Approaches for dealing with 'electronic devices off'

[Austman]

I need some help on the how.

Was on a Qantas 767 in a Y-class exit row aisle "J" seat. The window "K" seat was still empty when I checked-in in the Qantas J lounge but was occupied by a person chatting on their iPhone when I got to my seat. The crew made the PA announcement to turn off all electronics after enabling flight mode if there was one. The announcement was loud and clear at our seats. Mr K still made calls. At push back I said, firmly I admit, "Sir, you really need to turn your phone off - the announcement was made some minutes ago". But Mr K disagreed - he said it was not my job to make such statements and that the crew would do a walk past and they would tell him to switch off his phone then. He said he was a frequent flyer and that this was the way it was always done. He then went on to make another call with me watching. So I paged for the FA. Mr K then hastily ended his call just as the FA approached. I reported to the FA that Mr K was making new calls even after the PA announcement. Mr K had by now switched off his phone. Mr K asked the FA "You walk through and ask people to turn off their phones, don't you?". The FA replied "Yes, if we have the time". The FA left - Mr K then told me I was wrong and in any event he had not heard the PA announcement so he was not to blame. He also claimed he had not been making new calls - he had been checking his voicemail - and that my behaviour was obnoxious. I pointed out that checking voicemail was still making a call! At this point I did call him a jerk and doubted very much he was a frequent flyer (because he would know the process announcements better) and left it at that. Mr K then proceeded to hog the armrest and put his newspaper almost in my face. At seat-belt sign off, he paged for a FA himself. The same FA came and he said he wanted to clarify the rules due to my objection. He asked the same (leading) question. The FA gave the same response as before: that they did walk through the cabin when possible. She didn't seem to mind that Mr K had ignored/not heard the PA announcement. Mr K then felt completely vindicated.

I should have just kept quiet. But now I felt pretty bad sitting next to Mr K. And I should not have called him anything.

So how to do it? If a passenger genuinely forgets to switch their phone off they would probably be OK with a reminder from another passenger. But when they think they know the procedure better, you might be in for an unpleasant dispute.

 

[The Rok]

I see it a lot on flights. I'm of the beliefs that a phone, or even 20 phones won't bring a plane down so I just say nothing!

I'm not the electronics police!!

 

[anat0l]

Austman, I applaud both your bravery and your action.

With possible exception of the name calling, what you did was fine. Others (even on this forum) may call you a snitch, squealer, fun / electronics police, pompous, uptight, goody-goody or whatever, but what you did was fine and you should not feel bad about it.

Just hope the rest of that flight did not go to hell courtesy of Mr K.

Thank you for standing up for good order. Well done.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using AustFreqFly

 

[simongr]

I saw my first real abuse of this flying AMM-JED in J on RJ - 3K on the other side of the aircraft had three phones and was talking calls on take off... He was told at least three times by the FA to switch off. He also did not seem bothered about the seat belt signs.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Austman - in this case the person sitting in the K seat was in breach of safety regulations at a time when they should have been ready, able and prepared for an emergency evacuation. You did the right thing.

If you had NOT been sitting at an emergency exit, and this guy was on the window seat, and would only impede his own exit from the aircraft, I wouldn't have said anything, because sitting on the aisle you are not dependent on his attention for your own egress.

 

[RWJ777]

I need some help on the how.

