Passengers who refuse to use headphones can now be kicked off United flights
cnn.comIs this really a thing?!? Blasting the others with unwanted noise.
I never been in a flight, or train across Europe where passengers showed just lack of respect for the others.
The only ones pumping anything loud, on trains or busses, usually get quickly pointed down by other passengers, personal or security.
Ah, and then there are the rebellious kids or gangs, as the other exception, which usually don't take flights anyway.
I am astonished how many people now use speakerphone as their default interaction. On subway, go train, in grocery stores, on the streets, sometimes even in the office, they blast their conversations with zero care.
And so yes, I've definitely seen and experienced people watching inane tiktoks on speaker in subway or bus or airplane. It's the epitome of complete lack of empathy or self awareness to me, but I guess that's the way culture is going.
I'm curious what people think of people who use their speakerphone in public, but have the volume set low enough and themselves speak low enough that the conversation is no louder than an in person conversation would be.
Still annoying?
If so, is the problem usually the loudness of the speakerphone, or the loudness of the person who is there? I've noticed some people talk louder when on speakerphone than when on regular phone (and some people talk louder on regular phone than when talking to someone in person).
Back before mobile phones there was a tendency for people to talk louder on the phone at first, but after being reminded a few times that just because the other person is far away doesn't mean you have to shout most people learned to talk at normal volume.
I wonder if loud talkers don't get that feedback now? With old phone handsets there was pretty much only one position for them, so the mic was about the same distance from the mouth for all speakers. Talk to loud and it would be annoying on the receiving end.
But with modern phones there are a variety of positions people hold them in, which can lead to quite different mic positions. My understanding is that they do a lot more automatic gain control and other processing to try to keep the level the same despite all those different positions. Perhaps this means that the person on the other end doesn't know you are talking loud and so unless someone on your end tells you to keep it down you might never realize you are a loud phone talker.
> Still annoying?
Naturally it is extremely rude. If two people have a conversation in public both pay attention to the surroundings and feedback to change their volume tone and topics. If you put someone on speaker without introducing everyone present then they should hang up on you.
> If you put someone on speaker without introducing everyone present then they should hang up on you.
This is silly. Just tell the person you are talking to that they are on speaker.
Assuming the party on the phone has been informed and the volume is not excessive, having a conversation on speaker is equivalent to having a physical conversation in person.
Silly is not explaining why you can't put your phone to your ear like a polite person who follows etiquette. Polite people naturally won't really just hang up, ones that know etiquette will pretend its more convenient for you to call them back when you can and others will just note you are rude.
Silly is not explaining why you can’t just pass a handwritten note like a polite person who follows etiquette. Polite people naturally won’t really just start speaking out loud; ones that know etiquette will pretend it’s more convenient for you to read their note when you can, and others will just note you are rude.
Phone makers deleted the speaker is the ‘courage’ I want.
There are times you need speaker-phone mode. My parents almost always turn on speaker-phone when they call me because they both want to be part of the conversation. I don't think they will ever take a plane or a bus trip in their lives so their speaker-phone isn't going to hurt anyone.
I need speakerphone when I'm home alone and attempting to be on a phone call while doing other things. Some of those calls are even about instructing me to look for something, so it necessitates me to be moving about. Speakerphone is an incredibly useful utility.
Don't take functionality away because of a few bad actors. That'd be like getting rid of drones because a few people are assholes.
Put rules in place to correct the bad behavior. Kicking them off planes seems fair.
Speaker phone is probably necessary nowadays since many people only have a smartphone.
With the old phones you could reasonably tilt your head and raise your shoulder to hold the handset in place so you could do something that required two hands while talking/listening, like looking up something in a book or taking notes.
Smartphones are smaller than the old handsets and much flatter. I can pinch mine between my shoulder and head but I've got to raise my should pretty high and do some other contortions to get my head tilted enough making it much more awkward to do anything with my hands. Also that phone is small enough that it is pretty well covered in that position by the side of my face and my shoulder, so I'm not sure the mic could pick up much.
Can't you just hold it with your hand?
Sometimes you need both hands for something else while on the phone.
Landline telephones mostly had handsets that looked like the top photo here [1]. When held with a hand they were positioned as shown in the second photo there.
Because of its thickness and length you only had to tilt your head and/or raise you should a little to hold it hands free with the speaker end right at the ear and the mic end still near the mouth.
If you were taking a call while standing for example and needed to write something down in a notebook that was no problem.
Sure. At home. And yes, I'm old enough to have walked around with a phone tucked in my neck.
But if you're in public, and using a smartphone, headphones are always an option. There s absolutely no reason why anyone needs to use speakerphone in public if they're just one person.
I've seen it everywhere except airplanes. I don't recall ever seeing it on planes. How often have you seen that? Do passengers or flight attendants do anything? How does the person respond?
I had it happen to me, on a long-haul flight, in business class. I was shocked. I stood up to look at the guy after no-one did anything.
I told him that phone speakers "make me gassy" and then he turned it off.
You’re an every day hero. Thank you!
Thanks mate. If he can assault my ears, I can assault his nose, right. Or threaten to ;)
Can you follow through on that? I don’t really know how I would assault someone’s nose on command. Would appreciate some tips.
Kids playing games is the truly annoying one. You feel terrible saying anything but it’s also some of the most annoying sounds.
