Skip to main content
Part of complete coverage from

Cell phones on planes? For texting, not gabbing

By Bob Greene, CNN Contributor
January 6, 2013 -- Updated 1515 GMT (2315 HKT)
Bob Greene: it makes sense that FAA considering more electronic gadget use on planes. But talking on phones? Keep the ban.
Bob Greene: it makes sense that FAA considering more electronic gadget use on planes. But talking on phones? Keep the ban.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Bob Greene: FAA looks at letting passengers use gadgets on takeoff, landing
  • He says the more texting, e-mailing and surfing are allowed, the better
  • Cell phone calls are the opposite, though: They raise anxiety
  • Greene: Are we that unwilling to disconnect from our gadgets for a few minutes?

Editor's note: CNN Contributor Bob Greene is a bestselling author whose 25 books include "Late Edition: A Love Story"; "Chevrolet Summers, Dairy Queen Nights"; and "When We Get to Surf City: A Journey Through America in Pursuit of Rock and Roll, Friendship, and Dreams."

(CNN) -- Let's say that you're the Federal Aviation Administration.

(Unlikely, granted. But, just for the purpose of this exercise, try to envision yourself as a government agency).

You're about to make a decision that will affect millions of travelers. Your decision may please them or it may infuriate them. Most of them have no idea right now that you're contemplating the decision, but as soon as you make it, all of them will become aware, and they will respond, likely in a visceral manner.

You're the FAA. What do you do?

Bob Greene
Bob Greene

What the real FAA is pondering concerns expanding the permitted use of tablets, personal communication devices and other electronic gadgets on commercial flights.

Last month, The Hill reported, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski wrote in a letter to FAA Acting Administrator Michael Huerta:

"I write to urge the FAA to enable greater use of tablets, e-readers, and other portable electronic devices during flight, consistent with public safety ... mobile devices are increasingly interwoven in our daily lives. They empower people to stay informed and connected with friends and family, and they enable both large and small businesses to be more productive and efficient, helping drive economic growth and boost U.S. competitiveness."

Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.



For many years, passengers have been told that some electronic devices, including cell phones, can interfere with aircraft navigation and communication signals. But as technology advances, ways around this are being developed. Many airlines already sell in-flight Wi-Fi connections for laptop computers and tablets, so the logical next step would be to allow airborne passengers to use their cell phones to connect to the world below.

A few thoughts:

In terms of written communication from passengers on the plane to people down below -- e-mail, text messages sent from cell phones, social network posts -- the more the better. Anything the digital traffic will bear.

If you've been on flights with Wi-Fi enabled, you may have noticed that the passengers using it seem to be contented, almost docile -- the tension level seems to have been lowered. Like it or not, we've become hooked on being constantly connected, and passengers who are able to maintain that connection while six miles in the air appear to be traveling in a state of something close to silent, electronically-sated, tunnel-vision bliss.

But there should be one exception to this:

Technical and connectivity issues aside, the FAA and FCC should never extend their digital-era permission slip to voice calls on cell phones.

The result of allowing phone calls in the air would produce the opposite of the tranquilizing effect of permitting other forms of electronic communication. The anger level of travelers who become incensed by the yammering in the next seat would rise to the level of a public safety concern. Passengers would be demanding to be moved, would ask flight attendants to referee disputes, would probably engage in fistfights. Allowing jousting matches or bullfights in airplane aisles wouldn't be much more disruptive than allowing voice calls on planes.

(But what about the idea of passengers voluntarily exercising restraint and courtesy in those close quarters, limiting the length and loudness of their calls out of respect for their fellow citizens? All right, stop laughing and rolling around on the floor -- get up. This is the United States in the 21st century. We know that voluntary phone courtesy is not going to happen).

You may recall Airfone, the air-to-ground pay phone service that debuted on commercial flights in the 1980s. It required a credit card for each call, and was expensive -- $7.50 in '80s dollars for the first three minutes, when the service was introduced. It never become all that popular, and eventually it faded away.

But that was before the advent of personal cell phones. Talking on the phone anywhere, at any time, is today seen not as an exotic and costly luxury but as an entitlement. The FAA is reportedly not considering voice-call permission on flights; if and when that day comes, walking across the country may feel like a more palatable option than flying.