Was on a Qantas 767 in a Y-class exit row aisle "J" seat. The window "K" seat was still empty when I checked-in in the Qantas J lounge but was occupied by a person chatting on their iPhone when I got to my seat. The crew made the PA announcement to turn off all electronics after enabling flight mode if there was one. The announcement was loud and clear at our seats. Mr K still made calls. At push back I said, firmly I admit, "Sir, you really need to turn your phone off - the announcement was made some minutes ago". But Mr K disagreed - he said it was not my job to make such statements and that the crew would do a walk past and they would tell him to switch off his phone then. He said he was a frequent flyer and that this was the way it was always done. He then went on to make another call with me watching. So I paged for the FA. Mr K then hastily ended his call just as the FA approached. I reported to the FA that Mr K was making new calls even after the PA announcement. Mr K had by now switched off his phone. Mr K asked the FA "You walk through and ask people to turn off their phones, don't you?". The FA replied "Yes, if we have the time". The FA left - Mr K then told me I was wrong and in any event he had not heard the PA announcement so he was not to blame. He also claimed he had not been making new calls - he had been checking his voicemail - and that my behaviour was obnoxious. I pointed out that checking voicemail was still making a call! At this point I did call him a jerk and doubted very much he was a frequent flyer (because he would know the process announcements better) and left it at that. Mr K then proceeded to hog the armrest and put his newspaper almost in my face. At seat-belt sign off, he paged for a FA himself. The same FA came and he said he wanted to clarify the rules due to my objection. He asked the same (leading) question. The FA gave the same response as before: that they did walk through the cabin when possible. She didn't seem to mind that Mr K had ignored/not heard the PA announcement. Mr K then felt completely vindicated.

I should have just kept quiet. But now I felt pretty bad sitting next to Mr K. And I should not have called him anything.

So how to do it? If a passenger genuinely forgets to switch their phone off they would probably be OK with a reminder from another passenger. But when they think they know the procedure better, you might be in for an unpleasant dispute.

It sounds like it was a very unpleasant situation and that you did what you thought was right to guard your own safety and that of other pax. Good for you.

He called you obnoxious; you responded and called him a jerk. You were right by the description of his conduct. I wouldn't feel too bad at all. Sounds like you did the right thing and merely responded to his offensive tag.

Rules are rules; it's not for us to decide which of them, with our limited knowledge, are to apply and which do not. If people are not prepared to adhere to the rules, the solution is simple: don't fly and make alternative transport arrangements.

Console yourself with this: I bet he will from now on turn off his phone on the first announcement -- because you called him on his conduct on this occasion.

 

[jb747]

I wonder how many of the people who have commented on their belief that the rules are unnecessary are aero engineers? 'Cos if you aren't your opinion isn't really worth much is it.....

I have had people removed from aircraft because of these rules. I'm not interested in interpretations of them, or arguments over whether off is standby, or red is green. Is it really that hard?

If the rules change, then we can all obey some new rules, but until then, surely we can play the game the way it is right now.

 

[anat0l]

I wonder how many of the people who have commented on their belief that the rules are unnecessary are aero engineers? 'Cos if you aren't your opinion isn't really worth much is it.....

People will always beg to differ. (Cue the democracy and freedom of speech argument, plus all the ad hominem fallacies and so forth).

The board demographics are probably not aero engineers, but apart from that there are some pilots (helicopters, in training, non-commercial aviation), radio-communications experts, other kinds of engineers, closet case researchers and passengers with first, second and third party experiences (viz. "I had my phone on but the plane didn't crash = fine").

Not dumbing down your point - it is quite valid - though suffice to say that you wouldn't be exactly popular if you shared this thought with people outside this forum (especially those who, funny enough, have flouted the rules). It's tenable at best within this forum, as can be evidenced by the other thread around this topic.

I have had people removed from aircraft because of these rules. I'm not interested in interpretations of them, or arguments over whether off is standby, or red is green. Is it really that hard?

If the rules change, then we can all obey some new rules, but until then, surely we can play the game the way it is right now.

I very much agree with this comment. The problem is that people will always come back to the argument that the rules are flawed, and that gives them the validity to flout the rules. Not to mention that, more often than not and especially for this rule, most people "know" that even if they flout the rules:

1. The airline will reaccommodate them at no charge.
2. There are little to no legal repercussions, and the airline has almost little to no legal leg to stand on. Heck, a passenger caught smoking on an aircraft more often than not just gets a slap on the wrist (warning). Doesn't sound like a huge disincentive to set off the alarm if you're really dying for a nicotine hit.
3. Related to the two previous points, most customers can at least inflict brand damage (if not legal damages) against the airline if they appear to be "oppressed" (cue social media campaigns, the "unreasonable action" arguments and so on).
4. Passengers will make it difficult for you to give them a reason to be dealt with. You, jb747, have conceded a couple of times that - barring safety compromise - some problem pax will be left alone only because the flight timings will go to ****s if the problem pax is offloaded. Same theory behind a pax delaying the boarding of an aircraft to the last minute because they know their checked baggage must be thrown off before they are truly offloaded, and that takes time.

