5 ms·

The Funded’s Adeo Ressi Arrested After Virgin America Flight Incident

27 points by jedwhite 16y ago

jedwhite 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
      - veemjeem 16y ago
        I'm sure VA will view it as a nightmare -- how else would you call it if your company name was negatively mentioned in the top tweeted article of the past 2 hours?
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - mkramlich 16y ago
      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.
  - diziet 16y ago
    I think the point of paying for first class is to exclude the possibility of all possible hick-ups before, during, and after the flight.
    - KevBurnsJr 16y ago
      I guess my point is not that the flight attendant was wrong but rather that they're both idiots for getting in an argument over nothing. I don't think it's fair to pass judgment on the company based on the actions of 1 unenlightened steward on a bad day.
    - firdaus 16y ago
      Paying for first class doesn't give you the right to compromise the safety of the flight.
      - ynniv 16y ago
        That's a surprising number of upvotes. Are people really that scared of electronic interference in flight, or is it a more general sentiment?
        firdaus 16y ago
        Even if it's harmless, I don't think it's his place to make a decision about whether electronic interference is dangerous to the plane's equipment or not and affect the safety of everyone else on board. The steward on the other hand is completely justified in enforcing/following the airline's (industry?) policy.
      - diziet 16y ago
        I remember flying in the copilot seat with a laptop on my lap in a six seater. I think this was... four weeks ago? Didn't seem to compromise any kind of safety. Do you really think if someone wanted to electronically tamper with the plane they would be as obvious as opening a laptop and working on an email?
  - jedwhite 16y ago
    The fact he had multiple other passengers from first class not only sticking up for him immediately after, but formally including themselves in the police report, is a strong indication of where right lay here.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- mkramlich 16y ago
  The flight staff can't "see into his soul" like you can, however. :) They can only see and interact with his actual behavior as they encounter it. Someone could kiss babies and pet puppies and give millions to charity but then if they are in a situation where they behave like an ass to somebody, they're an ass. In that situation. (Not saying that's exactly the case in the discussed incident, but in general.)
  - jedwhite 16y ago
    My point is that they don't need to see into his soul. He is always civil in person whatever his intellectual intensity. And as Michael Arrington himself says in the story comments, one of the calmer people you will meet in person. Any theatrics and fireworks are left for when he's presenting on-stage.
    - mkramlich 16y ago
      > He is always civil in person You cannot know that with certainty. What we do know, from his own words, is that once the passengers were told to shut off all electronics devices and stow them away, that he did not do it immediately, and told an attendant he needed to finish writing an email. Look at it from the attendant's perspective, who again, is not psychic. Yes, the attendant may have overreacted, who knows, but nobody knows exactly how he behaved either. We do know that this rule is in effect ostensibly as a safety precaution intended ultimately to preserve the lives of everyone on board. It's a bit like somebody driving an SUV on the highway in traffic, and putting a higher priority on the state of the cellphone conversation they're involved in, rather than the state of play on the highway and neighboring vehicles. Your right to email/cellphone when and where you want ends (or should end) when it begins to intrude on the safety of fellow human beings.
- appleseed 16y ago
  It's really surprising to see you describe Adeo as principled. I did the Founder Institute with him last year, and was insulted by him personally and professionally on a weekly basis. As were most people I spoke to. He clearly has good intentions (imho we all do), but treated us all poorly.
  - rdl 16y ago
    Adeo is principled in that he is honest and consistent. He's not an unadulterated cheerleader, and in Founder Institute, the aggressive/pressure inducing techniques (standing up before the room and having Adeo and investors/mentors question your idea) serve a very obvious purpose -- if your first high-pressure experience pitching your idea is in front of a VC, and you fuck up, you are doing it wrong, but it is a lot harder for standing up in front of a room of cheerleaders in training to be an effective simulation. If someone is unwilling to endure high stress situations, that person should just get a job somewhere, vs. being an entrepreneur (and Founder Institute is pretty biased toward whole-business founders, vs. tech people). Calling people fat/ugly/bald/etc. is just a way to try to put them off guard. If you go out drinking with Adeo after Founder Institute, he's definitely a nice guy.
siculars 16y ago
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.)
- jedwhite 16y ago
  I think it's related to the fact that the customer service staff onboard airlines (the attendants) see themselves as safety enforcers rather than anything else. And that is part of a culture of "security theatre" - doing things purely to make people think they are safe rather than improve actual safety. Like the show of turning off electronic devices and reprimanding passengers for being slow. Peggy Noonan has written some good pieces of this, most recently: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425983109795768.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870440780457542...
- bambax 16y ago
  > I don't know why foreigners still come to America We don't, mostly. I used to come to NY every two years, used to love the city. Now I go elsewhere. Haven't been there in six years and I don't think I'll be back. This is a big world, there are other places to see; America is abusive at home just as it is elsewhere. Flying in Europe is still acceptable; in Germany the local TSA let you carry almost anything on board (and joke about it).
  - gokhan 16y ago
    And why is this downvoted?
w1ntermute 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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 16y ago
    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.
- ynniv 16y ago
  No, the regulation only applies to commercial flights. To be fair, each flight is full of people the pilot doesn't know, bringing random equipment on board. But standard laptop hardware is of no particular concern.
jsz0 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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.
- KevBurnsJr 16y ago
  Sometimes people just need to vent.
- tptacek 16y ago
  No, it's not reasonable. Half the plane keeps their computer on after the notice to turn them off. Half of those are wearing headphones and don't hear it, and the other half just don't care (there is, after all, no real reason for this rule). On no flight I've taken in the past 5 years have I ever turned off an electronic device the moment the cabin was notified. I've never seen someone get yelled at for it. If I got yelled at over it, I'd complain to the airline. What happened to this guy seems worse.
kyro 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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.
Eliezer 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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.
mkramlich 16y ago
> 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 16y ago
  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.
  - neorayn 16y ago
    If only our forefathers had the foresight to write laws governing air travel.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    You do not know there's no safety risk. And there are all kinds of laws and rules one has to follow everyday that are not specified in the Constitution and yet we have to follow them anyway lest consequences ensue. The highest courts in the land have already determined that the Federal government does have the right and responsibility to regulate and enforce certain aspects of inter-state commerce, which includes airline travel. In broad enough strokes, it's a settled issue.
  - sokoloff 16y ago
    This one's most certainly a law: FAR 91.21 http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-21-FAR.shtml 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.
_delirium 16y ago
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.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
mkramlich 16y ago
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 16y ago
  Queue the Louis CK Everything's Amazing & Nobody's Happy clip :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk 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 16y ago
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 16y ago
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 :)
AdeoRessi 16y ago
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

