I'm a PPL-ASEL-IA and familiar with Part 91 of course. I'm also a
frequent flier (a 1K in fact....100k plus miles per year). I often hear
flight attendants (FA's), TSA, etc. saying "oh you can't do that. it's
against the security regulations since 9/11." Many times I think or
know that there is no such regulation and all they want is the passenger
to do something without arguing.

Yesterday the middle seat was empty so I strapped my laptop bag into the
seat using the seat belts secured around both shoulder loops, 2 hand
handles and 2 other straps. I've done this many times before without a
problem. For t/o the FA's were fine. For landing, the FA said "you
can't do that." First off, I started to put it under the seat so not to
interfere with a crew member but I also made the comment that it was
allowed. She said, "oh, regulations." I said, "Really? As far as I
know, the federal aviation regulations Part 91.523 and 525 say that this
allowed." Yes, other passengers looked at me like I was nuts for
knowing such stuff. I said, "What regulation is that as I've never heard
of it before." All she said, "oh this is nothing new" but of course was
not able to cite any regulation. I'm not expecting them to know the
details like pilots do but they should know something and should be
consistent. Now I am admittedly not familiar with Part 121 (and the UA
Op Specs, etc.) but as far as I could find, what I did was perfectly
allowable under the FAR's. On the ground while I was "taxi'ing" to the
baggage claim, I checked with a pilot afterwards and he also believed it
was allowed. Was I wrong?

I'm not out to get the FA at all but I've heard such nonsense so many
times that it is starting annoy me when they are worried about a
completely secured laptop bag meanwhile they completely ignore that half
the cabin is on their cell phone "honey, we just arrived" while still
150' AGL on a Cat IIIc approach. If this were a 40 pound child sitting
on my lap and not secured, then most likely there would be no problem
(but that is another story). Further, I realize 100% consistency is not
realistic but using "it's against regulations" and "for security" as an
excuse really dilutes the purpose of the real regulations.

Gerald sylvester

"GS" > wrote in message
om...
> [...] I said, "What regulation is that as I've never heard of it before."
> All she said, "oh this is nothing new" but of course was not able to cite
> any regulation. I'm not expecting them to know the details like pilots do
> but they should know something and should be consistent. Now I am
> admittedly not familiar with Part 121 (and the UA Op Specs, etc.) but as
> far as I could find, what I did was perfectly allowable under the FAR's.
> On the ground while I was "taxi'ing" to the baggage claim, I checked with
> a pilot afterwards and he also believed it was allowed. Was I wrong?

As surprising to you as it may be, the flight attendant is correct and you
and the pilot you asked are both wrong (or he misunderstood your question).
FAR 121.589 and 121.285 govern how carry-on baggage must be secured. Your
technique is allowed on Part 121 operations, but only on a non-transport
category airplane. I doubt United Airlines flies non-transport category
airplanes, thus your method of securing your carry-on was not allowed in
that situation.

I won't get too much into the other part of your question. That is, the
supposed quoting of non-existent regulations. You say you think it happens
a lot, but at least in this case you made a false assumption that it was
happening, and I wonder how many other times you similarly do so. I'm sure
such quoting of non-existing regulations does happen, but flight attendants
also have to deal with people who, inspite of federal regulations requiring
them to comply with crew member requests (and that includes anything a
flight attendant tells them to do), will argue with them about it.

A flight attendant *ought* to be able to tell passengers to do things, even
when they are not required by regulation, if those things still appear to be
necessary for safety on the flight. They do in fact have that authority,
and for good reason. A flight attendant *ought* to be able to explain that
there is a safety need for the request, and that *ought* to be sufficient.
But for some reason, there are lots of people who armchair quarterback the
situation and think they know better than the flight attendant and who argue
with them. I'm sure that flight attendants just get sick and tired of
dealing with people like that and find it easier to claim that it's a
regulation.

And I'll bet that in many cases, the flight attendant who quotes regulations
actually *is* telling the truth and the passenger just blindly assumes they
know better, even when it's the passenger who is ignorant of the facts.

Sure, it would be great if every time a flight attendant quoted a
regulation, they could quote chapter and verse. But I'll bet there's a lot
of rules just in Parts 61 and 91 (the ones that govern your flying) that you
can't quote chapter and verse, and airlines and their employees have WAY
more regulations to deal with than we do. It's not surprising that on
occasion, they may know the rule, but can't tell you exactly where to find
it. If it bugs you so much, get an unabridged copy of the FARs, and the
next time something like that happens, spend the rest of your time looking
through them to verify it yourself.

