into my space and
> > pulling down the shade. I sleep extremely lightly on planes, and it
takes
> > very little change in the environment to wake me up.
>
> Learn to deal with it - you aren't alone in the world.

Learn to deal with this: stay in your own space. Don't impose on other
people. You'll make more friends that way.

>Your "space"
> is shared whether you like it or not.

The space between the back of my seat and the front of the seat ahead of me,
and from the fuselage to the armrest, is not shared. If you believe it is,
and actually try to make use of other peoples space, you'll almost certainly
find yourself removed from the aircraft in handcuffs.

> Shared with people who have
> attitudes, behaviors, norms, mores, and ehtics different than yours.

And, in the US, regardless of other's attitudes, behaviors, norms, mores and
ethics, usurping someone else's personal space is, at best, rude, selfish
and inconsiderate, and at worst, assault.

<snip>

> > So why do you distinguish between the seat and the window? It's all
your
> > space.
>
> You get a seat assignment - and that seat may be an aisle, middle or
> window. But an aisle seat doesn't give you control over the aisle -
> why do you believe that the window belongs to the window seat?

Because, unlike the aisle, the window isn't a common area to which other
passengers have access.

>The
> best you get is the space between the armrests.

Is that what you think? Next time you're on a flight, try walking up and
down the aisle closing everyone else's shade, and see what happens.
<snip>

> > > > He pulled down my shade, which he had no right to do. I also woke
up,
> > most
> > > > likely because of his intrusion.
> > >
> > > no "right" to do?
> >
> > That's correct -- no "right," as in no entitlement.
> >
>
> There's the "right" word - why is it that you can use it but when I
> repeat your statements you make such a big fuss about it.

Good grief! This isn't a discussion about semantics. You contend that I
claim a "right" to my window shade. I contend that "rights" have nothing to
do with anything -- it is a question of simple courtesy and consideration.
Now, you'll notice I've used the word "right" twice in this paragraph (now
three times). That still doesn't make this a discussion about rights.

>
> > > > >
> > > > > "I nodded off at one point. I awoke to
> > > > > find that the person seated behind me had reached around my seat
and
> > > > > pulled
> > > > > my shade down. What chutzpah! Where do these people get nerve?
> > > > > Note:
> > > > > there was no movie, and no sun. This guy simply wanted a dark
cabin."
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's what I wrote.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The guy was inconvenienced by your shade being open and rather
than
> > > > > wake you OR rather than "endure" the inconvenience, elected to
close
> > > > > it. Big deal. This is somehow an "impostion" on YOU?
> > > >
> > > > Of course. He knew I wanted my shade up -- I had left it up. He
> > imposed
> > > > his preference on me by intruding into my space. This isn't rocket
> > science.
> > > > I think you just like to be contrary.
> > >
> > > Not at all - here's a scenario from two nights ago. On a very long
> > > haul in the dark. I'm sitting in the A seat, he's in the J seat - top
> > > deck 747. He's reading, I'm watching a movie. His personal light
> > > (not the overhead) is on. He falls asleep bumping the personal light
> > > which is now shinning up and across the cabin. The flight attendant,
> > > at the request of another passenger, goes and turns it off. Had she
> > > not done it, I would have - seeing how the control is on the armrest.
> > > Would I have been wrong in doing this? Would you have suggested that
> > > I wake the man up and ask him to turn off is light?
> >
> > No. First of all, the FA handled the situation, which is fine.
Self-help
> > remedies that involve intruding into someone else's space are not.
Second,
> > according to your scenario, he had accidently bumped the light so that
it
> > was shining across the entire cabin, disturbing others. The FA was
quite
> > justified in turning off the light.
>
> He wasn't using it - and it was bothering someone else.

So what? The FA handled it, not you. The FA determined that it was
bothering a lot of passengers, not you. The FA turned it off, not you.

> Had I been
> sitting next to him as opposed to across the aisle, I wouldn't have
> bothered an FA, I soimply would have pushed the little button on the
> armrest. What would you have done?

Called the FA. It's his/her job.

