This just in: common sense breaks out in airline industry

You could say Alec Baldwin took one for the rest of us when he was forcibly removed from an American Airlines flight at Los Angeles International Airport in December 2011. Baldwin - or TV's Jack Donaghy to all right-thinking people - was kicked off the plane for, apparently, continuing to play Words With Friends on his phone long after passengers had been told to switch off their electronic devices for takeoff.

Of course, Baldwin’s act of defiance had nothing to do with highlighting the absurdity of the aviation industry’s restriction on gadget use, even if a publicist for the actor maintained at the time that "He loves WWF so much that he was willing to leave a plane for it”.

No one, I can think of, loves their smartphone, tablet, laptop or the movie or on-deadline work project so much they’re willing to leave a plane. For the most part, people want to just get on with the whole ordeal and arrive at the other end.

But the American Airlines cabin crew member who allegedly had to ask Baldwin five times to switch off his phone will be taking at least a semi-breath of relief following this week’s announcement by the US Federal Aviation Administration that it was changing its policy on the use of electronic gadgets during takeoff and landing.

The policy - adopted around the world by other aviation regulators - is an arcane piece of safety control dating back before airliners started being kitted out with in-flight WiFi and satellite TV feeds, when mass mobile phone ownership was still relatively new, and there were concerns that even the lasers contained in portable CD players (there’s one for the teenagers!) could interfere with critical flight systems like navigation in the air and on the ground.

Picture: Air France

The FAA's announcement on Thursday was that, subject to further technical validation by airlines, passengers would be able to use their personal electronic devices to listen to music, watch movies, read and play Words With Friends "in all phases of flight”, as long as these devices remain in ‘flight mode’ without the ability to receive or make calls or send data wirelessly. In other words, the ban on mobile phones being used to speak to people on flights remains in place, which is something we should all embrace.

Planes, unlike other modes of public transport, remain the last sanctuary from listening to other people talking at excessive volume about their medical woes, their Aunt Fanny’s dodgy knee, whether the person at the other end of the line can remember to buy extra milk for the weekend, and all the other irritating bits of personal information people feel the need to impart loudly while in the company of strangers.

Thankfully, putting in-flight mobile phone reception on planes is still some way away, even though it has been touted for a while as an imminent possibility, although the proliferation of in-flight WiFi will no doubt lead to the annoyance of loud conversations via VoIP.

All that aside, however, the most important part of all this is that soon, the majority of passengers who simply want to get on board, strap in and start watching a film or films, or spend the time confined within the big silver bird productively, will be able to just that from wheels-up to wheels-down. Quite rightly, the FAA’s change of policy has been welcomed universally.

Flight attendants, in particular have given their approval, although Veda Shook, president of America's Association of Flight Attendants told Business Week that it shouldn't result in a safety compromise. "We’re not going to run away from technology," she said, "but we’re not going to run away from safety, either”, pointing out that having more gadgets out during the most safety-critical periods of a flight - take-off and landing - could also represent a safety risk.

Clearly, no-one wants a 2Kg laptop flying at them during a bumpy landing, which means, according to the appropriately-named Shook, there may be new regulations needed to ensure every airline was consistent on what needs to be stored under a seat or in an overhead bin, and what could be held or put in a seat back pocket.

Inconsistency across airlines is still one of the frequent flyers’ biggest bugbears. Today, some airlines allow mobile phones to be switched on when a plane is taxiing after landing (and hats off, British Airways, for relaxing on this one), while others don’t, causing frosty moments between passengers and cabin crews. On the other hand, phones - quite rightly - should not be on during take off, although there is always one passenger who thinks he - and, yes, it usually is - is above everyone else by continuing that "essential" phone conversation while the plane is running on the ground.

The rule change on laptops, tablets and MP3 players, however, is at least a step in the direction of common sense. “It’s great when you have kids, because you can get them settled in and settled down, and it makes a huge difference in the quality of the flight,” Atlanta-based PR executive Jodi Fleisig told Business Week.

“They can play games on their iPads, or they can read or watch a movie.” Though a sign of the times that a child might even have an iPad, getting children settled on a flight - and keeping them that way - is a major challenge for parents…and their fellow passengers alike.

Once the technological validation of the relaxation of gadgets has been carried out by US airlines, most are expected to adopt the new guidelines by the end of the year.