Pete

Thanks, Pete. Diplomatic.

Peter Duniho wrote:

for once, I pretty much agree with everything you say, but

> sufficient. But for some reason, there are lots of people who armchair
> quarterback the situation and think they know better than the flight
> attendant and who argue
> with them. I'm sure that flight attendants just get sick and tired of
> dealing with people like that and find it easier to claim that it's a
> regulation.

keep in mind that airline passengers are being treated more and more
like cattle and subjected to completely inane new rules -- some of them
being genuine regulations I doubt not, but at times you have to wonder
The same passengers are under increasingly dire threats if they do not
comply obediently, or should they read the wrong book, speak the
wrong language, wear the wrong garnment, or whatever new arbitrary
reason (threats ranging from degrading public humiliation, to lethal
force). So it is not surprising if said passengers -- who actually
PAID to get there -- are themselves getting sick and tired of the
situation, and start questioning everything. Being PAYING customers
they have a far more legitimate reason to complain than employees
whose job it is to deal with the situation...

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> [...] Being PAYING customers
> they have a far more legitimate reason to complain than employees
> whose job it is to deal with the situation...

There is a time and place for everything. In the airplane during a flight
is not the time or place for arguing with a flight attendant.

Furthermore, if things are so bad as you say, then why are the airlines
seeing such high numbers of customers? I personally agree that airline
travel is pure hell. Passengers are not treated with respect, and are
forced to do all sorts of ridiculous things and jump through all sorts of
ridiculous hoops just to get from Point A to Point B.

But guess what? Most people obviously don't mind enough to put their money
where their mouth is. I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who
complain about the situation but can't be bothered to do anything except put
up with it. Obviously, most people don't agree with us that airline travel
includes a lot of unreasonable expectations and unreasonable treatment of
passengers. They deserve the crappy experience that they get.

In any case, in the particular scenario described here, the passenger was
actually wrong, the flight attendant was actually right, and even if there
wasn't a regulation addressing the situation, the flight attendant was well
within her rights to ask for the luggage to be moved to a position she found
more suitable.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:

> Furthermore, if things are so bad as you say, then why are the airlines
> seeing such high numbers of customers?

Lack of choice.

In USA we have both huge distances between major urban areas and
no practical alternative to flying (driving or using the bus or
extremely slow and unreliable amtrak are not practical alternatives).
In comparison, in Europe, the train is a practical alternative to
flying, and many have switched actually. Airlines there are
loosing a lot of customers to the railways; but then Europe has
modern trains (non existent in USA) and smaller distances between
large urban area, i.e., door to door time more often than not works
in favor of the railways (and without the hassle airline passengers
are subjected to, and with added bonuses like cell phone and wifi
coverage, etc.).

I am looking forward to the day when I can affort my own fast enough/
long enough range aircraft :-)

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
>> Furthermore, if things are so bad as you say, then why are the airlines
>> seeing such high numbers of customers?
>
> Lack of choice.
>
> In USA we have both huge distances between major urban areas and
> no practical alternative to flying (driving or using the bus or
> extremely slow and unreliable amtrak are not practical alternatives).

Define "practical".

Even before 9/11, airline travel was starting to get on my nerves. Since
then, the overbearing security rules have been horrible, IMHO. I have not
traveled on an airline once since 9/11, and not because I haven't needed to
go anywhere.

Driving takes longer, but it's not that hard to do. Simply foregoing some
trips is also an option I've chosen at times.

In case you hadn't noticed, airline travel dropped off *dramatically*
immediately after 9/11. It took the better part of a year for the airline
business to even start looking like it was going to recover.

Obviously there's a large portion of the airline business that is optional
for the people traveling. When push came to shove, they were willing to
avoid the airlines if they felt there was a good reason.

So obviously they can do it. They simply choose not to. And they deserve
the crappy service they get for their lack of complaint with the current
situation.

This is one of the problems with society, and US society in particular,
IMHO. People value their convenience much more than they value anything
else. They are perfectly happy putting up with all sorts of dangerous,
ineffective, wasteful, or just plain dumb things if in return they get to
keep some of their convenience.

