A bill is on its way to President Obama’s desk for his signature today.  It’s called the FAA  Modernization and Safety Improvement Act of 2012 and it has some important components in it that are essential for the airline traveler to know.

As you may be aware, there has been a push to get Congress to act on a Passengers’ Bill of Rights over the past several years.  In the past few years, the DOT has increased fines levied against airlines for extended delays, but there hasn’t been much in the way of actual laws that govern the treatment of passengers by the airlines.  Today’s bill contains a large number of provisions that will require both the FAA and the U.S. Airline industry to change, limit or prohibit certain former practices that have made airline travel torturous, at best.

Here are some important highlights that will become law:

• Airlines must create realistic schedules to minimize departure delays
• Airlines must publish and have prominently displayed on the ticket counters, on their websites and on e-confirmation documentation the DOT’s Consumer Protection Hotline
• Provisions of food, water and medical treatments must become available at all times – an improvement over the DOT’s “after two hours” requirement
• Passengers must now be made aware of any insecticide used aboard international flights
• Improved flight delay reporting
• Considerations to be made for Military and “active duty” personnel
• Provisions for educating passengers about which child safety seats can be used onboard aircraft
• Airlines now restricted from charging extra fees for carry-on instruments which can be stowed safely in overhead bins, and that larger instruments must be allowed as checked baggage
• Airports must file contingency plans with the DOT for situations such as extreme weather delays or more catastrophic events in the future
• DOT must create a Consumer Aviation Protection Advisory Committee made up of one representative from each air carrier, along with airport operators, state and local governments and non-profit organizations which focus on consumer protections

A major setback for airline consumer advocates was the exclusion of the “three-hour tarmac delay” restriction, which many saw as a punitive measure against the airlines.  However, the DOT plans to keep its current regulation in place, despite it being struck from the bill.

What this new bill does now is finally rid Congress of having to patch up the FAA piecemeal and get them the monies they will need to improve air traffic control systems in the U.S. and move forward on the latest technologies available to route aircraft while in the air and lessen traffic jams both on the ground and in the air.

Another issue that was tagged onto this bill was a change in how unions can organize on airline properties, one that isn’t setting well with union leaders nationwide.  It requires unions to provide 50% PLUS 1 of the total workgroup population to sign union cards in order for an election to be authorized.  The current rule is 35%.

All-in-all, this new bill will force the airline industry to re-think how they do business and will hopefully lesson many of the frustrations that currently plague the system.  Only time will tell…

A recent report about a passenger being removed from a flight and arrested for not turning off their cell phone[1] got me to thinking this week.  Often times, I get this question from passengers wanting to know the “WHY” about phone and electronic device usage restrictions during a flight.  I dare say that many flight attendants know the basic knowledge of why, but I’ll wager that a good majority have probably not investigated this regulation much past the reply “it’s Federal law.”  It seems to me that this subject is rather vaguely reported in the media and the details of the reasons behind the regulations are often misquoted or completely misunderstood.

As a frequent traveler once tried to point out to me on this very issue, it is the Federal Communications Commission that dictates the ban of cellular device usage on-board an aircraft, not the FAA.  After referring the matter to my own airline, I was advised that the customer was right and to move on.  In my research, however, I discovered that this is only HALF TRUE!  I will address the FCC matter in a moment.

I suppose that the mystery of all of this is really centered around some of the broader language that is found in Title 14 of the Transportation Code of the United States, better known as the Federal Air Regulations or FARs.  I will try to sort these out for you in plain English here, however you can find the complete wording of all these FARs on the FAA’s website, http://www.faa.gov.

There are actually four separate FARs that address the issue of the use of “portable electronic devices” (PEDs) or “transmitting portable electronic devices” (T-PEDs): § 91.21 [Portable electronic devices], § 121.306 [Portable electronic devices], § 125.204 [Portable electronic devices], and § 135.144 [Portable electronic devices].  In all four cases, the language of these FARs is identical, with one exception in Part 91.  All four FARs state that “no person may operate or pilot in command (PIC) of an aircraft allow the operation of, any portable electronic device on any of the following U.S.-registered civil aircraft: (1) Aircraft operated by a holder of an air carrier operating certificate or an operating certificate; or (2) Any other aircraft while it it operated under IFR (Instrument Flight Rules).”