I guess in the end, no one likes to get told what to do, and no one likes to be told what they are doing is wrong. Period. Naturally, it wouldn't really happen if said person followed the rules (or directions) in the first place.


On another note, I'm fairly sure that the rules will change within some short to medium term (measured in years, mind you). Not sure about calls, but data transmission is definitely coming (though the economics part of it is a bit touch and go in Australia at least).

To bring all this back on topic, I suppose that any regimented or proper approaches for dealing with errant passengers would have to account for the four main points listed above. More preferably, it would solidify in law that transgressions amounting to breaking airline rules would have legal standing (i.e. able to be charged as a crime, probably civil in most cases).

 

[bodog]

Sometimes it can work out well...
On Sunday I politely reminded a guy using his iPad after the announcement to turn off to do so (I said I'd got told off on an earleir flight so was just trying to make sure he didn't suffer a similar fate)
He was quite happy to turn it off and we then spent the next 90 minutes chatting about all and sundry topics - it made for a very interesting and "quick" flight
So sometimes it can turn out positively

If I'd encountered an idiot like the post above I would have got the FA involved and escalated it in front of the person if the FA didn't deal with it. There is one set of rules - not one for "frequent flyers" and one for the "rest" - the sooner people learn and respect that the better

 

[Fantic125]

Isn't this getting a bit technical?

 

[NM]

On a SYD-BNE flight last week, one passenger seated in the J cabin of a 767 continued his telephone conversation long after the announcement to switch off all phones. The CSM stood in the aisle next to him and asked him to turn it off. And he continued to talk, motioning to the CSM to leave him alone. The CSM said quite loudly (I clearly heard it about 4 rows behind) that he cannot close the aircraft door until the passenger turned off his phone. He had to say that about 3 times and finally the passenger hung up (no idea if he actually turned off the phone).

Then the CSM made a PA announcement that went something like this: "Ladies and gentleman, I appologise for the delay but we had a passenger who thought continuing his phone call was more important than your on-time departure. Now that his phone call has finished we are able to close the cabin door and prepare for departure."

 

[serfty]

Isn't this getting a bit technical?

View attachment 9912

Yes, as I posted back in July:

Some very good posts discussing the WHY of PEDs being off when instructed by crew have been moved (see below).

This thread is about the HOW to deal with neighbouring PAX who appear to be ignoring/flouting such instruction.

As before:

To Reiterate:

Originally Posted by serfty
This thread is not about that. To quote the OP:

Those who wish to debate the why's please see discussions in these threads:

http://www.australianfrequentflyer....ons/peds-off-during-various-flight-35476.html

http://www.australianfrequentflyer.c...ier-26959.html (Electronic Devices order getting earlier?)

Posts have been moved!

 

[anat0l]

Isn't this getting a bit technical?

I suppose it is almost unavoidable. We have the same cruel cycle appearing on this thread.

We start with the thesis of the thread's creation - how to deal with such pax - and we get some responses and some experiences. In the latest round, someone gave an experience, and questioned about it. I responded to it, and others weighed in about why the response was valid (noting that in this case it was primarily another pax trying to tell another pax to follow the rules). Even a pilot weighed in to give further reason why people should follow the rules, which somewhat validates the original experience (whether or not someone should chide another pax is one thing, but at the least someone is not doing something which is inherently or disproportionately wrong). Then we had a disagreement (a very fierce one at that) which seemed to branch off a lot (and yet somehow was argued back to the "base" argument - I personally found this argument sub-thread a farce), which then brought in more of the base elements of the argument - does PEDs off make a difference, what is the unacceptable risk, why should they be off, etc. And hence we had the other posts which serfty has now shifted off to another thread.

So it's almost unavoidable for this thread to be "clean" of "off-topic" posts because the evidence on at least one side of this thread's argument requires that kind of support, or at least the justification on at least one side of the argument will touch on the technical (and not so technical) aspects.