Pete

> People value their convenience much more than they value anything
> else. They are perfectly happy putting up with all sorts of dangerous,
> ineffective, wasteful, or just plain dumb things if in return they get to
> keep some of their convenience.

That statement is laughable, given the "convenience" of modern air travel.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> People value their convenience much more than they value anything
>> else. They are perfectly happy putting up with all sorts of
>> dangerous, ineffective, wasteful, or just plain dumb things if in
>> return they get to keep some of their convenience.
>
> That statement is laughable, given the "convenience" of modern air travel.
>
> Jose
Yeah...I asked my boss if I could drive to San Francisco next week
instead of flying, and he just looked at me. But you know, it would be
a lot less stressful.

> Yeah...I asked my boss if I could drive to San Francisco next week instead of flying, and he just looked at me. But you know, it would be a lot less stressful.

Didja ask if you could fly yourself?

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> Yeah...I asked my boss if I could drive to San Francisco next week
>> instead of flying, and he just looked at me. But you know, it would
>> be a lot less stressful.
>
> Didja ask if you could fly yourself?
>
> Jose
Probably not in the budget, unfortunately. :-)

"Jose" > wrote in message
. net...
>> People value their convenience much more than they value anything else.
>> They are perfectly happy putting up with all sorts of dangerous,
>> ineffective, wasteful, or just plain dumb things if in return they get to
>> keep some of their convenience.
>
> That statement is laughable, given the "convenience" of modern air travel.

Laughable in what way? In an ironic way? Or you truly believe that people
find air travel less convenient than the alternatives, but continue to use
it?

I'd agree it's laughable in an ironic way, but it's pretty obvious that
people still find air travel more convenient than the alternatives, in spite
of all of the things that many of us find so offensive.

Pete

> Laughable in what way? In an ironic way? Or you truly believe that people
> find air travel less convenient than the alternatives, but continue to use
> it?

You may call it ironic; I find commercial air travel very inconvenient
with all the post 911 nonsense we have to put up with. The only reason
I do it is that for intercontenental trips, driving takes much longer,
and is thus more inconvenient. However I've stopped flying commercially
on anything less than, oh, a thousand miles or so.

Your statement is that "People value their convenience much more than
they value anything else", and I disagree with it. They value their
time much more than convenience, and are willing to put up with
incredible inconvenience and humiliation in order to save time.

> Or you truly believe that people
> find air travel less convenient than the
> alternatives, but continue to use it?

Yes, I do, for that very reason above.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:
>> Laughable in what way? In an ironic way? Or you truly believe that
>> people find air travel less convenient than the alternatives, but
>> continue to use it?
>
> You may call it ironic; I find commercial air travel very inconvenient
> with all the post 911 nonsense we have to put up with. The only reason
> I do it is that for intercontenental trips, driving takes much longer,
> and is thus more inconvenient. However I've stopped flying commercially
> on anything less than, oh, a thousand miles or so.
>
> Your statement is that "People value their convenience much more than
> they value anything else", and I disagree with it. They value their
> time much more than convenience, and are willing to put up with
> incredible inconvenience and humiliation in order to save time.

You're so right. Flying commercially is one of the most inconvenient
things out there. Problem is, most people don't see it as humiliating,
they see it as necessary for their safety.

Me, I'd rather fly myself than get on other commercial flight, even
though I'm currently limited to VFR. Think I can make it VFR to Taiwan
in a Seminole?

Jose wrote:

> You may call it ironic; I find commercial air travel very inconvenient
> with all the post 911 nonsense we have to put up with. The only reason
> I do it is that for intercontenental trips, driving takes much longer,
> and is thus more inconvenient.

I agree that driving across an ocean (for an intercontinental trip)
would qualify as extremelly inconvenient; though if the TSA keeps
it up, I might just have a go at it eventually :-)

may be you meant coast to coast?

sorry to pick on you, couldn't resist :-)

--Sylvain

Emily wrote:

> You're so right. Flying commercially is one of the most inconvenient
> things out there. Problem is, most people don't see it as humiliating,
> they see it as necessary for their safety.

reminds me when my dad came to visit me in California; it was pre-9/11
but he couldn't believe the hassle he had to go through (it was the first
time he had to pay to fly, the first time he didn't have to carry a
weapon when doing so, and actually the first time he landed in the aircraft
with which he took off, but that's a different story :-))

--Sylvain

> I agree that driving across an ocean (for an intercontinental trip)
> would qualify as extremelly inconvenient;

LOL! Yes, I meant coast to coast. But I was thinking NY to CA, and
California should rightly be considered another continent.

