

The Funded’s Adeo Ressi Arrested After Virgin America Flight Incident - jedwhite
http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/03/the-fundeds-adeo-ressi-arrested-after-virgin-america-incident/

======
siculars
The problem, as I see it, is that flying has become an utter evil to be
avoided at all costs unless absolutely necessary. It used to be that flying
somewhere was a trip in and of itself. Now it is a nightmare. Now, everything
from pre-boarding security (which is an absolute joke) to in flight
(non)service to hoping that your luggage makes it to your destination at the
same time you do to being cavity searched by customs upon arrival is and
everything in between is an absolute horror show.

Truth is that there are no good airlines. Just functional airlines. At this
point I am just thankful to arrive at my destination in one piece.

Frankly, I don't know why foreigners still come to America. If I showed up at
JFk and got the third degree from some rude lackey on a power trip then got
fingerprinted along with my wife and child I would turn around and never come
back. (I know, separate issues but I'm venting.)

~~~
coffeemug
Why is pre-boarding security an absolute joke? The phrase "security theater"
gets thrown around a lot, but I have not heard well articulated arguments as
to why current security procedures are ineffective, and more importantly have
not heard _constructive_ suggestions on how to improve pre-boarding security.

How would you design security procedures? Which procedures out of the ones
that are used currently are ineffective and why? Which ones are effective and
why? Which ones should we add that aren't being used currently? Will they
reduce average pre-boarding time per customer? Increase it? How will that
affect overall air traffic and scheduling? Will they improve safety? Reduce
safety? How do you go about quantifying that? What standards are you using?
How do you propose to train the security personnel in the new procedures? How
much will it cost? Is there a cost/benefit analysis? Is it a qualitative
matter where cost benefit analysis does not apply and it's a question of
ideology? In that case, are there other ideological issues with the current
system of government we should rather spend our time and resources on fixing?

With all due respect, it seems that every time I see people make an argument
about airport security online, they blow the inconvenience completely out of
proportion, make hand-wavy arguments that appear appealing on the surface but
have absolutely no substance, and reduce a very complex problem to what does
not appear to be a viable solution even at the slightest scrutiny. It's easy
to criticize a working system someone has built. It's much harder to design a
better one that can be reasonably implemented in practice.

~~~
gruseom
Well, the two procedures that get my goat are: (1) everybody take off your
shoes because one guy tried to blow up his shoe ten years ago; (2) the asinine
rules around liquids and gels because some nutcases in the UK were chattering
about JITting themselves some explosives but never actually got close to
figuring out how. Both of these rules seem premised on the idea that
terrorists are clever enough to come up with _those_ diabolical schemes, but
too stupid to concoct any _new_ ones, so we can just plug yesterday's holes.
Since that's obviously dumb, who are the rules really designed for? Who else
but the general public? They (we) are the ones who heard about those plots and
in whose minds the images stuck. In other words: security theater. Note also
that the most recent such dude tried to blow up his underwear, yet no rules
involving underwear have been promulgated. Why the inconsistency? Public
sensibility: we're willing to tolerate our shoes being inspected but not our
panties. It's difficult otherwise to explain why the security repertoire
should be organized around something terrorists did 10 years ago rather than
what they did 6 months ago.

Someone (Schneier?) said that two things have contributed to genuine security
post-9/11: locked cockpits and passenger alertness. I've heard a number of
airline industry people say the same thing, e.g. that pilot guy who writes for
Slate. This makes sense to me. But what do I know? I'm just a guy who stands
in the line fuming at the stupidity of it all, reminding myself to breathe
deeply and not say anything sarcastic lest I get hauled off to the back room.