There's one decision the FAA is evaluating that probably says more about us than it does about in-flight safety:

Those two brief stretches of time when all electronic devices must be turned off -- after the doors to the plane close until it is at cruising altitude, and then again on approach for landing -- are being questioned.

If it can be determined that signals do not interfere with the pilots' transmissions, should passengers now be allowed to use their electronic gadgets even in those few minutes? Some contend that, in those crucial parts of a flight, passengers should not be distracted, and should be alert to instructions from the cabin crew. But reading a magazine or a book can lure a passenger's attention from the crew, and those are not prohibited.

So the question would seem to be:

Has the addiction to the gadgets become so powerful that we are unwilling to disconnect and look away even for that paltry handful of minutes? Has the agitation from withdrawal gotten to that level? Because if it has, then this is an issue considerably more profound and far-reaching than anything having to do with the rules of travel.

Regardless of what the FAA decides, there is one option for in-flight diversion that will still be available, something ancient kings and monarchs could only dream of:

Looking out the window, high above the clouds.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion

Join us on Facebook/CNNOpinion

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bob Greene.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
August 22, 2014 -- Updated 1231 GMT (2031 HKT)
James Dawes says calling ISIS evil over and over again could very well make it harder to stop them.
August 22, 2014 -- Updated 1223 GMT (2023 HKT)
Retired Lt. Gen. Mark Hertling says he learned that the territory ISIS wants to control is amazingly complex.
August 21, 2014 -- Updated 1450 GMT (2250 HKT)
David Weinberger says Twitter and other social networks have been vested with a responsibility, and a trust, they did not ask for.
August 22, 2014 -- Updated 1103 GMT (1903 HKT)
John Inazu says the slogan "We are Ferguson" is meant to express empathy and solidarity. It's not true: Not all of us live in those circumstances. But we all made them.
August 20, 2014 -- Updated 1951 GMT (0351 HKT)
Cerue Garlo says Liberia is desperate for help amid a Ebola outbreak that has touched every aspect of life.
August 21, 2014 -- Updated 1742 GMT (0142 HKT)
Eric Liu says Republicans who want to restrict voting may win now, but the party will suffer in the long term.
August 21, 2014 -- Updated 1538 GMT (2338 HKT)
Jay Parini: Jesus, Pope and now researchers agree: Wealth decreases our ability to sympathize with the poor.
August 21, 2014 -- Updated 1200 GMT (2000 HKT)
Judy Melinek offers a medical examiner's perspective on what happens when police kill people like Michael Brown.
August 19, 2014 -- Updated 2203 GMT (0603 HKT)
It used to be billy clubs, fire hoses and snarling German shepherds. Now it's armored personnel carriers and flash-bang grenades, writes Kara Dansky.
August 20, 2014 -- Updated 1727 GMT (0127 HKT)
Maria Haberfeld: People who are unfamiliar with police work can reasonably ask, why was an unarmed man shot so many times, and why was deadly force used at all?
August 18, 2014 -- Updated 2152 GMT (0552 HKT)
Ruben Navarrette notes that this fall, minority students will outnumber white students at America's public schools.
August 19, 2014 -- Updated 2121 GMT (0521 HKT)
Humans have driven to extinction four marine mammal species in modern times. As you read this, we are on the brink of losing the fifth, write three experts.
August 19, 2014 -- Updated 1158 GMT (1958 HKT)
It's been ten days since Michael Brown was killed, and his family is still waiting for information from investigators about what happened to their young man, writes Mel Robbins
August 18, 2014 -- Updated 1242 GMT (2042 HKT)
The former U.K. prime minister and current U.N. envoy says there are 500 days left to fulfill the Millennium Goals' promise to children.
August 20, 2014 -- Updated 1738 GMT (0138 HKT)
Peter Bergen says the terror group is a huge threat in Iraq but only a potential one in the U.S.
August 18, 2014 -- Updated 2006 GMT (0406 HKT)
Pepper Schwartz asks why young women are so entranced with Kardashian, who's putting together a 352-page book of selfies
ADVERTISEMENT