Another world, in fact. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" > wrote in message
. com...
> You may call it ironic; I find commercial air travel very inconvenient
> with all the post 911 nonsense we have to put up with.

As do I. But we seem to be in the minority.

> The only reason I do it is that for intercontenental trips, driving takes
> much longer, and is thus more inconvenient. However I've stopped flying
> commercially on anything less than, oh, a thousand miles or so.

Nevertheless, the general population has shown no such reduction in their
air travel. Obviously, they don't find the hassles to be significant enough
to affect their travel decisions.

> Your statement is that "People value their convenience much more than they
> value anything else", and I disagree with it. They value their time much
> more than convenience, and are willing to put up with incredible
> inconvenience and humiliation in order to save time.

For most people, convenience and time are inseparable. The very thing that
makes airline travel convenient is the time savings. After all, *nothing*
else about airline travel is more convenient than taking your own car, and
that's always been true.

Saying someone values their time more than convenience is, to me anyway, a
nonsensical statement. You might as well say you'd rather fly a fixed-wing
aircraft than an airplane.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Jose" > wrote in message
> . com...
>> You may call it ironic; I find commercial air travel very inconvenient
>> with all the post 911 nonsense we have to put up with.
>
> As do I. But we seem to be in the minority.
>
>> The only reason I do it is that for intercontenental trips, driving takes
>> much longer, and is thus more inconvenient. However I've stopped flying
>> commercially on anything less than, oh, a thousand miles or so.
>
> Nevertheless, the general population has shown no such reduction in their
> air travel. Obviously, they don't find the hassles to be significant
> enough to affect their travel decisions.

It's interesting to note though that while the flying public grouses about
what a PITA it is to travel, the "Security IQ" of the flying public remains
painfully low.

Every week it's the same idiotic crap at security:
- Women wearing tons of jewelry
- Men wearing boots with steel shanks or ten miles of laces.
- Large steel buckles on belts
- Laptops left in bags
- Phones left on hips
- Bluetooth headsets left stuck in ears

It's kind of amusing when you run across that someone who is taking their
first airplane ride in several years (maybe even post 9/11.) You can spot
them a mile away.

But unfortunately, I see most of the above being done by people with 100K
tags and World Club tags on their bags....business travelers. Presumably
people who travel frequently.

<Snip>

Jay B

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "GS" > wrote in message
> om...
> As surprising to you as it may be, the flight attendant is correct and you
> and the pilot you asked are both wrong (or he misunderstood your question)....

thanks for the clarification.

I'm not alone as many other frequent fliers (and this other Part 121
pilot) thought it was allowed as they have also done it numerous times
and the FA's couldn't care less. It wont' be the last time I'm wrong
either.

Now here's a question for you. How is it that I am not allowed to strap
my laptop into the bag yet I am allowed to strap a cello into a
(purchased) seat?

> A flight attendant *ought* to be able to tell passengers to do things, even
> when they are not required by regulation, if those things still appear to be
> necessary for safety on the flight.

agreed and that is why I did immediately comply. the problem today is
that there are tons of unpublished rules and regulations (Op Sepcs, FA
handbooks, etc.) and there is a small minority of FA's who claim "due to
new security regulations you can't do <whatever>." if that is truly a
security regulation why is she the only FA to follow this regulation. It
is certainly possible she made it up as a veil to not deal with some
customer. Numerous frequent fliers have asked on other boards about
other circumstancs so I am not alone on this matter. So it is within
every customer's right to question her or the carrier on it *after*
complying with it otherwise we're a bunch of blind and stupid rats.

so is it allowed to be the only passenger standing in the back of a 757
in order to stretch on a 5+ hour flight? According to 99% of the FA's,
no problems at all and they start chatting with the passenger. 1% of
the FA's claim it is against the new security regulations? Hmmm, sounds
like that FA is using it as an excuse. If it is truly a security
regulation are the other 99% of FA's not following the the security
regulations? I'd find that a safety of flight issue that should be
reported. What if the passenger gets a letter from their doctor saying
that due to say low blood pressure the passenger is required to stand
and stretch. Who does the passenger speak to ahead of time to get this
information passed down so it isn't an issue onboard?

thanks for your sharing your knowledge.

