I’ve wondered about this regulation too, and found it wasn’t always required. I asked a flight attendant recently about it. She told me it wasn’t an FAA requirement, but many airlines go beyond FAA req’s. This airline (ATA) claimed it was because the flight attendants might possibly see something outside the plane (debris, support vehicles, wing tips falling off?) that the pilots might miss. Apparently that has happened. So this just increases their safety margins a sliver. Made sense to me.
another requirement on that airline, but not an FAA req - they kill all the cabin lights on night takeoffs & landings (some airlines just turn off half the lights). Their reasoning is that if there’s an accident, the exits are well lit & will stand out better, and peoples’ eyes will be more adjusted to the dark if the plane loses electrical power.
I believe on FlyerTalk, it was explained that in case of emergency, the Flight Attendants would be able to see if there were fire outside the plane, and prohibit opening of an exit door into a Fire Situation. Makes sense to me.
My mention of the Constitution was in response to the use of the word ‘right’.
In the United States, when speaking of rights, one is generally referring to privileges afforded by the first 10 amendments to the Constitution - The Bill of Rights. The word ‘rights’, however is thrown around so often, it has come to mean ‘whatever I want’.
So, when Anthracite wrote, “They have no right…”, my response was that the airlines are not obligated, Constitutionaly or otherwise…blah, blah, blah.
But as I said, nevermind. I made the mistake of not checking the date of the OP before offering my opinion on a topic that someone else reopened. Sorry to perpetuate it.
Not many, but yes. It was called the McDonnell-Douglas MD-95 before Boeing bought the company. It looks like an MD-83. The 717 name once upon a time referred to the KC-135, but had never before been used commercially.
Here is an example of why Mandarin Airlines might ask its passengers to close their window shades before taxiing.
Shudder - that’s one creepy photo. And that’s also the longest URL I’ve ever seen in vBulletin code on the SDMB - I had no idea it would actually work.
Oh, man, are you really going to make me jump into this? You should have quit while you were ahead…you actually seemed sensible and made a decent point.
Since this is a resurrected thread, you won’t mind a little hijack as well, right? Good.
That’s a good place to start. Just so we’re all on the same page, let’s define terms:
By contrast…
Now, are we discussing the Bill of Rights, or the Bill of Privileges? If it’s the latter, then I apologize for jumping on you, as in my ignorance I am entirely unfamiliar with that document.
If on the other hand, we are talking about the Bill of Rights, part of the Constitution, then I must beg to differ.
The Bill of Rights does not grant privileges. It enumerates specific Rights, and it recognizes and officially acknowledges the existence of rights that are NOT specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights. In fact, the Bill of Rights begins by stating its purpose:
See the problem? It’s not a set of privileges granted to the citizenry…it’s a set of restrictions upon the Government, in order to prevent its misconstruing or abusing its powers.
No, you decided to be a smart ass, and while doing so put your foot firmly in your mouth. Even if what you said above (that the only rights are the “privileges” granted by the Bill of Rights) were true, then this would still look stupid, because there was nothing in the Constitution that even remotely resembled “The right of large corporations to withhold regulatory information on demand from its customers shall not be infringed.”
Very sorry for the hijack. Photog, if you want to argue this further, start a new thread and I’ll be glad to meet you there.