<snip>

> > > I don't like your attitude toward a lot of things - so?
> >
> > So . . . I think your objections are more the result of your dislike of
me
> > than anything else.
>
> I don't agree that the person closing the shade was being
> inconsiderate.

As I recall, you also don't think that people who bring screaming infants
into airport bars aren't being inconsiderate, either. Apparently, we
disagree about a number of things.

> I think he did exactly what was the most considerate -
> he didn't bother you by waking you, he didn't bother the FA who has a
> lot more important things to do than reach over three people to close
> a shade and he eliminated excessive light (his apparent opinion) which
> may or may not have been bothering other people.

It wasn't bothering anyone but him, because every other passenger in the F
section had their shade up.

>
> On the other hand - any time someone does something that even has a
> potential to inconvenience you - you go off. Could that be any more
> arrogant?

Not even close to reality, or anything I've ever posted or said. Again, you
make things up, attribute them to me, and then attack what you've made up.

<snip>

> > You're the only person in this thread who has talked about rights. I've
> > always, and only, talked about courtesy.
>
> No - YOU said that the person had NO RIGHT to intrude on YOUR space.

Very good -- You've correctly identified that I've used the word "right" in
a sentence in this thread. And what I said was, HE HAD NO RIGHT. That is
because "rights" aren't involved at all. I have no "right," per se, to my
shade, and neither did he. I did have a fundamental expectation, based on
accepted norms of courtesy and respect, that no one would intrude into my
personal space without a damn good reason. Why is this so hard for you to
undertand? Not "rights," but "courtesy."

>
> > > Not that you are at all interested in extending these "rights" to
> > > others.
> >
> > Again, you make up positions that I don't hold and then attack them.
It's
> > dishonest and more than a little childish.
>
> When have you ever demonsttrated any consideration for others
> preferences?

Good grief! Do a google search if you want documentation. Or simply ask
me. People come to RTA for two reasons -- to exchange information and to
bitch. Do you want people to start posting about all the nice things they
do every day?

> I have yet to see you post anything but whining
> complaints about how others have inconvenienced you or intruded on you
> or interfered with YOU.

As I say, do a google search.

>
> speaking of childish...
>
> js

Gregory Morrow

October 4th, 2003, 01:02 PM

AJC wrote:

> Good, I knew I hadn't imagined it. If they got away with it with
> Ellen, then it must have been within the airline's rights!

Lol.... :---)

--
Best
Greg

PTRAVEL

October 4th, 2003, 02:58 PM

"Craig Welch" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 10:16:23 -0700, "PTRAVEL" >
> wrote:
>
> >Not sure I follow that. You'd stick your head in someone else's space?
> >(that doesn't sound right). Sorry, I don't buy it. Flying out of SNA
> >heading to the east coast, most flight paths that head towards a
mid-country
> >hub take you very close to Meteor Crater in Arizona. I've been on a lot
of
> >flights in which the pilot would announce that the crater can be seen off
> >the right side of the aircraft. I have, on occassion, invited interested
> >passengers on the left to take a look out of my window to see this sight,
> >but it's always been by-invitation-only.
>
> Very big of you, allowing someone else to *look* out your window. If
> only everyone displayed such courtesy.

"Look out my window," as in, "Lean across me so they can be right next to
the window." As I'm sure you knew very well.

>
> Does that extend to passengers in your car also?
>
> --
> Craig

PTRAVEL

October 4th, 2003, 02:59 PM

"Craig Welch" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 07:42:09 -0700, "PTRAVEL"
> > wrote:
>
> >You're the only one, here, who thinks it's okay for other people to
intrude
> >into your seat space and pull down your shade.
>
> No he's not. I consider it quite normal. I can't count the number of
> times I've seen a window seat passenger fall asleep, with the aisle
> passenger then leaning over and closing the shade as a courtesy.
>
> The usual reaction when the window seat passenger wakes up is to say
> 'oh, thanks'.

First, this wasn't an aisle seat passenger doing it "as a courtesy," but a
passenger seated behind me doing it because HE wanted the shade down.
However, I've _never_ seen an _unrelated_ aisle-seat passenger do this.