Since Part 91 concerns “General Operating and Flight Rules,” the exception mentioned earlier pertains to IFR operated flights; all the other Parts are specific to type or class of specific operations (i.e. Commercial Domestically Flagged aircraft, Regional Carriers or Aircraft rated at 20 or more passengers, but a maximum payload of 6,000 pounds).  Otherwise, the language is identical.

All four parts are also specific in its exceptions to this regulation.  There are FIVE exceptions to the prohibition of PEDs and T-PEDs, and quite frankly, this is where the broader language is located, thus making it a rule that is specific to the carriers themselves.  The first four exceptions in ALL Parts are (1) Portable voice recorders, (2) Hearing aids, (3) Heart pacemakers, and (4) Electric shavers (I personally found this exception somewhat humorous, since I have never actually witnessed a passenger using one on a flight!).

The fifth exception is what seems to cause the headaches.  It states, “Any other portable electronic device that the part 119 certificate holder has determined will not cause interference with the navigation or communication system of the aircraft on which it is to be used.“  Really?  And how does the average passenger determine this?

According to another FAA publication, known as Advisory Circular 91.21-1B[2], it is the responsibility of each individual air carrier to test their aircraft for interference using highly specialized instrumentation to determine which devices pose a safety threat to communications and navigation aboard each type of aircraft the carrier operates.  So the reality of it all is that, in order for each airline to allow or ban particular devices, they must have them tested to the aircraft configurations they operate.  And as is ALWAYS the case, the PIC has the final say on ANY device, if he/she determines that it is a safety hazard to the aircraft or the crew.  No exceptions there…

Where the confusion seems to lie with passengers (and it’s something few of us really think about) is that it is entirely possible that Airline “A” would allow the use of a particular device that Airline “B” will not.  This is tied directly to the testing that each individual airline is required to perform on their fleet.  Of course, this begs the question: “Well, if Airline “A” operates the Boeing 737-500 and they approve my Bluetooth device, why wouldn’t Airline “B” allow me to use it on their B-737-500′s.”  This boils down to logistics and consistency throughout a particular airline’s operation.

What AC 91.21-1B does state is that the individual carriers are responsible for educating its passengers on what devices may or may not be used at every stage of the flight (boarding, taxiing, at cruise, decent, etc.).  As far as I am aware, every airline has some sort of list they provide their passengers and this can usually be found on the Safety Information Card (most of the time these are vague, at best), the in-flight magazine (usually you can find the complete list of allowable devices here) or both.  And almost every airline I have flown on has this announcement in the safety briefing that flight attendants are required to perform at the beginning of every flight they work.

I also did some digging, and every major airline, along with most of the regionals and the low-cost carriers (LCCs) have a place on their corporate websites that spell these out for passengers (I will admit, however, that many of these policies online were not easily found and I had to call one airline to get “directions” to find that list.

The bottom-line on all of this is that the onus of determining what devices can be used on what planes rests with the carrier itself.  It would be safe to point out that as a passenger, if you have any reservations about whether or not it IS okay to use your device, the flight attendant is your best, fastest resource.  When in doubt: Ask!

So that’s the FAA’s reasoning for regulating PEDs and T-PEDs…so why is the FCC involved in this debate???  The answer was completely unknown to me until I researched this article, and the answer may astound you.

Turns out that most airlines quote the FCC Consumer Advisory “Using Wireless Devices on Airplanes”[3] which states, “Federal Communication Commission (FCC) rules prohibit the use of cellular phones using the 800 MHz frequency and other wireless devices on airborne aircraft.  This ban was put in place because of potential interference to wireless networks on the ground.”  Notice a subtle but important difference?

It turns out that although the FCC’s jurisdiction usually doesn’t include airline regulation, when it comes to communication on Terra Firma, the FCC is the ruler of the roost.  The FCC is the department of the US Goverment which oversees all things to do with electronic devices that transmit, receive or have the potential to interfere with communications within our boarders.  As such, you will note that on most every electronic device you own, you will usually find a seal of approval from the FCC somewhere on it, which tells anyone who wants to know that the device is safe to use and causes no threat to the communication system in the USA.

According to the FCC, there have been instances where trying to use a cell signal from the air has caused damage and service interruptions on the ground, and THAT is the main reason for its strict stance on the issue.  According to its own Advisory, “In March 2007, the FCC terminated a proceeding that it began in late 2004 to consider lifting this ban.  The FCC determined that the technical information provided by interested parties in response to the proposal was insufficient to determine whether in-flight use of wireless devices on aircraft could cause harmful interference to wireless networks on the ground.  Therefore, it decided at this time to make no changes in the rules prohibiting in-flight use of such devices.”