Already, Delta Airlines says it is ready to allow devices being used ‘gate to gate’ immediately, while JetBlue - an airline that has pioneered many in-flight conveniences - is champing at the bit to be the first US airline to lift the device restrictions.

Other parts of the world are not so clear, though the European Aviation Safety Agency said that it would analyze the FAA’s decision before making its own position known.

For now, the FAA can give themselves a pat on the back for removing one of the most outdated examples of in-flight nannying there is. "We believe today's decision honours both our commitment to safety and consumer's increasing desire to use their electronic devices during all phases of their flights,” said the US Transportation Secretary, Anthony Foxx.

Some restrictions, though, will remain: "Passengers must take a break from their devices, their reading material, their music, whatever they are doing, and listen to the safety briefing before each flight,” says FAA Administrator Michael Huerta. “It is information that can save your life.” And pilots can very easily impose an immediate ban on devices being used during airport approaches in bad weather and poor visibility, where planes use radio signals to land.

As a fairly frequent flyer, and someone who cannot enjoy the luxury of sleeping on planes, the airline cabin is an opportunity to buy back some time, to mainline a box set on my iPad or get on with work without being interrupted by ringing phones and a noisy office.

But, perhaps, the biggest beneficiary of the FAA's lifting of the restrictions on electronic devices are the flight attendants who have to constantly deal with belligerent passengers.

As Laura Glading, head of the trade union representing 16,000 American Airlines flight attendants - including, presumably, Alec Baldwin’s nemesis - told the New York Times, her colleagues were “frankly tired of feeling like hall monitors when it comes to this issue”.

Picture: Air France

Beef or chicken?

Since the end of July I have flown across the Atlantic six times in as many weeks, a frequency the particularly cheerless border officer vetting me at Newark Airport on Monday considered "unusual". Indeed so unusual that his frantic clacking away at a computer keyboard induced a lone bead of guilt sweat to run down my spine.

There are, I'm sure, plenty of business people who fly between Europe and North America on an even more regular basis than my six-week burst of suspended animation seven miles high. Like the late Sir David Frost, who used to commute between London and New York by Concorde every week. He was even once listed in the Guinness Book of Records for having logged more miles between London and New York than planes actually flying the route, all in the duty of interviewing presidents, prime ministers, kings, queens, princes and princesses.

The purpose of my frequent flying hasn't been anywhere near as grand, though just as noble (friend's wedding), necessary (holiday) and required (business trip). And each flight has provided plenty of time to reflect on the commercial aviation experience.

It is, if you think about it, a bizarre affair. Strapped into a flying toothpaste tube for several hours, force-fed sub-average food and made to watch television while squeezed into a seat next to a complete stranger. "Feel free to move about the cabin" is a complete misnomer, because you never do, bringing the flying experience closer to be locked in a prison cell for 23 hours a day, your meals pushed through a slit on a tray, and only an hour to walk around the yard for exercise.

That is, of course, if you're not one of those lucky bastards who can just strap in, fall asleep and not stir until touchdown at the other end. Flying proves the point that it is better to arrive than to travel. It's a means to an end, and enduring it depends largely on factors completely out of your control.

The routes between Europe and the US are amongst the most competitive in the world, but with airlines locked in a constant struggle to deliver profitability amid rising fuel prices, while having to deal with the passenger expectation that air travel is an affordable luxury for all, it's inevitable that conflicts arise somewhere in the midst of this equation.

Thus, on realising that I'd be making three trans-Atlantic journeys over the course of July and August, I thought it would be interesting to compare services, especially as I was flying with three of the world's largest carriers, Air France, British Airways and United. The outcome was, perhaps, surprising.

By no other virtue other than it actually offered the best value for money, I managed to fly with all three airlines in their so-called "premium economy" cabins, but this is where you notice the most obvious differences: for an extra $100 or so, United give you a seat with a bit more legroom, but that's about it. Air France and BA, however, give you a bigger seat altogether, more legroom and a more capacious cabin area, along with business class-style amenities like priority boarding and 'convenience' kits (those little zipped bags containing a toothbrush, toothpaste, eyeshade and a pen).

While it is tempting to say that based on these material perks, one airline might rate better than another, the consideration of one airline over another is complicated by the twin variables of cabin staff and the plane you've been lumbered with. And here I encountered the unexpected.