27 points by jedwhite 16y ago

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 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
    - veemjeem 16y ago
      I'm sure VA will view it as a nightmare -- how else would you call it if your company name was negatively mentioned in the top tweeted article of the past 2 hours?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    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.
- diziet 16y ago
  I think the point of paying for first class is to exclude the possibility of all possible hick-ups before, during, and after the flight.
  - KevBurnsJr 16y ago
    I guess my point is not that the flight attendant was wrong but rather that they're both idiots for getting in an argument over nothing. I don't think it's fair to pass judgment on the company based on the actions of 1 unenlightened steward on a bad day.
  - firdaus 16y ago
    Paying for first class doesn't give you the right to compromise the safety of the flight.
    - ynniv 16y ago
      That's a surprising number of upvotes. Are people really that scared of electronic interference in flight, or is it a more general sentiment?
      - firdaus 16y ago
        Even if it's harmless, I don't think it's his place to make a decision about whether electronic interference is dangerous to the plane's equipment or not and affect the safety of everyone else on board. The steward on the other hand is completely justified in enforcing/following the airline's (industry?) policy.
    - diziet 16y ago
      I remember flying in the copilot seat with a laptop on my lap in a six seater. I think this was... four weeks ago? Didn't seem to compromise any kind of safety. Do you really think if someone wanted to electronically tamper with the plane they would be as obvious as opening a laptop and working on an email?
- jedwhite 16y ago
  The fact he had multiple other passengers from first class not only sticking up for him immediately after, but formally including themselves in the police report, is a strong indication of where right lay here.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
mkramlich 16y ago
The flight staff can't "see into his soul" like you can, however. :) They can only see and interact with his actual behavior as they encounter it. Someone could kiss babies and pet puppies and give millions to charity but then if they are in a situation where they behave like an ass to somebody, they're an ass. In that situation. (Not saying that's exactly the case in the discussed incident, but in general.)
- jedwhite 16y ago
  My point is that they don't need to see into his soul. He is always civil in person whatever his intellectual intensity. And as Michael Arrington himself says in the story comments, one of the calmer people you will meet in person. Any theatrics and fireworks are left for when he's presenting on-stage.
  - mkramlich 16y ago
    > He is always civil in person You cannot know that with certainty. What we do know, from his own words, is that once the passengers were told to shut off all electronics devices and stow them away, that he did not do it immediately, and told an attendant he needed to finish writing an email. Look at it from the attendant's perspective, who again, is not psychic. Yes, the attendant may have overreacted, who knows, but nobody knows exactly how he behaved either. We do know that this rule is in effect ostensibly as a safety precaution intended ultimately to preserve the lives of everyone on board. It's a bit like somebody driving an SUV on the highway in traffic, and putting a higher priority on the state of the cellphone conversation they're involved in, rather than the state of play on the highway and neighboring vehicles. Your right to email/cellphone when and where you want ends (or should end) when it begins to intrude on the safety of fellow human beings.
appleseed 16y ago
It's really surprising to see you describe Adeo as principled. I did the Founder Institute with him last year, and was insulted by him personally and professionally on a weekly basis. As were most people I spoke to. He clearly has good intentions (imho we all do), but treated us all poorly.
- rdl 16y ago
  Adeo is principled in that he is honest and consistent. He's not an unadulterated cheerleader, and in Founder Institute, the aggressive/pressure inducing techniques (standing up before the room and having Adeo and investors/mentors question your idea) serve a very obvious purpose -- if your first high-pressure experience pitching your idea is in front of a VC, and you fuck up, you are doing it wrong, but it is a lot harder for standing up in front of a room of cheerleaders in training to be an effective simulation. If someone is unwilling to endure high stress situations, that person should just get a job somewhere, vs. being an entrepreneur (and Founder Institute is pretty biased toward whole-business founders, vs. tech people). Calling people fat/ugly/bald/etc. is just a way to try to put them off guard. If you go out drinking with Adeo after Founder Institute, he's definitely a nice guy.