------
Eliezer
This headline seems rather prejudicial to Ressi in light of what he says was
the story, and in light of the fact that he was interrogated for an hour, not
arrested - there's a huge difference. "Arrested" means Ressi did something
terrible enough to get booked, and there will be corresponding inferences
about what happened on the flight. Ressi was "detained", not arrested.

~~~
adolph
Michael Arrington: _That's not really how things work._

See, an unsensational headline of "First-Class Emailer Challenges Grumpy
Flight Attendant In-Flight" wouldn't generate any clicks.

------
jsz0
Is it unreasonable to conclude if he had just closed his laptop the incident
would have never happened? Landing is a very stressful time for the flight
staff. It's really not the best time to do the "just a second" routine which
inevitably turns into 1-2 minutes or more. Maybe the flight attendant
overreacted but I feel like we're missing some basic human courtesy here. We
shouldn't be making someone's job harder and more stressful at the worst time
and then act surprised when they get mad. I tend to side with the figure of
authority in those situations. You know in the flight attendant's mind they're
playing out the scenario of coming back 1-2 minutes later and asking again
just to be told "one more second" again knowing if they fail to do their job
they might get into trouble. Maybe they're not too tech savvy and truly
believe these devices pose some real safety risk. They're on edge anticipating
the passenger making an ugly scene. In this case there was a follow-up
incident which probably came across to the flight attendant as baiting. In the
end it was resolved without any real harm?

~~~
veemjeem
There are other ways to reprimand someone. Do we really need to arrest someone
for "not closing their laptop quick enough"? Should we start arresting people
who drive 5mph over the speed limit? Seems like when we're in the air, there
are certain flight attendants that lose all their common sense. I have a
feeling this stuff never happened before the "security theater" created from
9/11.

------
_delirium
A minor linguistic point, but, the use of "reached out to" in this and similar
articles really bugs me somehow. Why say that TechCrunch "reached out to
Virgin America for their position" when what actually happened would be better
described as: "TechCrunch asked Virgin America for their position"? There was
no touchy-feeling "reaching out" going on; it was closer to a corporate
request for a position statement from one company to another, whatever spin
you want to try to put on it.

------
w1ntermute
Is there any actual reason to turn off electronic equipment during
takeoff/landing, or is it just because of government policy based on FUD?

~~~
jsz0
It's hard to predict what a malfunctioning radio might do. Maybe you could
build a device to DoS specific flight control frequencies? Aren't the
transmitters/receivers inside the plane? If the external antenna is picking up
-80dB and you're blasting out 100dB 20ft away from the reciever who knows?
There are probably other precautions to stop this but aviation safety employs
a lot of redundancy.

~~~
elai
To be honest although, they don't go around meters to detect radio
transmitting devices. There are tons of people who forget to turn off the cell
phone inside their carry on in the over head compartment, yet that test case
hasn't shown a single flight problem.

------
kyro
He did quite a few things himself that didn't help the situation. Leaving the
overhead bin open because he was in a rush is silly; it doesn't take more than
2 seconds to close. Telling the attendant to go ahead and call the cops is
unnecessary, arrogant, and childish. Showing the attendant his computer turned
off lifting it off the table as if he/she needed a tutorial in how to tell if
your computer is powered off is also childish.

Both parties here contributed to this situation.

~~~
travisp
I would agree that the guy didn't act with the best courtesy or
thoughtfulness, but it's a far cry from the behavior of the attendant calling
the cops. Assuming that this description is accurate, of course.

------
AdeoRessi
The CEO of Virgin America and I spoke briefly on the phone after he wrote the
following email. The situation is still not resolved, but he is looking into
the matter and plans to have a resolution by Tuesday evening.

We discussed that my situation was not the first incident of its kind, and I
will leave it at that until the matter is resolved. For those travelers who
feel that they have been mistreated by airline personnel, this incident will
hopefully lead to less stressful flying experiences. - Adeo

\------------------------------

Dear Mr. Ressi—

I was sorry to hear of the incident aboard your flight to New York last night.
Rest assured that I am directly involved sorting out how things went so badly
as are senior members of my staff. We are currently waiting to interview the
crew members that worked your flight and I would like to wait until afterward
to respond to you directly. My best guess is that we should have this wrapped
up in a few hours.

I would be happy to give you a call at that point if you would give me a
convenient number and time. Alternatively, if you would like to discuss this
before then, feel free to call me on my personal mobile at xxx-xxx-xxxx. If it
goes to voicemail, I will get right back to you. I am traveling, so noise
might be an issue.

Thanks

David

------
jedwhite
There is something seriously wrong with the mindset of the individual ITL -
and the culture of airline staff - when someone as just-minded, good-natured
and principled as Adeo is getting escorted off a plane.

The great irony is that it is Virgin supposed to be disrupting the industry.

[edit disclaimer as this got downvoted. I did Founder Institute with Adeo. He
is intellectually fierce, but even when he's ripping a new one in you he's
still good-natured. ]