Because, let's face it, France isn't known for its customer service. And I mean that, as a current resident, with all due respect. A Parisian café isn't so much a place to relax and have a cup of coffee, as a duelling contest between you and the waiter to see who cracks first - he to serve you, or you to get up and walk out due to his indifference.

My Air France experience over the last two years of using the airline more couldn't be any more different: keen prices, a modern fleet and attentive, friendly, even conversational flight attendants. On my flights to and from Atlanta, their new Premium Economy seats were of the equivalent standard of business class seats a few years ago (i.e. before they started becoming Transformers) and, for an airborne insomniac like me, perfectly suited to several hours' non-stop flying in each direction.

British Airways, however, was a game of two halves, and here comes one of the issues of choosing airline tickets based on service expectation: from London to Chicago, for example, I flew on one of BA's Boeing 777s, but coming back from Los Angeles I was on one of their ageing Boeing 747s.

The contrast was noticeable - different seating (even though both were in their 'World Traveller Plus' premium economy cabins), with less comfort on the return journey and older in-flight entertainment systems. With every airline now recognising that in-seat power for laptops or tablets is a must-have, older fleets like BA's are struggling to keep up.

Their cabin crews are also a breed apart. Although as attentive as their French cousins, they have an annoying tendency to apply the patronising English school marm approach to getting things done.

Laptops and headphones aren't just asked to be switched off for take off and landing, they are asked, in that only-the-English manner to be "popped" away: "could you pop that bag under the seat for me", "could you pop your seat back to the upright position for me", "could you pop your tray table away for me"...

When you've heard more or less the same instruction working its way down the aisle three or four times per row, it starts to popping grate.

I have little against BA, though, and fly with them quite frequently. But I have noticed their standards of customer service become progressively worse over the last few years. This week, I discovered that a flight from London to Paris had been cancelled, but I couldn't rebook via the website, I had to call a service line. When I did I was told that they were experiencing a high volume of calls, and that I should use their website to make any changes to my booking. As I couldn't do this via their website, I stayed on the line to speak to someone...until I was disconnected, which happened repeatedly before I found a way round the problem and got to speak to someone.

This didn't improve an opinion of BA that was already dismal after my arrival in Chicago, where I was informed that my main piece of luggage had failed to turn up. OK, so it happens, and this time it was my turn. More than 20 years of mostly lost bag-free happiness more than outweighs one incident. But it was, though, the way it was handled that did the damage.

At Chicago, on arrival, there was just a single excruciatingly condescending baggage agent to deal with a line of tired and stressed travellers (who had also just endured an endless queue to clear customs and immigration). For our trouble, we were 'compensated' with an 'Emergency Kit', comprising a toothbrush, toothpaste and a one-size fits-all (i.e. won't) British Airways T-shirt. None of which really compensated for the loss of three weeks' worth of underwear and a much needed change of outerwear.

Sent on my way with a badly photocopied standard letter of instruction on how to 'track' my bag, I was told that it would be on the next flight out the next day, and I should check online to see whether it had landed or not. So, the next day was a write off: luckily I was in Chicago, which meant that I could at least easily buy replacement clothes to tide me over. However, I had no idea when I would be repatriated with my luggage, and how much new clothing would be enough.

As instructed, I looked online to see whether the 2pm flight from London had landed, but there was no record of my bag being on it. So I called the local helpline - as instructed - only to be put through to a call centre in the UK who had no idea where my bag was and couldn't help beyond advising me that when the bag did arrive, it would be "up to 24 hours" before it was delivered to me. Which meant I could go at least 48 hours without it, ruining a second day's holiday.

Eventually my bag was delivered to my hotel (several hours after the plane it was on landed at O'Hare, which was only a 35-minute drive from my hotel). I know these things happen from time-to-time, and many other people have similar experiences, so I shouldn't be stamping my feet like a prima donna with a First World problem. But if this is what it's like for a one-off aberration, I shudder to think what some of British Airways' more tsunami-like baggage and snow disasters must have been for their passengers.

BA and Air France are, to be fair, regarded by regular flyers as amongst the world's better airlines, although the Asian and emerging Middle Eastern services have long since taken over the older flag carriers for opulence and luxury but also good quality in their overall offerings. And at least they are all still hands above most of the larger American airlines. Like United.

