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 »
When It Comes to Mining Asteroids, Technology Is Only the First Problem
21 hours ago

Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.

Obama Reflects on His Economic Record
22 hours ago

Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”

Reagan Families, Allies Lash Out at Will Ferrell
23 hours ago

Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."

Clinton No Longer Running Primary Ads
1 days ago

In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-ex­pec­ted primary battle be­hind her, former Sec­ret­ary of State Hil­lary Clin­ton (D) is no longer go­ing on the air in up­com­ing primary states. “Team Clin­ton hasn’t spent a single cent in … Cali­for­nia, In­di­ana, Ken­tucky, Ore­gon and West Vir­gin­ia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “cam­paign has spent a little more than $1 mil­lion in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone back­er in the Sen­ate, said the can­did­ate should end his pres­id­en­tial cam­paign if he’s los­ing to Hil­lary Clin­ton after the primary sea­son con­cludes in June, break­ing sharply with the can­did­ate who is vow­ing to take his in­sur­gent bid to the party con­ven­tion in Phil­adelphia.”

Movie Based on ‘Clinton Cash’ to Debut at Cannes
1 days ago

The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."