Totally... unlike watching a movie, games keep them addicted. I have experienced situations where even toddlers played for 5 hours straight... I couldn't even muster the courage to ask them to lower their volume :-)
Agreed, but not on a plane.
In America, a small number of people derive pleasure from being disruptive to everybody, and blasting music on public transit with captive audiences is a very "traditional" way of fucking with people and expressing your broad contempt for their society. I'd estimate that maybe one in five times you get on a city bus in America, you'll encounter somebody like this.
Very rarely does anybody call them out or otherwise try to reign it in, because you're as likely as not to be physically attacked and in America, the odds of bystanders coming to your rescue are... Not zero, but not great.
Pretty sure on planes this is more ignorance than malice. It’s self absorbed people that are too selfish to consider someone else might not want to hear what they’re watching, rather than some deliberate anti society thing.
Regardless, no punishment is too harsh, this should be considered the equivalent of lighting up a cigarette on a plane.
Another angle is kids who have been given a tablet as a pacifier. Their parents are often on autopilot, having checked out months or years earlier.
On topic (and discussed already on HN): https://github.com/Pankajtanwarbanna/stfu
I'm not a fan of the tablet as a pacifier approach but it's not my business. What is my business is when the parents do so without providing a way for the child to indulge without annoying everybody else. I consider that to be absolutely unacceptable in that if they can afford a tablet they can afford cheap headphones.
Yes, only the open-air noise-making kind (per the article topic). Don't care what the rectangle is as long as we can't hear it.
discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46649142
When young children are on airplanes you cheat in whatever way you can.
Perhaps people can cheat while still giving them headphones or turning devices on silent mode?
I have a three year old and would still never subject others to tablet noise. Yes they’re the literal worst to fly with but don’t export your misery to others.
The idea someone doesn’t know they bothering everyone around them is absurd. It is 100% malice.
I don’t know if anyone remembers the movie Inside Man where at the beginning they are waiting in line at the bank and the woman is having a loud conversation on her phone and the guard comes and tells here to keep it down. It’s this kind of person that I see not using speakers (when the movie was made I don’t think they contemplated humanity could sink that low), at best it’s entitlement, but I still think in most cases it boils down to not thinking about others vs actively trying to annoy them.
I’m sure it is, much of the time. But I also believe many people are just completely self absorbed and devoid of empathy.
I am self-absorbed and devoid of empathy but it is still easy to logically deduce that other people don't want to hear my games, videos, or phone calls.
Being devoid of empathy would mean you may realize that people don't want to hear your shit, but you wouldn't care what other people want
Hanlon's razor applies. Yes, some people have a bad case of the main character syndrome simply because nobody has ever called them out on it.
Usually they have been called out on it a time or two. They are often signaling that if you want to stop them, you'll have to use violence, and look -- no one or almost no one is willing to do that.
There are a couple of us who have actually seen someone call them out that are warning folks here what commonly happens. I saw someone get attacked with a knife, another commenter here had a gun pulled on him when they asked them to stop. It isn't about the loud music itself, it's that they're openly saying they are king shit, that no one is willing to challenge them, and broadcasting their eagerness to deliver violence upon anyone that might.
The other side of this is that they often do it on places you can't easily escape, like a train car with stops only every 5 minutes. This gives them a very long time to go to town on anyone that might challenges them. Something I've seen with my own eyes when they were asked to tone down the music.
> They are often signaling that if you want to stop them, you'll have to use violence
I'm well aware of the types you're talking about, but in my experience this has largely changed. It used to be that these sorts were the most common offenders. But now it's just, well, everyone and anyone. For instance I don't think the little, old lady in front of me on the bus the other day was challenging people to violence.
I think we're talking about two different groups of people. The ones I mean don't look dangerous, just self-absorbed. The ones you mean I don't have much experience of, they're not common around here. And they're certainly not common on airplanes.
> I saw someone get attacked with a knife, another commenter here had a gun pulled on him
I though the discussion here was about people not using their headphones on airplanes.
I experienced this in real life and this creature was unable to understand the bus driver telling her to stop. It's like they didn't understand English nor social signals. To me it seemed to stem from a lack of intelligence than from intentionally being malicious.
They understand English. They just don't want to stop doing what they want to do. This is a quality that they share with everyone else on the planet by definition, but they think they're more important than other people.
There are angry people playing dominance games on one hand, and on the other people who simply don't care what anybody else wants and will do what they can get away with. There's no difference in intelligence between the two, but only the first type can actually be reasoned with. The second type will only pretend to be reasonable until the person that they're intimidated by leaves the room.
Everybody says "social cues," but as you said, the people who "don't get social cues" also don't seem to "get" direct requests or orders.
A lot of people don’t get a lot of things; you know the adage about stupidity being a more likely cause than malice. Just last week I had to explain to a grown adult why spitting on the sauna floor was disgusting and rude to the other gym members. He was shocked.
It's apathy
Sorry to disagree -- stupidity and self-centeredness have a plan in that too.
> no punishment is too harsh, this should be considered the equivalent of lighting up a cigarette on a plane.
Okay this is ridiculous. One is a fire hazard and the other is not. Do you really need the hyperbole here?
Are you aware that smoking used to be allowed on planes? We didn't stop allowing it because of a rash of airplane fires either.
Yes, I'm fully aware. And it is emphatically irrelevant. It's kind of ridiculous to suggest the original motivations for the rule somehow render the associated risks on people's safety, lives, and properties permanently ineligible for consideration.