siculars 16y ago

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.)

jedwhite 16y ago
I think it's related to the fact that the customer service staff onboard airlines (the attendants) see themselves as safety enforcers rather than anything else. And that is part of a culture of "security theatre" - doing things purely to make people think they are safe rather than improve actual safety. Like the show of turning off electronic devices and reprimanding passengers for being slow. Peggy Noonan has written some good pieces of this, most recently: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425983109795768.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870440780457542...
bambax 16y ago
> I don't know why foreigners still come to America We don't, mostly. I used to come to NY every two years, used to love the city. Now I go elsewhere. Haven't been there in six years and I don't think I'll be back. This is a big world, there are other places to see; America is abusive at home just as it is elsewhere. Flying in Europe is still acceptable; in Germany the local TSA let you carry almost anything on board (and joke about it).
- gokhan 16y ago
  And why is this downvoted?

w1ntermute 16y ago

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 16y ago
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 16y ago
  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.
ynniv 16y ago
No, the regulation only applies to commercial flights. To be fair, each flight is full of people the pilot doesn't know, bringing random equipment on board. But standard laptop hardware is of no particular concern.

jsz0 16y ago

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 16y ago
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.
KevBurnsJr 16y ago
Sometimes people just need to vent.
tptacek 16y ago
No, it's not reasonable. Half the plane keeps their computer on after the notice to turn them off. Half of those are wearing headphones and don't hear it, and the other half just don't care (there is, after all, no real reason for this rule). On no flight I've taken in the past 5 years have I ever turned off an electronic device the moment the cabin was notified. I've never seen someone get yelled at for it. If I got yelled at over it, I'd complain to the airline. What happened to this guy seems worse.

kyro 16y ago

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 16y ago
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.

Eliezer 16y ago

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 16y ago
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.

mkramlich 16y ago

> 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 16y ago
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.
- neorayn 16y ago
  If only our forefathers had the foresight to write laws governing air travel.
- mkramlich 16y ago
  You do not know there's no safety risk. And there are all kinds of laws and rules one has to follow everyday that are not specified in the Constitution and yet we have to follow them anyway lest consequences ensue. The highest courts in the land have already determined that the Federal government does have the right and responsibility to regulate and enforce certain aspects of inter-state commerce, which includes airline travel. In broad enough strokes, it's a settled issue.
- sokoloff 16y ago
  This one's most certainly a law: FAR 91.21 http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-21-FAR.shtml 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.

_delirium 16y ago

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.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

mkramlich 16y ago

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 16y ago
Queue the Louis CK Everything's Amazing & Nobody's Happy clip :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk 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 16y ago

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 16y ago

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 :)

AdeoRessi 16y ago

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