On a SYD-BNE flight last week, one passenger seated in the J cabin of a 767 continued his telephone conversation long after the announcement to switch off all phones. The CSM stood in the aisle next to him and asked him to turn it off. And he continued to talk, motioning to the CSM to leave him alone. The CSM said quite loudly (I clearly heard it about 4 rows behind) that he cannot close the aircraft door until the passenger turned off his phone. He had to say that about 3 times and finally the passenger hung up (no idea if he actually turned off the phone).

Then the CSM made a PA announcement that went something like this: "Ladies and gentleman, I appologise for the delay but we had a passenger who thought continuing his phone call was more important than your on-time departure. Now that his phone call has finished we are able to close the cabin door and prepare for departure."

Excellent. Disobeying crew instructions is already pretty snide. Gold star to the CSM.

Of course, had the problem pax been a real PITA, he may have made a complaint or case against Qantas that he was humiliated. He would also claim - along with a handful here - that the actions by the CSM were totally unprofessional. He would probably get a sob apology from customer service (because they don't know the exact context, and he isn't going to tell them that he ignored the CSM's first request, isn't he?), or if he doesn't, he'll make it known somewhere and everyone will get the wrong idea, "vindicating" the action of the problem pax.

That said, good to see the crew taking an active stance here. But I feel that shouldn't stop pax from telling others similarly (of course, pax don't have discretionary powers, e.g. offload others), any more than other people of society telling others to conduct themselves in accordance with laws.

 

[yohy?!]

i think the best approach is to tap the pax on the shoulder and have a quiet word with them.... "to ensure the takeoff/landing is a safe one would you please switch off your electronic device?"..... "everyone wants to get home safely to their family"

 

[jkhastings]

I have it on good authority that the reason phones/ipads/computers are to be turned off is because they don't want you to use them. That sounds obvious, but think about it. When a mobile is in flight mode and not emitting a thing, you can still listen to music, play games etc. None of that makes a difference to the functions of the plane. That has been proven, otherwise the mobile phone trial that is coming in would not be allowed. The reason is for safety during take off and landing. The airlines don't want you listening, watching or doing anything during those times in case of an emergency. I've flown Singapore a few times in the last 6 months and they have changed their practices. KrisWorld entertainment no longer functions until the seat belt sign goes off (used to be always on). Upon landing, it is turned off when the seat belt sign comes back on (used to be on until arrival at gate). I questioned the FA about this change and was told SIA constantly update their safety proceedures and found that people wearing any kind of headphones, theirs or airline provided, posed a risk in emergency.
That brings me back to the point of turning off electronic equipment on planes. Flight mode, definately; turning it off, not so important; chatting while on final, never.
Hope this clears up some questions. I know it flies in the face of what the airlines tell you, but if all electronics were bad for the plane, we'd be flying in Cesna's with analog instruments.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

no it doesn't clear up any questions given qantas says you can watch seat-back from the moment you board at the gate and right up until you arrive at the gate at the other end.

there is an argument that a cabin announcement will interrupt you viewing, but if the plane has an emergency there may not be time for any announcement. 365 head seats and head sets leads clogging the aisle during an evacuation? no thanks!

 

[jb747]

That has been proven, otherwise the mobile phone trial that is coming in would not be allowed.

Which mobile phone trial is this....the USA thing?

 

[anat0l]

I have it on good authority...

What authority is that?

Not doubting your account, but that's something if you have it on "good authority".


That said, as MEL_Traveller said, it doesn't explain why a handful of airlines still allow gate-to-gate in flight entertainment (though you probably don't chat to your IFE system). It also doesn't quite explain some of the evidence presented by jb747 and markis10.

These posts might be shifted to the other PED thread soon, too.....

 

[jkhastings]

Yes the USA, but also the QF domestic. Not sure of the timeframe of it. The planes will be equipped as their own "country" so the mobile signal doesn't go searching and pumping out more power when it can't find one at 40K feet.

 

[jkhastings]

Several highly trained electrical engineers in the televsion industry. I also believe Myth Busters did a story also debunking the theory. Please know, I am not suggesting anyone should having a mobile phone turned on looking for a signal. I myself have stopped a man making a call on final approach into Sydney some months ago.