Japanese pilots still smoke every flight
The lack of cigarettes on a plane isn't due to the fire hazard.
I don't think I'd have the wherewithal to jump in and do something if I were a bystander. I'm not the sort to throw hands, I don't carry, and these disruptive types are already a bit feral.
I'm not sure it's contempt they're expressing, or if they're expressing anything at all. There really are people who enjoy and defend it, too; "it's just a guy playing music, mind your own business." Truly alien.
My business includes my ears. If you don't want me in your business, keep your business to your ears.
I've found that looking the person in the eye and giving a quick "hey, forget your headphones?" sometimes does the trick, and has yet to start a fight. Everyone has to act in ways they are comfortable with - but mass inaction is what creates space for this shitty behavior in the first place.
I did this on a bus and had a gun pulled on me, so your mileage may vary
Yes exactly. If they are blasting ethnic music while in an ethnic hood it is usually because they are repping their hood, and sometimes in a way to intentionally bait someone to say something. If you ask them to stop they will pretend it is a challenge on their hood/race (no matter that they will play it so loud everyone's ears are splitting and all they want is not to get hearing damage). I watched a guy pull out a knife and start slashing as soon as he was asked to stop.
If you ask such person to stop it is implied they expect you to back that up with violence and you've already consented to a battle.
>you've already consented to a battle.
More like you've already admitted cowardice, which makes you fair game. If it's the music that upsets you, come at me with louder speakers!
My go-to technique has been to offer the offender a pair of headphones, saying something to insinuate that they must forgotten theirs or be too poor to afford them. Most of the time they say “oh I have headphones!” and then realize that they’ve outed themselves. (I stockpile the free headphones from gyms or airplanes, or get the $2 ones from AliExpress)
But on a plane they'll have already been asked by a flight attendant either by the time the plane takes off, or as soon as it stops climbing. So clearly this isn't working on the people this rule targets. In fact I think this rule is actually the ideal response from the airline and should be adopted everywhere, as anyone who is so unconcerned with the wellbeing of others as to play audio on their device without headphones shouldn't be allowed to fly, as they're obviously happy to fuck up everyone's day, and won't follow instructions.
Bluetooth headphones too?
This is actually a really good response though. Because the act of having a device blaring demonstrates contempt for everyone one around them. It's hard to act in a hateful way to someone who just offered you something for free.
Exactly. To refuse the “gift” is an explicit statement of “I know I could do this silently but I want to bother everyone around me.”
Big "Kill them with kindness" energy.
> and in America, the odds of bystanders coming to your rescue are... Not zero, but not great
Yes, because there's been a recent push to more heavily punish good Samaritans than perpetrators. When good men get metaphorically crucified for helping, they stop helping.
If that seems like a common sense outcome of such policies, you're right. But as we've seen time and again, common sense is not a flower that grows in everyone's garden.
Happens elsewhere too. Can be an issue in Dutch trains
20%? That's a bit insane. This does happen in Europe but is heavily looked down up on and usually quickly corrected.
On the other hand I did get a chewing out from an older guy for having a conversation with friends on a train once, so some people take it perhaps a bit too serious.
It’s very much a thing on US public transit, with the added negative bonus that no one ever confronts the person doing it, because chances are they’re either crazy, armed, or both.
Happens in Canada too. Calling them out can be dangerous, people have been injured.
I can guarantee you that's not only America's problem.
Sure, but also you might be on a city bus for... half an hour? It's not pleasant to have someone blast noise but it's nothing like a multi-hour flight. Why bother?
I’ve absolutely seen this nonsense in the UK.
Doesn't surprise me, but I'm only speaking from my experience in America.
Yup. Eg guys getting on Thameslink services in south London, walking right up to the area behind the driver's cab and and start creating a disturbance. Driver stops the train and has a go at them if he's feeling in the mood...
I mean, you are painting it as some moralistic judgement, but if you’re asking me for on one hand listening to some annoying music, and on the other hand having some chance (however slight) of bodily injury, knife wound, or whatever… I know which one I am going to choose.
>is a very "traditional" way of fucking with people and expressing your broad contempt for their society.
Motivated in large part as a response to society saying fuck them. I'm not defending assholes being assholes, but I think what we have been seeing in the US over the last 5 or 10 years is classic collapse of the social contract stuff. The less a society cares about its people the less its people will care about the rest of society.
I get what you're saying, but blasting music on buses has been a thing since boom-boxes were invented, it's nothing new. I am also not inclined to blame systems instead of individuals because most people with the same background of injustice will choose to respond to that injustice by being better than it. It's only a very small number of people being disruptive like this, while the number of people with fair and understandable grievances against society is massive.
It was referenced in the 1986 Star Trek movie -Spock incapacitates a guy after he refuses to turn down his stereo.
He returned in Picard (notice his reaction with his neck). https://youtu.be/r6wDR6heQcU
What I did not know is that he was one of the producers for Voyage Home. https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0857130/
Digging more into this... because why not... it appears that he (Kirk Thatcher) also wrote the song and there's a nice bit of real life lore in the Wired article.
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/I_Hate_You
> According to the movie credits, the song was performed by the obscure band Edge of Etiquette. (Edge of Etiquette was, indeed, so obscure that it is rather difficult to find anything more about them than their having performed this particular song.) The punk on the bus who flipped Kirk "the bird" was played by Star Trek IV associate producer Kirk Thatcher. According to the Star Trek Encyclopedia, 4th ed., vol. 1, p. 354, Edge of Etiquette was a pseudonym for Thatcher.
