Want a Cell-Phone-Free Flight? You May Have to Pay Extra for It.

Airlines are opposing a ban on in-flight cell-phone calls — and they could make you pay for the right to travel in peace.

National Journal
Alex Brown
Aug. 7, 2014, 1 a.m.

Pas­sen­gers have pub­licly pined for a ban on in-flight cell-phone calls, and they may soon get their wish: The Trans­port­a­tion De­part­ment an­nounced last week it plans to make the skies a no-call zone.

But the air­line in­dustry is push­ing back, with car­ri­ers say­ing they de­serve the right to set their own phone policies, par­tic­u­larly now that fed­er­al au­thor­it­ies say phones won’t in­ter­fere with cell towers on the ground.

And in set­ting those policies, air­lines could be on the verge of a cash cow: Giv­en the free­dom to find their own solu­tions, some air­lines say they might look at op­tions like phone booths or quiet zones sim­il­ar to what some rail­roads cur­rently of­fer. Jet­Blue, for in­stance, is con­sid­er­ing a sep­ar­ate area for pas­sen­gers who want to use their phones.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4630) }}

Oth­er air­lines have con­sidered sec­tions sim­il­ar to the “quiet cars” offered on trains. It’s not hard to ima­gine air­lines pitch­ing them­selves as “call-free” or “al­ways con­nec­ted” — with an ad­ded charge for each.

Say you need to make an emer­gency call mid-flight (the DOT’s plan will still al­low you to con­nect to the out­side world with tex­ting and data). You might have to make your way to an­oth­er sec­tion of the plane, wait in line, and then pay to ac­cess a call­ing area.

Or per­haps you’re on an air­line that of­fers un­res­tric­ted call­ing and just don’t want to be bothered. For a con­veni­ence charge, you can pay in ad­vance for a quiet seat — and hope your neigh­bors ob­serve the rules.

These charges are all hy­po­thet­ic­al at the mo­ment, but some pas­sen­gers have already said they’d pay up. Hol­i­day trav­el­ers told Na­tion­al Journ­al last year they’d be will­ing to pay up­wards of hun­dreds of dol­lars to use their phones — or avoid those who do. One fli­er said he’d pay $300 to avoid sit­ting next to mo­bile chat­ter­boxes. Oth­er busi­ness trav­el­ers said they’d pay to stay con­nec­ted in the air.

“If the cur­rent air­line en­vir­on­ment has taught us any­thing, it’s that air­lines are not afraid to charge a fee for everything,” said Erik Hansen of the U.S. Travel As­so­ci­ation, a net­work of travel and tour­ism com­pan­ies. “It’s not out of the realm of pos­sib­il­ity.”

Corey Cald­well, a spokes­wo­man for the As­so­ci­ation of Flight At­tend­ants, agreed. “The an­cil­lary rev­en­ue stream is very im­port­ant in the fin­ances of our avi­ation in­dustry,” she said. “It’s not sur­pris­ing that air­lines are try­ing to think of ways to help boost rev­en­ue, and I think that’s just one of them.”

Fees or not, air­line de­fend­ers say it’s an over­step to ban calls just be­cause they’re an­noy­ing. “There’s no good reas­on to ban it from a tech­no­lo­gic­al per­spect­ive,” said Tim Far­rar, a con­sult­ant who mon­it­ors the is­sue. “It’s sort of pan­der­ing — we can do something that pas­sen­gers ap­pear to want.”

The Fed­er­al Com­mu­nic­a­tions Com­mis­sion voted to con­sider a pro­pos­al in Decem­ber to over­turn its long-stand­ing ban, say­ing in­ter­fer­ence con­cerns were no longer an is­sue. “We are not the Fed­er­al Cour­tesy Com­mis­sion,” Chair­man Tom Wheel­er said at the time, while not­ing DOT could still is­sue a ban of its own.

Hansen says it’s more than a cour­tesy is­sue. “There are some ser­i­ous safety con­cerns over wheth­er in-flight calls could pro­voke cab­in rage,” he said. “What we can’t do is just re­flex­ively al­low calls to hap­pen on planes and think that there will be no un­in­ten­ded con­sequences.”

And pas­sen­gers won’t be the only ones who suf­fer, ad­ded Cald­well. “When there is an is­sue at 35,000 feet, there’s only a cer­tain amount of things that flight at­tend­ants can do to de-es­cal­ate a situ­ation and con­tain it,” she said. “When people are talk­ing on their cell phones and cre­at­ing a dis­turb­ance in the cab­in, flight at­tend­ants are then dis­trac­ted from their role as first re­spon­der.”

Far­rar thinks these fears are over­blown. Air­lines would have to re­work plane in­fra­struc­ture to make calls hap­pen in the first place, and no car­ri­er would al­low calls for long if cus­tom­ers took their busi­ness else­where. “Air­lines will find their own solu­tions and pas­sen­gers will choose based on what mat­ters to them,” he said.

He also ex­pressed con­cern that in­ter­na­tion­al flights, on which calls are al­lowed, could face con­fu­sion when en­ter­ing U.S. air­space. Tex­ting and data, which are not in­cluded in the ban, could also get mixed up in the is­sue if stand­ards are un­clear.

A pair of air­line ad­vocacy groups did not re­spond to re­quests for com­ment.

COR­REC­TION: This art­icle has been up­dated to cla­ri­fy that the FCC has not yet form­ally lif­ted its ban on us­ing cell phones on planes.   

What We're Following See More »
Rubio May Run for Reelection After All
9 hours ago
LGBT Amendment Sinks Energy and Water Approps
11 hours ago

The House voted down the otherwise uncontroversial Energy and Water appropriations bill Thursday after Democrats succeeded in attaching an amendment affirming LGBT job discrimination protections for military contractors. More than 40 Republicans supported the amendment, but when it came to vote on the bill, 130 Republicans joined all but six Democrats to sink the bill. Speaker Paul Ryan said Democrats voting against the bill after securing the amendment shows their intention was to scuttle the process. Democrats, however, blamed other so-called poison-pill amendments for their votes against the bill. Nonetheless, Ryan said he intends to continue the appropriations process.

UAW: Time to Unite Behind Hillary
12 hours ago

"It's about time for unity," said UAW President Dennis Williams. "We're endorsing Hillary Clinton. She's gotten 3 million more votes than Bernie, a million more votes than Donald Trump. She's our nominee." He called Sanders "a great friend of the UAW" while saying Trump "does not support the economic security of UAW families." Some 28 percent of UAW members indicated their support for Trump in an internal survey.

Trump Clinches Enough Delegates for the Nomination
14 hours ago

"Donald Trump on Thursday reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination for president, completing an unlikely rise that has upended the political landscape and sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign. Trump was put over the top in the Associated Press delegate count by a small number of the party's unbound delegates who told the AP they would support him at the convention."

Trump/Sanders Debate Before California Primary?
15 hours ago