~~~
KevBurnsJr
It's probably not as one-sided as you think. Sometimes people just need to
vent.

When you argue instead of listening, things tend to escalate.

~~~
veemjeem
Yeah well, is it really necessary to arrest someone over an argument? If there
were really no laws broken, then it sounds like some distressed worker decided
to go on a power trip.

Hopefully Virgin America does the right thing and fixes their social media
nightmare.

~~~
mkramlich
He wasn't arrested. He was escorted off the plane, questioned by the police,
and then let go. Arrest is taking you to the police station in a cruiser,
mugshot, at least a short time in jail cell, etc.

------
mkramlich
Some of the other comments here have described air travel as nightmare. I
can't agree with that. Though I don't enjoy most aspects of domestic US air
travel -- I do love some of it. I wouldn't call it a nightmare, that's rather
extreme and lacking in perspective. Annoying and stressful at times, sure. I
also find that once I can start sipping a cup of Vodka & Diet 7-Up in my plane
seat, even the annoyances fade away for a while.

~~~
jedwhite
Queue the Louis CK Everything's Amazing & Nobody's Happy clip :)

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk>

Me, I think they're just buses in the sky... except for all that economic and
personal friction we pay to ride them.

------
iuguy
As I understand it, he said that he needed a few seconds to get his email out.
If you can't get some sort of business leeway, what's the point in flying
first class? As I understand it he's not talking about carrying on all the way
through the descent, nobody's died from having a laptop on during the descent,
why go first class then?

------
rdl
I actually drive SF to Seattle (and any shorter distance; there is zero chance
I'd ever fly SFO-LAX or SFO-LAS) to avoid commercial flights.

I've met Adeo many times (as a student in the Founder Institute) and I'm
impressed that he kept his cool as well as he did. I'm also amused to learn
just how long his name really is :)

------
mkramlich
> I looked up, nodded and indicated that I needed a second to finish an email,
> and he walked past me into coach.

That's a pretty douchey and self-ish thing to do on his part, however. I mean,
there's probably a safety reason why they have that rule. You have a plane in
the sky thousands of feet in the air, travelling hundreds of miles per hour,
and if you're supposed to shutdown that device, you do it. Other people's
lives are on the line here as well. Of course, nobody knows the details of
what really happened, but when you're supposed to turn that shit off, you turn
it off. Email can wait. Email can be resent or rewritten if needed. Show
curtesy for fellow passengers and the law.

~~~
lzw
There is no safet issue here. His laptop was not a threat. The entire anti-
electronics thing has been nonsense firm the beginning. Most of these laws are
not actually laws, as they exceed the authority of the constitution.

~~~
sokoloff
This one's most certainly a law: FAR 91.21

<http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-21-FAR.shtml>

It was written back in 1961 when the primary means of navigation was high-
frequency omni-directional radio beacons, and from a technological standpoint
is very likely to not be necessary. However, it is the law of the land and
neither Virgin nor the flight crew is interested in sticking their necks (and
certificates) out so that you can use your laptop below 10K feet.

Most air carriers have adopted a policy ref 91.21.b.5 that permits the use of
approved electronic devices for the portion of the flight above 10K feet. On
most flights, you'll hear a random single chime [same sound as the seatbelt
chime] a few minutes after takeoff; that's the pilot letting the cabin crew
know that the aircraft is climbing through 10,000 and the cabin crew will then
make the annoucement that approved PEDs can be used.