> Thatcher also wrote the lyrics for the song to music written by Mark Mangini. A game card, from the Star Trek Customizable Card Game released by Decipher, excerpted the lyrics of the song. Thatcher had complained that the new wave music previously considered would not have been an accurate representation of what a 1980s punk would listen to, and offered to write "I Hate You" instead.
This links to https://www.wired.com/2016/09/punk-star-trek-iv-vulcan-nerve... ( https://web.archive.org/web/20161222223425/https://www.wired... ... ghads, their "you must log in" blocker even worked through the wayback machine ... use reader mode)
> But portraying “Punk on the Bus” would turn out to be Thatcher’s most lasting contribution to The Voyage Home. He and Nimoy had grown chummy during filming, so when the filmmakers were looking to cast the punk, Thatcher lobbied the director to get the role. “I told him, ‘Look, I used to have a mohawk, and I’ll dress the part—you won’t recognize me,'” Thatcher says. “Leonard said, ‘Huh, really,’ in that deep, basso profondo way. I couldn’t tell if he thought it was a stupid idea.”
> ...
> The song itself came later. Paramount Pictures had a music-licensing deal that gave it to access to songs by new-wave artists like Duran Duran, but none of those bands seemed like a good fit for Thatcher’s snarling character. “I said, ‘Leonard, that’s not punk. I could write you a punk song and it will cost you nothing. I’ll do it for [a few hundred dollars],'” says Thatcher. He wrote out the nihilistic lyrics, which he brought to his friend (and future Mad Max: Fury Road Oscar winner) Mark Mangini, a sound editor who came up with the song’s snotty, simple guitar riff. Thatcher himself sang vocals, and the whole tune was recorded on a weekend night, in a hallway that would provide the necessarily shitty sound.
> “My idea of punk at the time was the Dead Kennedys, Germs, Black Flag—real West Coast hardcore punk, that real raw sound,” Thatcher says. “I also wanted a Sex Pistols ‘God Save the Queen’ vibe, which is why I did the British accent.”
> As for Nimoy’s response? “He came by, heard it, and said, ‘OK. That’s very punk.'”
>I get what you're saying, but blasting music on buses has been a thing since boom-boxes were invented, it's nothing new.
Yes, because people have always felt like outsiders in relation to society. My point was that this sort of public misbehaving is getting worse because social cohesion is getting even worse. Not everyone with grievances against society will respond this way, but as more people have grievances against society, more people will respond in a manner like this.
It is - there are three groups of people that do this generally the completely self absorbed, people from places where it’s culturally acceptable, and people that like the feeling of empowerment that comes from inconveniencing others (the same people that will walk out into traffic with no light / crosswalk)
How is walking over a road without a light inconveniencing anyone? I’ll cross the road when it’s clear. I don’t blast music in public places though.
> How is walking over a road without a light inconveniencing anyone?
They said “walk out into traffic.” That’s rude. You should wait for a signal or a break in the flow so nobody has to brake for you.
I never see this being an issue. On the other hand I often see cars blast by stop signs without stopping or ignore marked crosswalks with passengers inside.
No wonder pedestrian deaths are up so much the past few years
Walking into traffic in an undesignated crossing is rude (and illegal). Likewise with trying to cross at an intersection when traffic has the green light.
But when there’s a designated crossing area, it’s the responsibility of traffic to stop. Pedestrians should not stand and wait at the intersection for a break in traffic because it’s a confusing signal to drivers. If you’re standing at a designated crosswalk you need to be either signaling your intent to cross or moving away from the crosswalk
Getting pedantic now but depending on the circumstances the traffic is supposed to have stopped for you.
Assuming there is no paint on the road an (unmarked) crosswalk may still exist [1] and drivers are supposed to yield to a pedestrian in a marked or unmarked crosswalk [2].
[1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
[2]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
Getting more pedantic, less than 1pct of the population is in California.
Pretty clear parent meant people who cross against the light / mid-block when there is a crossing 50ft away / stepping in front of the one car on the road when they could look up for one second and step out behind that car etc. in other words the people who put off 'main character' vibes.
Getting pedantic here, "no light / crosswalk" means no crosswalk, painted or not.
Except it doesn't.
Legally there is a crosswalk regardless of if it's painted or not see [1]. I get this wasn't on the drivers test but it's still in the law.
There were some complaints about not everybody living in California. It's a law in your state too; I'm not going to find it for you.
[1]: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
It’s going over your head. He’s talking about certain people.
Depending on where you live it may not really be relatable to you, but living in NYC -- there are people that will intentionally jay walk on a green light and even _stare you down_ knowing that you will stop and let them pass.
People jay walk when there's no traffic all the time, that's totally fine. This is a totally different act of passive aggression.
> Depending on where you live it may not really be relatable to you, but living in NYC -- there are people that will intentionally jay walk on a green light and even _stare you down_ knowing that you will stop and let them pass.
This is the speed walking equivalent of picking up pennies in front of a steam roller. Saves a min here and then until you pay for it big time.
From what I can tell, if no rule is enforced, about 2-5% of people think it's totally normal to scroll tiktok or instagram at full volume in public.