As flight attendants, it is our duty on every flight to inform and enforce the FARs as written in our Flight Attendant Operation Manual (FAOM).  Anything in that manual is considered by the FAA to be the rule of law when applied to the specific airline for which it was written.  Keep in mind that “sleep mode” or “airplane mode” on ANY device is not enough to satisfy the requirement to power the device off during taxi, take-off and landing.  And, as was the case of the passenger who refused to comply with those FARs, failure to do so in most cases is considered by most every airline as “interference of a flight crew” and that is punishable by arrest, fines and sometimes even jail time.  So please, just turn it off!

So there it is in black and white (with a few color photos intermingled) about the WHY regarding cellphone usage (and any other electronic device) during various stages of airline travel.  This information certainly won’t stop those on-board airplanes from ignoring the flight attendant briefing or the safety card or the in-flight magazine.  But there are indeed U.S. Federal laws and regulations from two separate agencies that are quite specific about it, and the reasons behind the rules.  I am also feign to point out that when the flight attendant requests that a device be turned off, this is not a power trip for us crew mates.  We are simply doing what we were hired to do…it’s not a difficult request, but it IS the law!

“Deltalina” photo courtesy of Delta Air Lines, Inc.

——————————————–
[1]The Hill: Transportation Blog,“Airline passenger arrested for not turning off cellphone in flight”, Keith Laing, September 6, 2011

[2]FAA.gov: Document Library: Advisory Circulars, “AC #91.21-1B”, Dated 08-25-2006.

[3]FCC.gov: Guides: FCC Consumer Facts, “Using Wireless Devices on Airplanes.”

As a person who has worked in the service industry all of my life, there have been very rare instances that I have ever been accused of providing “POOR” customer service. I have taken pride in providing a “world class” level of customer service for most of my career (I cannot claim to have done this all the time – I AM human after all!).

So I am always fascinated when someone accuses me of less than stellar service, especially when there are people standing around me, witnessing the accusation with as much puzzlement as I have. And such was the case of the woman who boarded one of my flights recently.

I should preface my comments here for the benefit of those who may read this without a working knowledge of what the rules are as a flight attendant and what our limitations may be. Now, just as there are a myriad of airlines in the world, each airline have their own set of rules, regulations and procedures that can be as varied and different as the grains of sand on the beach. In the US, at least, all airlines are bound by a set of Federal Air Regulations (FARs) which cannot be altered except by the government itself. Besides them, it’s each airline for itself in how it approaches various issues that are not so much federally mandated “safety” issues, but are nonetheless still “safety related.”

In this case, the passenger boarded a completely full flight to Chicago, being one of the last to come aboard, toting an over-regulation sized roller-board suitcase (the manufacture of this particular style of suitcase is quite well known for being, shall we say, a very upscale brand name which produces very FEW items that can actually fit in an airplane overhead bin correctly and will usually take up much more space than an actual “regulation” sized carry on).

As purser on this flight, one of my responsibilities on this flight is to greet our passengers at the boarding door, direct them to the proper side of the aircraft for boarding and monitor all activity at this position without leaving the area unattended. I am bound by an actual FAR and unless I find someone on the working crew to cover this position, I cannot leave the area until the boarding door has been closed. This can be somewhat challenging at times, especially on a full flight as I try to monitor bin space, answer questions about downline connections, ensure that the crew has the proper supplies onboard, and deal with issues such as Federal Air Marshals, pilot briefings and customer service demands to close up the flight for an on-time departure.

Despite all the activity that presents itself in a delicate dance of chaos, most often this is accomplished without incident and the flight departs.

Which brings me back to our female passenger. She arrived as one of the last passengers to come aboard the aircraft. By this time, much of the storage space is used up, although miraculously, there is still some available space randomly located throughout the cabin. This passenger’s up-scale, over-sized roller-board bag will probably not fit, but rather than checking the bag at the gate, it’s to the customer’s advantage to try to find a spot before being forced with this option.

As she boards, she asks if there is any chance her bag can still be stored. Looking down the aisle from my vantage point, I can still see openings in the overhead bins and suggest to her that it still looks good.

