Airline responds after Baldwin kicked off flight

If it was anyone else, they would be in jail..... why is he not in jail, for all he did, it was a federal offense.

It's not a safety thing. There is no evidence whatsoever that electronic devices interfere with airplane equipment, and if there was then we would have to fix the airplane, not the personal electronics. It would be a huge security issue if planes were that vulnerable to interference. They're not. Repeated tests have shown over and over again that using personal electronic devices (including cell phones) has zero effect on planes. It's just a stupid rule that was created out of fear, and it's nearly impossible to get the FAA to ever remove a rule so it stays.

Adam- Are you an airplane technician? Do you have a degree in aerospace engineering? If the flight crew tells you to turn off your electronic devices you turn them off.

Period. That's the rule. It's their plane, they get to make the rules.

If you don't like the rule, tough. If some word game on your toy gadget is that important to you, you can play it on the 14 hour bus ride to wherever you need to go.

First, pilots and flight crews don't want you to turn off your devices. The FAA does. The pilots and flight crew are just enforcing the FAA's dumb rule because it's the law. You're not doing it for the pilots. They don't care. They know better.

Second, neither pilots not aerospace engineers are any more qualified to know whether electronics cause interference than me. It's electrical engineers that understand that kind of stuff. Your appeal to authority fails on account of appealing to the wrong authority.

Third, as I said earlier, multiple real studies have shown conclusively that personal electronics on board a plane have zero effect on the plane. It would be absolute madness if we allowed a plane to fly that was so sensitive to interference than a cell phone on board could cause problems. No pilot in their right mind would fly such a poorly designed plane.

If we had such a problem with interference then you can bet every terrorist would just be boarding planes with cell phones, and thus cell phones would be banned from planes. Why isn't that happening? Because cell phones don't do anything to planes!

Look at it this way: every single flight most likely has at least one or two people who did not turn off a cell phone. That's thousands of flights a day every day with a cell phone on. Yet not a single case has ever come up where a plane has crashed or been forced to land due to a cell phone interfering. Not once. Think about that.

So why does the rule exist? I don't want to hear "it's the rule, so deal with it". If the rule is idiotic (and it is) then it should change. Stupid rules should not continue to be enforced just because they're the rules. Logic like that just leads to rules never being changed no matter how stupid.

There are rules that most all of us have to follow. If you think they are stupid, that is fine, just dont fly. Unfortunately these rules mostly come about because of our muslim friends around the world that want us all dead, so that is why we have rules. People like Baldwin believe they are above all rules, and then do what they want. Throwing a tantrum over being told to turn off his cellphone, and then slamming the door to the bathroom and pounding on the walls of the bathroom show psychotic behavior and he should have been arrested and thrown in jail, then a mental hospital..... I guess this is the way most liberal democrats behave, as it sounds like the fit nancy pelosi had when she demanded a larger plane to hold all her taxpayer bought liquor and all her friends..... I guess thats the way libs behave.

Adam- fine. whatever. throw a tantrum just like Alec Baldwin. The next time you're on a plane and they ask everyone to turn their @!$%# off - don't. See what happens.

It's their plane - they get to make the rules. When you own and operate your own airline, then you can make a rule allowing everyone on your planes to use their electronic toys.

Until then... have fun taking the bus.

Unfortunately these rules mostly come about because of our muslim friends around the world that want us all dead, so that is why we have rules.

Bull@!$%#. These rules predate any Muslim threat, and they have absolutely nothing to do with terrorism. Taking off your shoes at security could be blamed on terrorism, but not turning off your cell phone. Like I said, if cell phones were a legitimate security threat then cell phones would be outright banned on planes because it is trivial to hide one and leave it on. They're not a threat, though, and the airlines know that. They're just enforcing the FAA's stupid rule because it's the law.

I guess this is the way most liberal democrats behave

Oh please. This has nothing to do with politics. Don't project your political biases into every debate.

The next time you're on a plane and they ask everyone to turn their @!$%# off - don't.

Here's a secret: I don't. Guess what happens? Nothing!

It's their plane - they get to make the rules.

Actually, they don't. The FAA made the rules. The airlines just have to enforce them. I wouldn't blame the airlines for trying to enforce them. I will, however, point out that in this particular case the plane was sitting there for a prolonged period of time not taking off. Think about this: as soon as you land you can use your cell phone (before reaching the gate), and yet as soon as you push off from the gate for takeoff they make you turn off your phone even if you wait an hour more before taking off. That's insane, and I don't believe the airlines are obligated to enforce the rule in that manner. That is why Baldwin was pissed. There was no reason for that. I wouldn't have thrown a tantrum, and I'm not defending his tantrum itself, but I am pointing out the misconceptions about the rule itself. The rule is dumb. It should change.

Why the rule exists is irrelevent. Whether the rule is due to a legitimate threat is irrelevent. Who makes or enforces such rules is irrelevent. Whether or not you approve of the rule is irrelevent.

It's a rule. Period. Follow it.

Following the rule doesn't hurt anyone. Following the rule doesn't inconvenience anyone other than self-involved crybabies with techno-adhd.