So on a crowded bus you've normally got 1 or 2. Behavior is actually much better on airplanes, usually (maybe 1-2 in ~150 passenger plane), and I have never seen someone who did not silence their phone after being asked politely by the attendant.
Last time I flew my family was very early to the gate; it was me, my wife, my 5 and 3 year old girls, and a very elderly lady in a wheelchair who was blasting Kendrick Lamar’s “Not Like Us” from her phone speakers.
I've experienced it all over Europe. Trains with reserved seats tend to have a separate "silent car" for this reason.
Agree. It’s funny to see comments trying to act like this never happens in Europe, only America.
That's because in Europe certain demographics don't catch many planes or trains. But they do catch the tube or the bus, so get on one of those and enjoy the experience.
Lol was wondering how long I would have to scroll before someone pointed out the obvious. People talking about the "collapse of the societal contract", like I wonder how that happened....
Are there some dog whistles in your comment and its parent? If not then could you restate your point more clearly, it’s not immediately apparent what you’re talking about.
> I never been in a flight, or train across Europe where passengers showed just lack of respect for the others.
In my European travels I’ve definitely seen it. It depends entirely on the region. Europe is a big place. I’ve encountered it in Asian countries too. Again, Asia is huge and diverse.
Not coincidentally, it’s the same in the United States. I’ve never seen this on the local commuter train with people traveling to and from work. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen it on a flight (flight attendants did intervene and request they stop).
Let’s not try to make this into another “America bad” topic because this is not a uniquely American problem.
My experience is the opposite. People blast music or other sounds on flights all the time. In Europe it's also very common to smoke in public, including beaches, restaurants, areas around building entrances. Literring is also very common.
Even Switzerland is dirty because cigarette buts are everywhere. It's just that some % of the population are inconsiderate assholes and only heavy enforcement works vs than. Unfortunately this is something our current society is not willing to do.
I was on a 2 hour flight this week. The guy in front of me listened to a political podcast on speaker that was loud enough it cut through my noise cancelling earbuds. There was absolutely no chance I was risking my safety calling him out on it in that scenario.
> usually get quickly pointed down by other passengers, personnel or security
I’ve never, not once, heard a member of staff ask someone to use headphones on transport.
It's a thing everywhere except very well-behaved places/countries. This means it's almost everywhere.
The last time I had an uncle blast his Doujin feed at full volume next to me, I suggested he lower the volume, he didn't care, so I blasted my own feed at louder volume. He got it then. Sadly people a few rows back did the same on the next train...
I've definitely experienced this on public transit in cities in several different countries here in Europe. It's not an everyday experience, but it definitely happens.
Yes, but that isn't a flight.
But you said people on busses and trains doing this get shut down. My experience is they don't.
It's a problem everywhere. People on the golf course walk around with bluetooth speakers audible to players in front and behind. Mountain bikers play music audible to other trail users. Many people have absolutely no regard for others around them and this manifests through noise nuisance.
I have been in flights, elevators (not joking), coffee shops where people were listening to music or were on phone calls, on speaker.
There are some weirdos amongst us. There were a handful of reports of people singing religious music, in planes while on flight. I haven’t had the pleasure of listening to this, thankfully
Yes, at least in my experience on flights in the USA. It’s very rare but it does happen. I was lucky one time that the person doing it sat next to me and I politely asked them to use headphones and no fuss was had.
Very much a thing and one of the many reasons I'm becoming more of a recluse, shared public spaces are becoming rather unpleasant. Mostly in the US and LatAm, a fair amount in the UK, not so much in Germany.
There are fewer and fewer shared public spaces every year anyway. It feels like everything is getting taken over by franchises that want to maximize customer throughput.
I am already embarassed when my headphone jack slips and everyone can hear a targeted ad putting me on blast. To do so intentionally never occured to me. It would be mortifying.
I can't remember the last time I've been on a flight, train, or bus where there wasn't at least one person playing audio of some sort without headphones.
Big time!
I fly every week. There's always ONE F**ING GUY who needs to have Instagram or TikTok going at full blast.
On planes I've mostly seen it with people playing stuff for very young children.
I've heard a lot of Cocomelon crap at full volume on planes because I guess parents don't want to have their kids use headphones. I sort of understand it but at the same time I also think it's pretty inconsiderate for the rest of the people on the flight who likely do not want to listen to their kid's awful YouTube show.
In the NYC subway I've seen dozens of people who will blast their terrible music very loudly with a bluetooth speaker. These are full-grown adults. I don't know why they do that, I suspect it would sound better on the train with headphones. Maybe it's some form of evangelism, where they think the music is utterly fantastic that everyone should listen to it.
Usually it's because the kid won't wear headphones. Not really an excuse, but a lot of the time the kid is just going to do what they want. What the parents should do in that situation is make them watch without sound, but that's harder than the alternative, so they just do whatever.
Or the parent should just take the phone away! If the kid won't listen to it quietly then they should do that thing that I believe is called "parenting". Bring a picture book or something for them if they need to be entertained without the phone.
This was done by my parents when I was a young kid. I wouldn't turn the volume down on my Game Boy on a flight, so my parents took it away from me until I promised to keep the volume down, which I did after that.
I've been on a flight where a set of parents took away their child's tablet, not for being noisy but as punishment for some other bad behaviour. What resulted was 6 hours of a child screaming on an 8 hour flight. Aside from wanting to punt the little shit out the door, I was almost impressed at the kid not giving up after a few minutes, and then hours when nothing changed.