>
> --
> Craig

October 5th, 2003, 09:37 PM

"PTRAVEL" > wrote in message >...
> "me" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> > > m...
> [snip]
> > > >I would have
> > > > fully agreed with you that had you been using the window at the time
> > > > he should have asked and you would have been well within your "rights"
> > > > to have refused. But look, you were asleep - so instead of waking
> > > > you, he closed the shade. You weren't using the window and he was
> > > > bothered by the shade being open. You didn't lose anything and he
> > > > gained. Why the stick up your butt?
> > >
> > > When I get up to use the john, I don't use my seat or pillow, either.
> Do
> > > you think it's okay to sit in someone else's seat and take a quick
> snooze
> > > with your head on their pillow?
> >
> >
> > First, answer the question. Inquiring minds want to know.
>
> The question was obviously rhetorical.

Well, I should have snipped the "stick up the butt" part. But
what was your objection considering you were asleep?

>
> > But second,
> > yes, I've been known to utilize an empty seat next to me whilst the
> > passenger was gone to do all manner of things. (They aren't gone
> > long so naps are outta the question but...)
>
> Which is non-responsive to my question. I have no idea what "utilize" means
> in the context in which you've used it. Did you put your magazine on it?
> Your carryon?

That would be the most common. I might reorganize my things between
the carry on under the seat, the seat pocket, maybe what I have in
the over head bin, that kinda thing. I use their tray table too.

> Did you sit in someone else's seat during a rough patch of
> turbulence?

Well, I've sat there for a whole host of reasons including
having a conversation with someone, and yes, to look out the window
while they were gone.

> Those circumstances are either non-intrusive or justified under
> the circumstances. Did you "utilize" someone else's seat by making yourself
> comfy with their pillow and blanket? If so, you imposed.

And what most of us are suggesting is that while you are asleep,
closing the shade is no more obtrusvie than using your seat while you're
at the head.

> > > He pulled down my shade, which he had no right to do. I also woke up,
> most
> > > likely because of his intrusion.
> > [snip]
> >
> > This part I tend to agree with. I've been in a similar situation and
> > have tended to restrain myself for that very reason. Pretty hard to
> > reach over and close it without waking someone.
>
> Earlier in this thread I explained why I like to keep the shade open. I've
> been on flights were my assigned "window" seat was actually next to
> windowless part of the fuselage (some 767s are like this). The only way I'd
> be able to see out would be peering between the seat and the fuselage at the
> window next to the pax in front of me. If that pax wanted his window down,
> for whatever reason, I would never dream of snaking my hand between the
> fuselage and the seat and raising it.

I have been know however to close them when they were asleep and
the FA's were asking for them to be closed.

> > But I lived in a large family, 9 folks in a 5 bedroom house. Old
> > style, no "family" room. All space in the house was constantly in
> > shared use. Kinda lose the whole "my space/your space" concept
> > in that situation. Ya tend to learn the age old lesson of sharing
> > everything. To be honest, if I became aware that light was glaring
> > on the passenger, I'd be the one to close it, probably without being
> > asked.
>
> I would as well. The light wasn't glaring on the passenger. That's the
> whole point -- there was no sun in his eyes, there was no movie playing, in
> short there was no reason to have my shade down other than that passengers
> personal preference to have a dark cabin. My personal preference is to have
> a light cabin. The compromise is the one designed by the aircraft
> manufacturer -- individually-controlled shades: he could keep his down, and
> I could keep mine up.

The issue that pretty much confuses everyone however was that you were
asleep.

>
> > If I wanted to peer out, I'd stick my own head in there
> > to handle the issue.
>
> Not sure I follow that. You'd stick your head in someone else's space?

No, if I had "my" window shade open because I wanted to look out the
window, but the sun was shining on another passenger, I'd stick my
head in "my" window so as to block the sun.

[snip]
> > Folks, we're packed in like sardines for several
> > hours.
>
> All the more reason to be respectful of other passenger's personal
> space.And, FWIW, this happened in F, which is considerably less
> sardine-like.