When you're on their plane, you follow their rules. If your little cell-phone video games are sooooo darned important to you- take the bus. Or go to Washington, hire an expensive lobbying firm to get the rule changed.

Or just turn your @!$%# off and bring a book to read. God forbid Americans spend more than 20 minutes without a bright screen inches from their face. Oh the humanity.

Following the rule doesn't hurt anyone.

Yes it does. It hurts everyone. Not a lot, granted, but it's not like it doesn't negatively affect people. This is a particularly silly example, I know, but the fact is this rule inconveniences millions of people a year, and yet you don't even think we should question it? Just because "it's the rule"? What a weak argument.

How? How is anyone hurt by having to put away their electronic toys for a brief period of time?

Specify. Exactly how does that "hurt" you. He was playing a word game, he wasn't talking someone through an appendectomy. No one dies as a result of having to stop playing a word game on a phone.

Oh, and "it's the rule" is a weak argument? So I guess the last time you boarded a plane you brought a 5 oz bottle of shampoo with you, right? What? You only brought a 3 oz bottle? Why? Oh, that's right... because it's the rule. And I guess you didn't bother taking your shoes off at the gate, either. What? You did? Oh yeah, because it's the rule.

Exactly how does that "hurt" you.

It hurts me to see these examples of extreme cowardice on American soil. We used to be a strong courageous people and now we are cowering behind 3 oz. shampoo bottles and dangerous chapstick. Until we can stand tall and grow a pair, I am being hurt.

How? How is anyone hurt by having to put away their electronic toys for a brief period of time?

People are inconvenienced. Note that I already pointed out that this doesn't amount to being hurt "a lot". It does have an effect, though. It is annoying. I'm asking "why should we put up with this?", and your only answer is "why not?".

Oh, and "it's the rule" is a weak argument? So I guess the last time you boarded a plane you brought a 5 oz bottle of shampoo with you, right?

This is an equally weak argument. The reason I don't bring things on board that aren't allowed is that I could get arrested for doing so. That doesn't make the rule rational, though. Yes, that rule is stupid too. No, it does not make us the least bit safer. It's a lot harder to get away with breaking that rule, though, so I comply. Not turning off a cell phone, though? All it takes is not taking it out of your pocket. I've done it multiple times. I never got into trouble, and we never crashed. I'm likely to do that plenty more times, and I'm willing to bet (with my life, in fact) that it never will cause a crash. That's because I know for a fact that cell phones don't cause interference for planes.

You are totally twisting my argument into something I've never said. I didn't say break the rules just because. I didn't even say we should in general break the rules, or even that people should break this particular rule. What I did say is if someone breaks this rule then it's not a big deal. I said that this rule is stupid and it needs to change. I even explained why it needs to change. All you've done is say rules are rules and we should all just shut up and do as we're told without question. Sorry, but that's pathetic. If something is wrong I say we should fix it, while you apparently think we should just pretend nothing is wrong. It's attitudes like yours that prevent this country from making real progress.

"... and I'm willing to bet (with my life, in fact) that it will never cause a plane crash."

The problem is - it's not just your life your betting. Would you be willing to bet the lives of 250 strangers that you know more about airline navigation systems than the FAA does? Would you be willing to bet the lives of 250 innocent bystanders that you know more about electrical interference than the aerospace techinicans who built the plane do? Would you be willing to bet the lives of 250 people that you should be exempt from the rules that we all must follow, because you find that rule silly and inconvenient?

If so... then you're just an ass. Plane and simple.

I'm done here.

Take the bus.

Would you be willing to bet the lives of 250 strangers that you know more about airline navigation systems than the FAA does?

I don't have to bet that I know more than the FAA because the FAA has itself has admitted that there is absolutely no evidence that cell phones cause interference. The electrical engineers (not aerospace engineers) who designed the electrical systems of the plane have to shield against interference of all kinds, and in order to certify a plane as flight-ready they have to prove that the plane can withstand much worse interference than a cell phone could possibly give off. If they didn't then it would be trivial to down a plane with off the shelf components you can get at any Radio Shack. Planes cannot be that sensitive.

I would bet that almost every single flight has at least 1 or 2 people who don't turn off their cell phones. Yet no crash has ever, in history, been attributed to a cell phone causing interference. It just doesn't happen. If the FAA thought there was a real chance that cell phones could cause interference then they would have banned cell phones from planes altogether. They didn't. Why? Because they don't cause interference.

Anyone who thinks there is even a remote possibility of cell phones causing interferences in plane navigation should be deathly afraid to ever set foot in a plane. If you think planes are that sensitive and you still fly in them then either you're insane or you just haven't thought it through. I'm guessing it's the latter.

FYI, the FAA just approved the use of iPads in the cockpit, even during takeoff and landing. They plan on letting pilots use them to replace their gigantic flight manuals. If it's safe to use an iPad in the cockpit at all times then why in the world would it not be safe to use in the cabin? Answer: it is safe, and everyone in the airline industry knows it's safe. These rules are a joke.

Correction to the above: please read as "a keen and intelligent observer of politics"—thanks.

They were just sitting in the plane doing nothing. They weren't taking off. I think that was his complaint.