I still think that's less actively inconsiderate than Cocomelon at full volume. At some level they can't control the kid crying but they can control the volume which their kid's media runs at.
It never used to happen in the UK but now people do it every day on tubes and trains. I had to move seats twice last week due to these assholes blasting their stuff out.
I don't know what changed exactly. It was definitely seen as antisocial behaviour in the past. I'll just leave this clip here of Spock dealing with a noisy punk on a bus.
Local trains are full of them.
it's usually some guy on the neighbouring table at McDonald's
Discussion (18 points, 15 days ago, 15 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47276399
I want to echo the top comment in that post. Apple removing the headphone jack from iPhones was absolutely criminal.
We need to also ban people taking calls on speaker in public places like cafes or trains.
Join the conversation, works every time.
They look at you like you're the rudest person in the world. It's quite the trip
I had one person say
>Excuse me, I was having a private conversation
At which point you say "on speakerphone with everyone else able to hear it?"
I've thought about doing that several times, seeing as they're already including me. Just need to become a bit more brazen of a person.
You should be able to report them to apple and google, lifetime smart phone ban.
I don’t think United airlines has the authority to do that.
That is to say, do you really want a federal law passed about this? I vote we go with social shaming. Worked for cigarettes.
It didn't really work well with cigs until govs started banning smoking in restaurants, bars, etc. That said, the shaming was important for setting the social stage for such legal bans.
Shaming doesn’t always work. I’ve asked politely and been threatened in return by people that look dangerous. That made me want to avoid confrontation in the future.
Of course they do - they modified their contract of carriage - which you basically agree to why buy a flight (https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html) it’s the same mechanism they use to deny you boarding if you are barefoot etc.
Sorry friend, I sarcastically was saying united cannot enforce their rules in cafes et. al.
I don't really want that. But I do sometimes fantasize about revoking some people's ability to use speakerphone or reply-all.
Some cultures don't really get phased by shaming in that way, unfortunately.
An app you can use to play back their audio on a short delay that messes with the brain
Pretty sweet. Do you have it hosted anywhere? Seems github doesn't want to let you load HTML directly (for obvious reasons lol)
Not mine, I'll keep this limitation in mind when I redo my personal site and add it in so it's easy to remember (for me at least ;)
At cruising altitude, I hope.
Feels less like malice and more like people just not thinking about others. Still, on a plane you’re stuck for hours—rules like this make sense.
PSA: get an etymotic in ear phones, play some quiet music, and forget you're flying. Those things become your eardrums.
They're pretty good, but not great. Just passive noise cancelling.
My AirPods Pros block noise better actually, but I have after-market foam eartips on them.
Regardless, the problem is less speakerphone music and more shrill child voices and screams. No eartips can block those frequencies well it seems.
I assume it's about blasting others with noise, not company sponsored headphones.
A disinforming clickbait headline strikes again. This isn't about it being mandatory to use headphones, ala TNG "The Game". Rather it's about using speakers that broadcast sound for everyone to "enjoy". I haven't been molested and crushed^w^w^w^wflown in quite some time, but with the noise floor on airplanes being so high to begin with I'd imagine the result is much worse than somewhere that is at least quieter to start.
They tell people not to do it on busses but it still happens, typically people are more respectful at night but not always. However I never worry about terrorists on the bus, they would get jacked up fast
Blasting your phone at volumes louder than the ambient noise is social terrorism
what's the goal? without a goal it's just noise pollution, the audio equivalent of drunk driving and bumping into a lot of people just a bit
I don't understand how people can stand the sound of the plane itself and whatever they're listening to on top of that. I consider IEMs or ANC TWS to be necessary whenever I'm on a flight, and that's even without listening to anything else.
Good.
They should be stripped of all citizenship and left to live out their life roaming the airport. But this is a start.
I first interpreted the title as meaning you must use the cheapo free headphones and aren’t allowed to use your own.
I was a passenger that was asked NOT to use the headphones regularly. Not from USA though
Yes! Now do the same on beaches, busses, streets. Same punishment: banishment from the area.
I often see younger people in parks near me blasting loud music on speakers. It’s so disrespectful to those looking for a peaceful place. Especially when they’re playing explicit rap music with everyone’s families and children around.
Yeah or people on bikes with a boombox. They do it because it's illegal to cycle with earphones in in these parts. But it creates its own problem of course.
I wonder if shoulder mounted speakers that aren't touching the users ears could help resolve this to everybody's reasonable satisfaction. (That is, everybody who's not deliberately trying to broadcast their music to everybody else.)
> It’s so disrespectful to those looking for a peaceful place
Idk, they’re not looking for “a peaceful place” and are using a public space without damaging it. Nobody is forced to use the park at the same time as them. This seems like a difference in preferences which is fine.
That same line of reasoning could apply to music on planes. No one really needs to use a particular airline at a particular time or use a public park at any given time. It ceases to be a public place if a small group of people can de facto monopolize it by making it unpleasant for most other people to be there.
James Q. Wilson talked about this problem a long time ago... and why standard neighborhood shaming cannot really police it. Maybe there is an increasingly different set of norms among different generations which is why you have a breakdown in manners and even high school kids from affluent areas hitting "devious licks."