Gerald

> Nevertheless, the general population has shown no such reduction in their
> air travel.

I'm not sure that's true (though I haven't reviewed the stats). I do
know that people are plowing money into this air taxi stuff, and jet
cards are becoming more popular, even at the higher prices. So there is
evidence that the inconvenience of commercial air travel is impacting
travel plans, at least at the corporate short haul level.

Remember also that some of the commercial short haul traffic is heads
and tails of longer flights. I'll bet isolated short flight passengers
are down.

> For most people, convenience and time are inseparable.

They play into each other, but indirectly, and the distinction is
meaningful.

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"GS" > wrote in message
et...
> [...]
> Now here's a question for you. How is it that I am not allowed to strap
> my laptop into the bag yet I am allowed to strap a cello into a
> (purchased) seat?

I don't know. Possibly the FAA Administrator has issued a waiver (blanket,
or to the specific airline) for that particular situation. Possibly there's
some other rule I didn't bother to look at covering cargo that is too large
to fit under the seat or in a storage bin or locker. Or possibly the
airline simply looks the other way so they can sell a plane ticket.

Regardless, I don't see how the question is relevant to your original
situation. You were told what you were doing was against the regulations,
and it was.

> [...]
> agreed and that is why I did immediately comply. the problem today is
> that there are tons of unpublished rules and regulations (Op Sepcs, FA
> handbooks, etc.) and there is a small minority of FA's who claim "due to
> new security regulations you can't do <whatever>." if that is truly a
> security regulation why is she the only FA to follow this regulation.

Who is "the only FA to follow this regulation"? You never said that the
flight attendant you asked you to put your bag on the floor claimed it was a
security regulation. And it's not a security regulation...it's a cargo
carriage regulation that has likely existed for a very long time.

> It is certainly possible she made it up as a veil to not deal with some
> customer. Numerous frequent fliers have asked on other boards about other
> circumstancs so I am not alone on this matter. So it is within every
> customer's right to question her or the carrier on it *after* complying
> with it otherwise we're a bunch of blind and stupid rats.

IMHO, it is counter-productive to try to and question the flight attendant.
Maybe if the request is just blatantly ridiculous, but I doubt that happens
very often (none of the examples you've given seem blatantly ridiculous to
me). You are unlikely to change the physical nature of the situation by
questioning the flight attendant, but you DO create tension and stress as
well as a feeling of conflict. These are not useful mental states in the
context of flying on an airline.

By all means, bring it up with the airline after the flight is over. But
every passenger should be doing their best to avoid conflict, especially
with the flight crew, except when completely unavoidable (which should
practically never be the case).

> so is it allowed to be the only passenger standing in the back of a 757 in
> order to stretch on a 5+ hour flight? According to 99% of the FA's, no
> problems at all and they start chatting with the passenger. 1% of the
> FA's claim it is against the new security regulations? Hmmm, sounds like
> that FA is using it as an excuse. If it is truly a security regulation
> are the other 99% of FA's not following the the security regulations?

I have no idea. I have paid very little attention to the new security
regulations, as it's my goal to never have to deal with them. I have
avoided the airlines like the plague ever since the TSA started dictating
new security regulations.

Given how absurd the other security regulations are, it wouldn't surprise me
if the security regulations quoted do in fact exist. Even if only a handful
of flight attendants enforce them. Your percentages are obviously made up,
but even if we accept that a minority of flight attendants are enforcing the
security regulations, that's not such a surprising situation, and it
shouldn't be used to make it harder for the flight attendants who ARE trying
to do things by the book.

If you have done the research to determine for certain that a regulation
doesn't exist, then by all means point that out to the airline. But absent
that, why go out of your way to make assumptions that lead only to conflict?
What's so hard about giving the flight attendant (who is presumably
better-educated in the regulations than most passengers would be) the
benefit of the doubt.

> I'd find that a safety of flight issue that should be reported. What if
> the passenger gets a letter from their doctor saying that due to say low
> blood pressure the passenger is required to stand and stretch. Who does
> the passenger speak to ahead of time to get this information passed down
> so it isn't an issue onboard?

AFAIK, the TSA does not make allowances for medical reasons. If there
actually is a security regulation, I'm not convinced that there is a legal
way to circumvent that regulation, especially not just with a doctor's note.
If the current regulations dictate that a passenger cannot comply with
medical requirements, then that passenger should probably not be flying on
the airlines.

