How Much Would You Pay for a Quiet Flight?

A plane comes in for a landing at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) at dusk November 1, 2013. Earlier in the day a gunman opened fire with an assault rifle inside the airport, killing a security agent, creating scenes of chaos and causing widespread flight disruptions. 
National Journal
Dustin Volz
Dec. 16, 2013, 4:08 p.m.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4630) }}

Ma­lika Be­gum is one of those people you’re afraid of.

Be­gum is a con­sult­ant who flies about eight times a month; she hates los­ing work time while in flight and wishes she could talk on her phone at 30,000 feet. “For people like me, we need to be in touch with oth­er people all the time. It’s a very good con­veni­ence to have,” she said Fri­day while rush­ing her way through Re­agan Na­tion­al Air­port.

In­deed, Be­gum says she’d pay an ex­tra $20 per flight for phone priv­ileges.

An­drew Mar­shall says he’d pay $300 not to hear her — or any­one else — dur­ing his time in the sky. For Mar­shall, a Navy seni­or chief petty of­ficer fresh off a flight home from South­east Asia, the pro­spect of cell phones in­ter­rupt­ing his peace of mind pro­voked a vis­cer­al re­ac­tion.

But Mar­shall’s bid­ding war with Be­gum may not al­ways be hy­po­thet­ic­al. After the Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion opened the door last week to end­ing the in-flight call ban, FCC Chair­man Tom Wheel­er sug­ges­ted air­lines set their policies “in con­sulta­tion with their cus­tom­ers.”

Sev­er­al fly­ers in­ter­viewed by Na­tion­al Journ­al Daily said they would con­sider pay­ing an ex­tra fee to use their phone — or to avoid oth­ers who do. And when pas­sen­gers are will­ing to pay for something, air­lines have a long track re­cord of find­ing a way to charge them.

“I’d pay 50 to 100 bucks more to be in the “˜quiet car,’ “ said Brent Reyn­olds, who travels fre­quently to sell hats and out­er­wear for his com­pany. “I don’t want to be there with a lot of people yakking loudly.”

“If prices were sim­il­ar, that might be a de­cider,” said Shauna Crane, who works for Utah State Uni­versity and flies a couple of times a month. She prefers watch­ing movies on her iPad dur­ing flight, not listen­ing to phone con­ver­sa­tions.

Polls show that most fly­ers would prefer calls re­main off-lim­its up in the air, as the pas­sen­ger cab­in of­fers a rare refuge from our hy­per-con­nec­ted lives. Whis­pers of any tam­per­ing with the off-the-grid etiquette im­me­di­ately strike fear in the hearts of most pas­sen­gers wor­ried that their sac­red haven could go the way of the movie theat­er or train car, where tele­phon­ic in­ter­rup­tions are all too com­mon.

It’s enough to make Mar­shall, the Navy of­ficer, cringe. And pre­dict vi­ol­ence.

“There would be more in-flight in­stances where people would be get­ting in­to fights,” Mar­shall said while hold­ing his 1-year-old son next to the ter­min­al’s two-story Christ­mas tree. “I know for a fact. An 11-hour, 12-hour flight, you get pretty an­noyed. You’re tired, and it’s just bad busi­ness, in my opin­ion.”

Be­gum, the con­sult­ant, was sur­prised to learn people like Mar­shall have voiced such strong op­pos­i­tion, though she con­cedes some calls would be more ap­pro­pri­ate than oth­ers. “Your moth­er’s dy­ing, you have a very im­port­ant cli­ent call, you should be able to an­swer,” Be­gum of­fers. “But if it’s chat­ting away about your week­end plans, I feel like that can wait.”

Mar­shall con­tends no call is so im­port­ant that it can’t wait un­til land­ing. “Fly to Ja­pan and back and tell me how fruit­ful of an event that is,” he groans.

If bid­ding wars are the fu­ture, reg­u­lat­ory battles are the present.

The FCC’s 3-2 vote last week to be­gin a pub­lic-com­ment pro­cess that could change in-flight phone rules sparked a quick back­lash. The De­part­ment of Trans­port­a­tion said it will con­sider seek­ing its own ban to pro­tect con­sumers, and law­makers are already tout­ing new le­gis­la­tion that would achieve the same res­ult.

Ini­ti­ation of the com­ment peri­od, however, does not mean the FCC has made up its mind. Be­fore fin­ish­ing any new rule, the agency has sev­er­al oth­er pro­ced­ur­al hurdles that will take months — and pos­sibly even years — to re­solve.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
35 minutes ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
35 minutes ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×