Because the sanctions employed are subtle, informal, and delicate, not everyone is equally vulnerable to everyone else’s discipline. Furthermore, if there is not a generally shared agreement as to appropriate standards of conduct, these sanctions will be inadequate to correct such deviations as occur. A slight departure from a norm is set right by a casual remark; a commitment to a different norm is very hard to alter, unless, of course, the deviant party is “eager to fit in,” in which case he is not committed to the different norm at all but simply looking for signs as to what the preferred norms may be.> same line of reasoning could apply to music on planes
You can’t leave a plane. And planes aren’t for recreation. I like quiet parks. But parks aren’t some natural creation, they’re entirely manmade. I’m okay with other people having different thoughts on how to recreate.
> Maybe there is an increasingly different set of norms among different generations
Older people have been complaining about kids with boomboxes and skateboards for generations.
> "But parks aren’t some natural creation, they’re entirely manmade."
? That does not at all match my experience with parks.
But besides that, I am not sure how it would support your argument.
The average park in America is only like 5-10 acres. And of that only certain areas may have playstructures / basketball courts / benches / other things that people can actually use. So sufficiently loud audio can ruin people's experience. It's obvious to anyone who's been outside in the past 10 years that "live and let live" doesn't work... if they were using heroin and nodding out would that just be another form of recreation?
Yes, and the crime spike of the 1960s started with boomers reaching 15-20. You can follow that to cookie monster pajamas in Walmart.
One person playing loud music makes the park less enjoyable for thirty people around them. That’s not “preferences”, when their method of consuming the public space affects the way everyone around them experiences it.
There are typically noise rules at most parks where I live. The people who "blast loud music" are breaking the rules, and annoying everyone else at the park. That's not cool, and they should get kicked out if they don't comply.
I was recently in Hawaii in the middle of the forest and this group nearby on the trail were blasting music from a bluetooth speaker. Whether it is compelte lack of self awareness or utter disregard for other people it is just disturbing behavior.
And on hiking trails.
I was hiking in Zion. Large sign: be quiet, owls are nesting.
Multiple people with those speakers hanging off of their backpack: we don't care.
And even the rangers don't feel empowered to say anything anymore.
> beaches, busses, streets
Bus, sure. On beaches and streets you have the option of moving away. It’s obnoxious. But in the same category as a large group walking slowly.
Playing music on the street is acceptable if and only if the music is good.
This sounds like a USA problem..
I have definitely seen people use speakers in countries other than the USA.
1 of n problems.
Obligatory Spock https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr82dZpCr48
Ok, but how about kicking sick people off of flights, particularly trans continental?
I'm behind this 100%.
I got a SARS virus flying to Udon Thani in 2019. We were seated next to two thai guys who were so sick they could barely sit up straight. We offered them help and treats because they looked like they were about to vomit.
Plane lands, next day I'm sick. I was laid up for 2 weeks with fever, the shits, and I had a weird spontaneous cough for over 1 month after I got better.
I bet most of that plane got sick, and it was so damn avoidable.
The problem is there can he huge penalties for not flying when you booked. You might not be able to rebook your flight or hotel or days off so you're stuck either getting everyone sick or perhaps being out thousands of dollars or not going on vacation at all.
Then they should have containment suits on the plane. If they see someone THAT sick, stick em in the suit.
> how about kicking sick people off of flights
Difficult for the airline to do given the myriad of health privacy adjacents.
What if we asked the President to give us a quick rundown of each passenger's health?
What's the threshold for sick?
It'll never happen becasue everything around travel is to hard to reschedule.
Good, now do the same for public transit.
[flagged]
Have you ever tried to sleep while the person next to you watches a movie at full volume?
[flagged]
That's too harsh, a regular murder would suffice.
Just put them in row 24 on a Boeing 737 max and let the problem take care of itself.
Just open the window
Boeing tried this new feature.
Not a bug, works as intended.
> That's too harsh, a regular murder would suffice.
Correct. Kicking someone off during a flight and not giving them a parachute counts as a regular murder...
Requisite link to satirical study
"Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial"
It's not murder if they're guilty. Those planes come with doors for a reason.
For all siblings, I think parent was suggesting "while in flight". i.e. dropping them from 30k feet. Hence harsh...
NO TICKET
I wonder how many people got this reference.
Anyway, for those who did not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCZ86O3PO-U
Could have also gone for Dogma (which of course references that clip) https://youtu.be/PpckOsftaP4?si=DDlDY3ZK7FoUcKrn&t=41
Seems like this flew right over a few heads.
and yet the joke fell right into our laps
United says we should tone down the sarcasm
Harsh, but fair.
Now explain why it wouldn’t also be fair to kick people off that were loudly emitting disgusting flatulence. Is it because they “might” not have control over it? Can I not claim I also “might” not have the control over my impulsive desire to listen to music or that I can’t use headphones for a medical issue?
I mean such a thing I would say equally detracts from the flying experience, so why not also kick those people off?
Edit: not sure why I’m getting downvoted, this is a legitimate question. I genuinely want to hear the justification.
You'd have a more convincing argument if you argued for a passenger with Tourette's or something. Bodily functions are obviously different from watching a movie at full volume, because there's never a situation where you would be involuntarily blasting the audio of your show or whatever to the whole plane.
Okay, Tourette’s then. Should we kick people off for Tourette’s?
Your comment also presupposes two things: that flatulence is always involuntary and blasting music isn’t. Let’s say I have a form of Tourette’s that forces me to involuntarily blast noise and music and I have medical papers to prove it. Is it okay then?