Beyond that, I can't tell you who the passenger would have to talk to. I'd
guess that the best first step would be to try to explain the situation to
the gate agent, providing them an opportunity to discuss with the pilot
prior to the boarding of the flight. But you're unlikely to get a waiver
from the TSA, and so if there is a regulation to be circumvented, it won't
happen legally. Given that, the exact person you need to clear things with
isn't going to be something that's a published policy item.

Pete

>>agreed and that is why I did immediately comply. the problem today is
>>that there are tons of unpublished rules and regulations (Op Sepcs, FA
>>handbooks, etc.) and there is a small minority of FA's who claim "due to
>>new security regulations you can't do <whatever>." if that is truly a
>>security regulation why is she the only FA to follow this regulation.
> Who is "the only FA to follow this regulation"? You never said that the
> flight attendant you asked you to put your bag on the floor claimed it was a
> security regulation. And it's not a security regulation...it's a cargo
> carriage regulation that has likely existed for a very long time.

I might have cut and pasted out of order. When I stood up for a few
minutes at the back of the 757, she claimed I couldn't stand there due
to security. Now by my guess, 95% of the time the FA's enjoy company to
chat with. The 5% of the time it is a security issue to stand there.
(this is for over 400k miles in the past 5 years on this same carrier).
Well someone is either making up this regulation or the others are not
following it.

> IMHO, it is counter-productive to try to and question the flight attendant.
> Maybe if the request is just blatantly ridiculous, but I doubt that happens
> very often (none of the examples you've given seem blatantly ridiculous to
> me).

I'm not about to get into an argument and I instantly started putting my
bag under the seat. But often the FA's don't hang around, as they are
not paid to hang around, to (politely) question. And these requests
happen literally every flight and some are quite ridiculous. For
example, standing at the back of the plane. If I know from experience
it is allowable for 95% of the time, then this 5% sure sounds
ridiculous. This goes for hanging out by the cockpit door (I get
upgraded often due to my frequent flier status). So it is ok to stand
by the cockpit door but not at the back of a 757??? Note, if this
regulation does exist, I wouldn't be surprised but then why is 95% of
the FA's not enforcing especially by the cockpit door?

> Given how absurd the other security regulations are, it wouldn't surprise me
> if the security regulations quoted do in fact exist. Even if only a handful
> of flight attendants enforce them. Your percentages are obviously made up,
> but even if we accept that a minority of flight attendants are enforcing the
> security regulations, that's not such a surprising situation, and it
> shouldn't be used to make it harder for the flight attendants who ARE trying
> to do things by the book.

stretching for 10 minutes on a 5+ hour flight is VERY reasonable and, in
fact, I've seen videos on planes suggesting to stand up to avoid that
one lawsuit of a passenger dying (?) due to blood pooling in their legs
due to inactivity. My percentages are NOT made up, but a guess, yes
though. A frequent flier on another board wrote to me today "I fully
agree with your original thread started which was about FA's just
"making" up rules as they go which I've personally experienced as
well........"

> If you have done the research to determine for certain that a regulation
> doesn't exist, then by all means point that out to the airline. But absent
> that, why go out of your way to make assumptions that lead only to conflict?
> What's so hard about giving the flight attendant (who is presumably
> better-educated in the regulations than most passengers would be) the
> benefit of the doubt.

because I'm trying to do something quite reasonable, for example,
stretching on the long flight. Should I argue about it after a 13 hour
flight? Hell no. I'm stretching on that flight. Again, this is not a
one time incident. I've flown over 100k miles since January 1st. I
spend a significant time on planes (I wish more of it was myself flying)
and see this stuff all the time.

Again, I'm not trying to raise hell and when asked to do something by a
FA, I do it. But many things I've heard said by FA's are very
ridiculous and diluting the real purpose of security regulations.

Gerald

"GS" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> stretching for 10 minutes on a 5+ hour flight is VERY reasonable and, in
> fact, I've seen videos on planes suggesting to stand up to avoid that one
> lawsuit of a passenger dying (?) due to blood pooling in their legs due to
> inactivity. My percentages are NOT made up, but a guess, yes though.

By definition, if you don't have actual documented counts of the instances,
the numbers are made up. If you are guessing about the numbers, then they
are made up. That's what "made up" *means*.