And to be a little less demanding when one is asleep.

>
> > One for all and all for one ya know?
>
> Which is why a request to me or, failing that, a request to the FA would
> have been appropriate. Invading my space was not.

The perception is you were being a bit pedantic. The magnitude of
the transgression appears to be a bit out of kilter with the
magintude of your response. I'm afraid even if I was in total
agreement with you on the technicalities of the transgression, I
wouldn't remember it long enough to comment about it after the flight.

PTRAVEL

October 5th, 2003, 10:23 PM

"me" > wrote in message
om...
> "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
>...
> > "me" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "PTRAVEL" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "Jonathan Smith" > wrote in message
> > > > m...
> > [snip]
> > > > >I would have
> > > > > fully agreed with you that had you been using the window at the
time
> > > > > he should have asked and you would have been well within your
"rights"
> > > > > to have refused. But look, you were asleep - so instead of waking
> > > > > you, he closed the shade. You weren't using the window and he was
> > > > > bothered by the shade being open. You didn't lose anything and he
> > > > > gained. Why the stick up your butt?
> > > >
> > > > When I get up to use the john, I don't use my seat or pillow,
either.
> > Do
> > > > you think it's okay to sit in someone else's seat and take a quick
> > snooze
> > > > with your head on their pillow?
> > >
> > >
> > > First, answer the question. Inquiring minds want to know.
> >
> > The question was obviously rhetorical.
>
> Well, I should have snipped the "stick up the butt" part. But
> what was your objection considering you were asleep?

1. It was probably the pax behind me pulling down my shade that woke me up.
2. Waking up and finding the shade down was disorienting -- I specifically
fly only in window seats precisely because I don't like the sensation of
being disoriented, which occurs when I can't see out the window.
3. It was an intrusion into my personal space. If I'm asleep and not using
my tray table, do you think it's okay for him to lower it and set up his
computer on it?

>
> >
> > > But second,
> > > yes, I've been known to utilize an empty seat next to me whilst the
> > > passenger was gone to do all manner of things. (They aren't gone
> > > long so naps are outta the question but...)
> >
> > Which is non-responsive to my question. I have no idea what "utilize"
means
> > in the context in which you've used it. Did you put your magazine on
it?
> > Your carryon?
>
> That would be the most common. I might reorganize my things between
> the carry on under the seat, the seat pocket, maybe what I have in
> the over head bin, that kinda thing. I use their tray table too.

That's not much of an intrusion, as long as you don't make them wait while
you re-organize when they return.

>
> > Did you sit in someone else's seat during a rough patch of
> > turbulence?
>
> Well, I've sat there for a whole host of reasons including
> having a conversation with someone, and yes, to look out the window
> while they were gone.

This, perhaps, gets a little closer to the line, though it doesn't cross it
as long as you didn't inconvenience the person whose seat it was when they
returned.

>
> > Those circumstances are either non-intrusive or justified under
> > the circumstances. Did you "utilize" someone else's seat by making
yourself
> > comfy with their pillow and blanket? If so, you imposed.
>
> And what most of us are suggesting is that while you are asleep,
> closing the shade is no more obtrusvie than using your seat while you're
> at the head.

And I disagree. As I said, it probably woke me up, but either way it was an
imposition on my space while I was in it.

>
> > > > He pulled down my shade, which he had no right to do. I also woke
up,
> > most
> > > > likely because of his intrusion.
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > This part I tend to agree with. I've been in a similar situation
and
> > > have tended to restrain myself for that very reason. Pretty hard to
> > > reach over and close it without waking someone.
> >
> > Earlier in this thread I explained why I like to keep the shade open.
I've
> > been on flights were my assigned "window" seat was actually next to
> > windowless part of the fuselage (some 767s are like this). The only way
I'd
> > be able to see out would be peering between the seat and the fuselage at
the
> > window next to the pax in front of me. If that pax wanted his window
down,
> > for whatever reason, I would never dream of snaking my hand between the
> > fuselage and the seat and raising it.
>
> I have been know however to close them when they were asleep and
> the FA's were asking for them to be closed.