For the country that has perfected customer service at any cost, with the "have a nice day!" ethos in restaurants, bars and valet parking services rewarded by well deserved tips, American airlines as a whole have a terrible reputation when it comes to the in-flight experience. Most complaints revolve around the flight attendants of US carriers who, by comparison with those of other nationalities, have a tendency to crankiness and even downright hostility towards their fare-paying charges.

Flying out to Newark from Paris on Monday with United, my section of the cabin was entrusted to the charm-free qualities of an attendant who, if this had been a situation comedy, would have been one of those Central Casting-supplied New Yorkers whose throaty tenor sounds like they chain-smoke and start from a position of contempt towards passengers before warming up slightly.

Thus, our lady with the embarrassingly over-Botoxed face and 40-a-day habit went through the motions of asking "beef or chicken?" to the lunch lasagne question, just about managing to canvass two out of every three passengers in the process. This has nothing to do with arguments about sexism and the outdated notion of "trolly dollys". Young, old, male, female - I don't care who or what a flight attendant is, just as long as they remember that we're the ticket-buying customer and haven't turned up on board just to inconvenience their otherwise hectic day in the air.

Such was Botox Babs' lack of attentiveness that no matter what service was being carried out - water, landing cards, snack collection - she managed to miss out at least one person in a row every time. At least BA's school marms are thorough.

United's unsmiling Babs (possibly because the Botox had rendered it impossible to smile) may, though, have been doing us a favour in missing people out on the food delivery. The outbound lasagne was no more than minced beef sandwiched in between layers of pasta with some sort of cheese sauce over the top (though, to give credit, the return journey beef medallion/rice combo wasn't bad), but the whole thing was let down by the 'breakfast' prior to arrival in London, consisting of a stodgy microwave-heated croissant so bad I actually thought it was a plastic fake.

The United Airlines Economy Plus seat offers little more comfort than a standard economy seat, with the exception of paying a premium for more legroom, which makes some difference.

But, again, the aircraft makes the biggest difference of all: to Newark, United's Boeing 767 was comfortably configured with a 2-3-2 seat arrangement, my window seat being only one away from the aisle. All round, a very relaxed journey.

Not so the return leg: crammed into a Boeing 777, with a 3-3-3 configuration, everyone crammed together for six hours with a level of intimacy you would probably only accept after marriage vows have been exchanged. Same airline, same ticket, same price - different experience.

On the upside, United have a good inflight entertainment service, with a vast selection of old and new films and TV shows. Here is where the airlines are starting to achieve a parity of quality.

For many years, the only airline flying across the Atlantic to offer individual TV screens and games was Virgin Atlantic, and it took a criminally long time for the others to catch up. Even relatively recently, some American carriers were still running long-haul flights using planes with single film screens just serving each cabin.

Today, with the relative simplicity of digital technology, plus competition from passengers bringing their own films and music on board via their laptops and iPods, the services offered are generally good, though I have to tip my hat to United for their selection of classic movies, like Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid, which I hadn't seen in decades, and had forgotten how utterly cool it was.

Since July 17 I have ingested a total of six small packets of savoury snacks (mini pretzels, cheese-flavoured fish, etc, etc, etc), ordered at least a dozen plastic glasses of ice graced by a showering of Diet Coke, and have been asked "beef or chicken?" more times than anyone is entitled to in the course of a month and a half.

I have also watched a remarkable number of 30 Rock and House episodes, seen Robert Downey Jr. mug his way through all three Iron Man films and, thanks to the iPad and inflight USB power, consumed two-and-a-half seasons of Breaking Bad without leaving my seat.

I have queued, in total, for almost four hours to be admitted to the United States on three occasions, and have lost only the one piece of luggage in the process, which I imagine is a good rate of return. And the airline that made the difference? Surprisingly, Air France.

Yes, I know I have, on occasion, called it 'Air Chance' (alarmingly because of the odds of actually arriving at the destination alive), but for an airline seemingly in constant financial crisis, they maintain a very good standard of service in all the classes I've experienced, with good facilities, good aircraft and, most of all, pleasant and efficient staff.

Airline pilots, in that "I've just goosed a stewardess" casual confidence of theirs, do have a habit of making smooth comments towards the end of a flight such as "I know you had a choice of airlines today, so we thank you for choosing us." Actually, what they should be saying is: "if you're going to be imprisoned for seven hours in a flying metal can, you may as well do so with this airline." And in the case of the French, I would actually agree.