As far as the stretching goes...no one is telling you that you can't get up
and stretch. They are telling you that there's a specific place on the
airplane they don't want you loitering. Whether this is a security
regulation or not, it's something that the flight crew has instructed you
not to do, and thus is carries the force of law. Go stretch somewhere else.

> A frequent flier on another board wrote to me today "I fully agree with
> your original thread started which was about FA's just "making" up rules
> as they go which I've personally experienced as well........"

Maybe it will be relevant when a flight attendant writes to you and says
that they personally on a regular basis make up rules as they go. I doubt
the other person who replied to you has any more justification for his claim
to know what's actually a rule and what's not than you do.

Now, all that said, I will note that your post started on the margins of
being on-topic here (a newsgroup about *piloting* airplanes, not riding as a
passenger in them), and your replies have drifted well away from those
margins, into being entirely off-topic. Frankly, I'm not really all that
interested in debating the finer points of regulations governing passenger
behavior on airlines.

But besides that, there are so many absurd rules that DO exist that it seems
silly to me for someone to think that they know for sure some claimed rule
is too absurd to be true.

I gave you the reference for the regulation relevant to your original
question, pointing out that your belief that the rule didn't exist was
false. You SHOULD have taken that as a clue that other rules you believe
don't exist might actually exist as well. For some reason, you didn't, and
without bothering to research *those* rules you have continued your tirade
against the flight attendants. I don't really feel like having a discussion
where the other person can't be bothered to find and consider actual
*facts*. Your entire attitude and opinion is based on assumptions and
presumptions, and you're not even willing to admit it.

Please don't expect any more replies from me about this topic.

Pete

Jose wrote:

> I'm not sure that's true (though I haven't reviewed the stats). I do
> know that people are plowing money into this air taxi stuff,

In other words, the airlines are driving away the folks who fly
business or first class, and tend to pay full price; nice business
plan :-) no matter how much money you fork off for a plane ticket,
you still end up having to go through the same crap, delays,
'security' screening, etc. (you won't take off until the last
passenger is in) ok, you might benefit from some kind
of priority as compared to the folks travelling in cattle class, but
the difference is not worth the cost.

Sorry to be so ignorant, but how much does it cost these days to
fly with air taxi as compared to flying business/first class with
the airlines? do you guys reckon that these new VLJ coming up will
have an impact on that market? ok, it won't compete on the long
range flights, but what about the short haul? and where do
airlines get their revenues these days? short or long haul?

--Sylvain

"Sylvain" > wrote in message
t...
> Jose wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure that's true (though I haven't reviewed the stats). I do
>> know that people are plowing money into this air taxi stuff,
>
>In other words, the airlines are driving away the folks who fly business or
>first class, and tend to pay full price; nice business plan :-) no matter
>how much money you fork off for a plane ticket, you still end >up having to
>go through the same crap, delays, 'security' screening, etc. (you won't
>take off until the last passenger is in) ok, you might benefit from some
>kind of priority as compared to the folks >travelling in cattle class, but
>the difference is not worth the cost.

My airline status is primarilly due to frequency of travel more than the
price point of my tickets but the day they shut down everything in the UK,
because I have status on US Airways, I was through security at Sky Harbor in
Phoenix, AZ in less time than it often took BEFORE the UK incident.

Those in "cattle class" were in line for probably an hour at least.

<SNIP>

Jay B

> Sorry to be so ignorant, but how much does it cost these days to
> fly with air taxi as compared to flying business/first class with
> the airlines? do you guys reckon that these new VLJ coming up will
> have an impact on that market? ok, it won't compete on the long
> range flights, but what about the short haul? and where do
> airlines get their revenues these days? short or long haul?

I'm also ignorant of exact numbers, but what I recall is that air taxi
is more expensive (per flight) but has the benefit of little or no
security hassle, and access to many little airports the commercial
operators don't fly into. This is attractive to business travellers.

Will the VLJs impact the market? Yes. Sufficiently? Dunno -
sufficiently to do what?

I don't know where the airlines get their revenues, but I suspect it's
from excess baggage charges. :)

Jose
--
The monkey turns the crank and thinks he's making the music.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Jose wrote:

> Will the VLJs impact the market? Yes. Sufficiently? Dunno -
> sufficiently to do what?

sufficiently to change the airlines' attitude towards the rest
of us -- nothing like a little bit of competition to get better
service,

but then I am an optimist :-)

--Sylvain

ps and when I grow up I want my very own VLJ :-)