If the FA is asking for them to be closed, then it is for a reason, i.e.
there's a movie on, it will soon be dawn, etc. In other words, it prevents
a single passenger from imposing on all the others and, under those
circumstances, I've lowered my shade when asked. Here it was just one
passenger who decided to impose his personal preference on me -- no
necessity, just preference.

>
> > > But I lived in a large family, 9 folks in a 5 bedroom house. Old
> > > style, no "family" room. All space in the house was constantly in
> > > shared use. Kinda lose the whole "my space/your space" concept
> > > in that situation. Ya tend to learn the age old lesson of sharing
> > > everything. To be honest, if I became aware that light was glaring
> > > on the passenger, I'd be the one to close it, probably without being
> > > asked.
> >
> > I would as well. The light wasn't glaring on the passenger. That's the
> > whole point -- there was no sun in his eyes, there was no movie playing,
in
> > short there was no reason to have my shade down other than that
passengers
> > personal preference to have a dark cabin. My personal preference is to
have
> > a light cabin. The compromise is the one designed by the aircraft
> > manufacturer -- individually-controlled shades: he could keep his down,
and
> > I could keep mine up.
>
> The issue that pretty much confuses everyone however was that you were
> asleep.

Why? I prefer the shade up when I'm awake and I prefer the shade up when
I'm asleep. Since it's my shade, I shouldn't have to justify my preference.
However, I've already explained why I like it up, regardless of my relative
state of consciousness.

>
> >
> > > If I wanted to peer out, I'd stick my own head in there
> > > to handle the issue.
> >
> > Not sure I follow that. You'd stick your head in someone else's space?
>
> No, if I had "my" window shade open because I wanted to look out the
> window, but the sun was shining on another passenger, I'd stick my
> head in "my" window so as to block the sun.

And I'd lower my shade so as not to impose on the other passenger. That
wasn't the situation here.

>
>
> [snip]
> > > Folks, we're packed in like sardines for several
> > > hours.
> >
> > All the more reason to be respectful of other passenger's personal
> > space.And, FWIW, this happened in F, which is considerably less
> > sardine-like.
>
> And to be a little less demanding when one is asleep.

Sorry -- I demand that strangers keep out of my personal space, regardless
of whether I'm awake or asleep. For me, the idle state to be in when I'm
flying is feeling the effects of a couple of glasses of wine, with my
noise-cancelling headset on, lost in my music, and my eyes closed. On rare
occassions, if I'm particularly tired, I may fall asleep for a few moments.
However, for the most part, I just drift along in a pleasant alpha state,
glancing out of the window from time to time (and, particularly when we hit
a patch of turbulence), until the double-ding means I have to put my
electronics away. This is how I like to fly, and the airline permits me to
do it by giving me a seat next to a window and allowing me to control the
window shade. No one has any basis for telling em I can't fly this way
unless I'm specifically interfering with them and how they lik to fly, e.g.
without the sun glaring in their eyes, or watching the movie. If the pax
behind me insists on a dark cabin, he can either be satisfied with the
darkness that results from lowering his own shades, bring along eye shades,
or charter his own jet.

>
> >
> > > One for all and all for one ya know?
> >
> > Which is why a request to me or, failing that, a request to the FA would
> > have been appropriate. Invading my space was not.
>
> The perception is you were being a bit pedantic.

Is pedantic really the word you want to use here? If so, I don't think I
understand your point. And, speaking of points, I started this thread about
someone using a Blackberry two-way PDA during takeoff, which is what the
subject line refers to, not the boor behind me who assumed his preferences
over-rode my own.

> The magnitude of
> the transgression appears to be a bit out of kilter with the
> magintude of your response.

I made no response, other than to raise my shade.

> I'm afraid even if I was in total
> agreement with you on the technicalities of the transgression, I
> wouldn't remember it long enough to comment about it after the flight.

I'm not even sure how this digression got started. It's certainly not
anything that I would have started a thread about.