A few minutes pass. I have made my obligatory announcements regarding those who cannot find proper stowage to bring their items to the jetway so that a waiting Customer Service Agent (CSR) can tag their luggage for proper routing to their final destination. Moments pass and from the other side of the cabin emerges this passenger, bag in tow, and as she passes me, she utters “You just can’t find good help these days!” and storms off to get her bag tagged with the proper forms.

Normally, the passing comment would simply fall away and we’d have forgotten it within a few moments. Such was not the case with her. Upon returning to the boarding door, she approaches me and begins to rail on me about how horrible our service is, how glib I had been in encouraging her to stow her bag, how unhelpful the crew was in being unwilling to lift her bag for her into the overhead space, and so forth, accusing me of having a condescending and curt attitude over the public address system, as well as to her in person.

I responded as calmly and politely as I could, but she cut me off repeatedly, now accusing me of patronizing her and that she would have my job.  At this point, seeing the CSR approach the boarding door, I asked the agent to explain to her what I had been trying to tell her all along.  The CSR was having none of it.  She plainly said, “Ma’am, either check your bags and get on the flight, or get off the plane and take your chances as a stand-by on the next flight.”

Without hesitation, the passenger looks at me and points her finger in my face and says, “You are going to regret having me on your flight today!”  Well, like it or not, those words are really considered a veiled threat, whether or not she had any intentions behind the words, and in my position as a safety professional, I have to weigh her words against the safety and convenience of the remaining 200+ passengers on the plane who are waiting to depart.

So, upon hearing these words to me, I informed the CSR that she would not be traveling with us on that flight and to escort her off the jetway.  Apparently those words called her bluff.  Immediately her tone and demeanor changed.  She began to cry and through her tears began to explain that she was on her way to the funeral of her best friend who had just passed away from breast cancer.

Under most circumstances, I would have stood my ground, however when she produced the obituary and handed it to the CSR, I yielded.  I calmed her down, explained to her how her words were interpreted (which the CSR concurred were threatening), and told her that if she was to get on the flight, there would be no further argument about her bag — it would be checked — and she would take her assigned seat with no further comment to the crew or other passengers.  She tearfully agreed and we let her fly with us that day.  She was a model passenger and thanked me when we arrived for letting her on board.  It’s amazing how stress will cause illogical behavior.

As a service industry employee, it’s tough out there.  People truly believe that we are required to take on the abusiveness and abrasiveness of the traveling public, simply because they purchased a ticket.  It doesn’t surprise me then, when one of us just reaches their limit and goes “postal.”  Take yesterday’s incident on jetBlue in New York.

The flight attendant had to deal with an abusive passenger during and after the flight.  The passenger was uncooperative when told to stay seated while the seat belt sign was on.  When they were leaving the plane, the passenger struck the flight attendant in the head while removing their bag from the overhead bin and refused to acknowledge or apologize.  The flight attendant (a veteran employee who had a long career at several airlines) lost his temper and his senses at that point, cursing out the passenger over the P.A. system, grabbing a couple of beers out of the galley and proceeded to open an armed exit door which deployed the emergency slide, then jumped down the slide and went home.

While this example is extreme, it occurred to me that his actions were not sparked by this one incident.  As a veteran flight attendant, I can relate — it was YEARS of public abuse, YEARS of the public ignoring the flight attendants, of disrespecting our position as the safety professionals on the flight; it was YEARS of the public treating service industry people with contempt and malice, and sadly, getting away with it.  And add to that any personal issues that the HUMAN BEING flight attendant might be dealing with in their personal lives (apparently his mother is dying of cancer and he has been dealing with alcoholism).

The FAA says that passengers can be fined and/or jailed for not complying with the seat belt sign or the directives of the in-flight crew, but in my 14+ year career, I’ve never seen it happen nor have I heard of it happening.

I cannot condone the flight attendant’s actions because it, in and of itself, violated several Federal Air Regulations, but I empathize completely.  And as of now, it seems the public and media are on his side.  But will this amount to anything other than an appearance on Saturday Night Live or Oprah?  Will anything change, or, like most things that need real change, will the public forget and move on to the next headline?

Great customer service is the goal I make for each flight.  But at what cost?  At some point, doesn’t the public have any limitations or do we just condone bad behavior and blame the service professional should anything be less than catering to every whim the public deems they are entitled to with the purchase of their ticket?

Images from “View from the Top” courtesy of Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Inc.