I would absolutely support it if you could demonstrate that those two things are actually true. My point is: Who gets to decide what’s legitimately an involuntary medical issue and what isn’t, and where is the line that demarcates it? And what is the point of this exercise? It’s to prevent people from forcing everyone else to have a worse experience for their own personal gain, which flatulence is a form of that you could argue, so why is blasting music fundamentally different?
We're talking about music coming from a phone. Not a person. Just turn the phone off or uninstall tiktok. Or put it in your bag.
Are you seriously making the argument blasting music or a movie or whatever is an involuntary bodily function?
Yes. Because I'm asking the question who decides what is involuntary or not. Who is it? It seems like there is a presupposition here, but who is defining that?
Coming back to the Tourette's example: let's say someone starts shouting cuss words and loudly annoying everyone else "involuntarily". Do they get kicked off the plane? Why or why not? Who decides that? Does the person have to present medical evidence that they have Tourette's to not get kicked off the plane? If so, can they also present medical evidence of a condition that causes them to spontaneously press play on their mobile devices with no headphones and would that be accepted?
I'm obviously not defending the behavior of the loud-music-on-plane-players, or advocating that everyone needs to smell everyone's farts. I'm pointing out that this is something that is arbitrary and weaponizable.
I vote to throw you off the plane for disingenuous baitposting.
You don't understand that a phone isn't a part of the human body? Seriously? We as a society can't even come to agreement on that basic fact anymore?
If someone shoots a gun in a crowd is that too an involuntary bodily function? Is the gun not just part of their body? Are you confused by that as well? Where do we draw the limits on what is the human body? Who decides that? If I lay on the ground does the whole earth become my body?
Not harsh enough. They belong in the special level of hell reserved for child molesters and people who talk in the theatre.
[flagged]
But kicking someone off mid-flight at high altitude is still a bit harsh. I hope they give them parachutes at least.
FUN FACT: Aviation rules require that any plane carrying a parachute must have at least one for every person on board. Hopefully the reason is obvious.
Now given that, do you really want to pay the extra cost of flying with 300 parachutes just so mr-full-volume-phone can have one?
That is an incredibly fun fact. Does this only apply to commercial or also a little Cessna? Presumably there is no actual enforcement on the private planes.
I made it too fun: what I said was at best an over-genarlization. The actual rules [1] apply to acrobatics and say that parachutes are required for everyone when non-crew passenger is on the plane:
So without the passenger no one needs a parachute, with them everyone does.Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional [acrobatic] maneuver...It's perfectly legal for a 787 to carry a few parachutes just for the full-volume passengers.
[1]: https://faraim.org/faa/far/cfr/title-14/part-91/section-91.3...
I've packed my own parachute for this hypothetical situation.
Only if they paid extra at check-in.
And you specifically have to request it. It isn’t a normal option during purchase.
Nah, with how ticketing is these days they'll bug you a dozen times to choose between the $50 basic economy disaster package that only has the mask and 50% airflow or the full package for $100 that includes another 25% airflow and a flotation device. Business execute gets you the parachute, a private life raft, and a few days of MREs for $250.
Bet it won't happen twice though.
> give them parachutes at least
the first time
I'm going to vote with my wallet by moving United up my priority list.
Either you missed the joke or I missed your sarcasm. I read GP as a joke: being literally kicked out of a flight in air is a death sentence, which is a bit harsh penalty indeed.
On one hand I understand why this exists, but on the other hand, I don't think it is even necessary. There is so much noise during the flight, and combined with lower atmospheric pressure I can barely hear what steward standing next to me is saying.
I agree with the policy but this is such a mild offense. Just a few years ago in the US there was an epidemic of drunk people savagely beating flight attendants.
People who cannot figure out how to share use of shared space should lose access to those places.
Yes and no. I don't want to be a Karen, but also I think it's fair to not cause discomfort to others. Imagine if every flight was as noisy a city intersection. For 5 hours. And you can't hide.
Airlines have been quietly expanding what they can remove you for. This isn't really about headphones. It's about how much discretion crew have now and how little recourse you have at 35,000 feet.
Look... if me and 199 other passengers are going to abide by restrictions we were informed about before we paid any money for a ticket, it's completely unfair that the authorities make an exception for one passenger who accepted the same contract we all did.
Arrest them on board, handcuff them and lead them away in handcuffs at the destination. No sympathy from me, especially since the only way the handcuffs route is going to happen is if the passenger in questions ignores the instructions from the flight crew.
I also have to note that on most flights, whether domestic or international, the it's already a criminal offence to ignore an instruction from the flight crew. The airline here did not need to make publish a new rule, they could have simply had the flight crew inform the annoying passenger.
Good. You want to be an asshole? Do it in your car, driving alone, to your destination.
The ones with limited recourse are the flight crew who are trapped with you and a hundred other asshole for hours with no escape and very limited options in case of a serious disruption. If there is one space that has justification to act as temporary dictatorship, it's an aircraft in flight.
The airlines could alway remove you for literally any reason. Even if it was discriminatory or otherwise illegal, you'd still definitely be getting off the plane, at least.
You might blame the airlines, but passengers have become more rude and entitled year after year. It's really everywhere now, not just on airplanes. I personally am fine with removing passengers who think they are entitled to annoy the rest of us when we can't just get up and leave the place.