The Funded’s Adeo Ressi Arrested After Virgin America Flight Incident | Hacker News Reader

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

techcrunch.com

27 pointsjedwhite60 comments

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.)

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/SB1000142405274870440780457542...

> 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).

And why is this downvoted?

What's more : with online check-in I am not even asked for Id prior to boarding on my recent flights from Zurich. Just download your boarding pass to your mobile, go through security in ten minutes and board the plane. I used to arrive 2 hours in advance for a flight and now I am cutting that down to 1 hour just to be on the safe side.

"Frankly, I don't know why foreigners still come to America. If I showed up at JFk ... "

Precisely why I've never visited :)

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

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

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

bureaucrats have a vested interest in the chaos in which they exist.

And power over the populace has many uses, not the least of which is creating a culture of cowed people unwilling to resist e latest edicts.

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

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

The cost-benefit analysis is a very good point. That's precisely where aviation security goes wrong; it overspends on ineffective procedures and very expensive equipment for negligible increases in security, because things as simple as as large bottles marked "saline solution" are allowed to go through untested.

They had airport security right back in 2000. All they need to do is go back to doing things that way and everybody will be a lot happier.

Back in 2000, Hijacking an airplane meant that you landed it someplace, demanded some stuff, let the passengers off, then got killed by the police. Passengers knew that all they needed to do was sit tight and things would work themselves out. That's the reason why a bunch of dudes could hijack a plane with silly little utility knives. In the passenger's mind, it sucked, but they figured they'd live through it.

Nowadays, if the TSA lets me keep my fingernail clippers and I attempt to take over the plane with them, I'll get 185 people jumping on me because they expect me to crash it into something.

That's the fundamental thing that changed after 9/11. The upside of it is that it's now next to impossible to hijack a commercial flight, even if you're armed. The natural conclusion then, from a security perspective, is not to start confiscating my bottled water, but rather to continue with the straightforward, effective security that was already working.

How would you design security procedures? ... What about seriously toned down security like we have been doing for decades prior to 911 and just accepting that once in a while a plane gets blown up?

Concrete suggestions: 1. Accept profiling as a legitimate tactic. 2. Open up the airports closed to general aviation post-9/11. 3. Reduce the time spent outside the secure area, partially for the convenience and efficient use of passenger's time, but more importantly to prevent the massing of people in a confined space, subject to attack by trivially prepared terrorists. You could do a signficant amount of damage in the average security line, and your preparation required would be measured in hours or days, not months/years. With a poison gas attack, you wouldn't even have to die yourself, though perhaps that misses the point for some terrorists?

Frankly, keeping the guns and knives confined to checked baggage, and making it possible to get from Boston to NYC door to door faster than the train, and you're on to something. I believe we've gotten to the point where we're exposing the travelling public to a higher rather than lower level of risk by the current security measures.

I think this article http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/744199---israelifi... comprehensively explains what is infective and gives plenty of constructive suggestions. Namely because the method described is already in use and has not had any problems.

Two biggest threats to airliners are guns (for taking over the plane) and bombs (for blowing them up). Metal detecters, bomb dogs and maybe armed flight crews (we do this now) are really all that's needed to deal with all of those.

The current setup is all about $M's that security contractors get for high-end scanning equipment (as opposed to dogs that can be trained for $50K).

If you think sniffer > dogs, I have a shooting bag (complete with recent burns from muzzle flash) I take as my duffle, and it's been through the sniffer and nothing was detected. It's easy to imagine a hermetically sealed large laptop battery with explosives to bring a plane down. The people who did 9/11 were engineers, they could figure it out...

We're no more safe than we were, but the chances are VERY slim to be killed yourself. We're better fighting heart disease than airplane terrorism.

Two words. El Al. There hasn't been a successful attack in decades. Not cause they are such a small target but because they don't fuck around with their security and everyone knows it. When I fly El Al and they put me through the ringer, I know they are not wasting my time. When I fly non El Al I know that it's all kabuki theater.

Take, for example, the two degenerates who recently flew from Detroit to Schippol (Amsterdam, I believe. sp? On an iphone). Those dry run jokers got to Europe and were caught there. Um, why weren't they caught here before they could... You know... Kaboom the plane? The examples are endless.

I have to be fair here and say every time I have flown into the US the border guards have been very courteous. I even had one joke, and the first time I flew into NY the girl recommended a restaurant for the first night near my accommodation.

I suspect I have been pretty lucky :)

As to in-flight stuff; I've given up on it. I fly short haul quite a lot and tend to use cheaper airlines to save pennies. But it's not worth it - the third time I did an overnight flight and got woken up to be told about all the amazing offers I very nearly swung for the idiot :)

Once when I arrived at JFK, the immigration officer realised it was my birthday and sang "Happy Birthday" to me. Sweet, and embarrassing. Didn't enthuse the thousand people waiting behind me in the queue either.

The difference with arriving in Australia and having my biometric passport checked, answering questions on a touchscreen, automated photo gates (and a total elapsed time from getting off the plane to waiting for my luggage of about, oh 10 minutes including walking) - it still seems that the US doesn't get it.

Friendly is good. Manual, time consuming processes (and don't get me started about the ESTA introduction confusion) not to mention irritating queues, are all dumb and just piss people off.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Sometimes people just need to vent.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. ]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Paying for first class doesn't give you the right to compromise the safety of the flight.

That's a surprising number of upvotes. Are people really that scared of electronic interference in flight, or is it a more general sentiment?

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.

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?

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.

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.)

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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?

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 :)

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.

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

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

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

> 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.

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.

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.

This one's most certainly a law: FAR 91.21

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

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

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

If only our forefathers had the foresight to write laws governing air travel.

He did say beforehand that he'd need a second to finish the email so the flight attendant could have told him then in a polite way that there was no time. And anyway, if they are so concerned about this, they can tell people to shut down their electrical devices 5 minutes before so that no one is late (and well anyway, there's no safety reason for this rule).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com