3 ms·

Delta is one of the better airlines but when you herd and shuffle people around like animals, they're bound to lash out like animals. Well no one wants to be t

Delta is one of the better airlines but when you herd and shuffle people around like animals, they're bound to lash out like animals. Well no one wants to be trapped in an enclosed space with an unruly person and we act as if the only solution is banning people and potentially tossing them into an even smaller enclosed space that will reinforce their bad behavior. Why would we continue to propose ideas to bolster no fly lists when they clearly haven't had the desired outcome of not having passengers become unruly. It's not preventing a problem. Instead airline companies or possibly the requirements of government regulations the need to make the airlines treat people like humans. Provide seats that accommodate people, provide legroom that accommodate people, provide personal space that accommodates people. Yes all of this cuts into profit margins but the sole pursuit of profit margins has not produced a better experience and has not produced a safer experience.

m-p-3 5y ago
> Why would we continue to propose ideas to bolster no fly lists when they clearly haven't had the desired outcome of not having passengers become unruly. Like prison, the idea is that the consequences are normally a sufficient deterrent. The fact that it isn't always sufficient is not a reason to remove those consequences. I do however believe in rehabilitation, and maybe a program that banned passengers needs to follow to be taken of the no-fly list could be a way out. But again, there's no silver bullet and someone will go through the program, won't learn anything and become a repeat offender.
croutonwagon 5y ago
Additionally there have been cases where the flight attendant or otherwise have abused their power and tossed people for whatever reason. Off the top of my head some incidents I recall seeing in the news the last few years: >Pilot tosses passenger for having a hat that says has curse words or are deemed “inappropriate”. There’s multiple examples. >Boarded and seated passenger is forcibly deplaned because another employee wants to deadhead in his seat. In general I avoid flying, partially because I’m tall. Partially because the entire experience from getting to the airport to the flight itself is just one experience where at any time you will hit someone that’s a bit power trippy and agitated. I’ve turned down jobs due to travel requirements as a result. And don’t regret it.
- bronco21016 5y ago
  >Boarded and seated passenger is forcibly deplaned because another employee wants to deadhead in his seat. That’s a pretty gross mischaracterization. Deadheading crew members are simply doing as asked by their employer. That man wasn’t kicked off, and abused, because an employee “wanted” his seat. He was removed because the fine print of the agreement when you purchase a ticket allows airline management to make those types of choices. The deadheading crew members weren’t involved in any of the altercation if I remember correctly. I’m not trying to argue it was right at all but it definitely was not the fault of a crew member.
  - croutonwagon 5y ago
    Sorry. Wasnt trying to mischaracterize it as the fault of the deadhead in that case. But to allow a passenger to board, take a seat (with an entire family) and then bump him, was an aggressive action because an employee of the airline made a mistake (generally you get bumped when you try and check in). Additionally in that specific instance, the flight attendant that DID bump him (not the deadhead) refuse to up their offer to entice volunteers (carrot) and chose the stick after a single offer of some pittance (like $50-100 credit). They immediately went to the stick and chose someone. At the first sign of pushback they called airport police and bludgeoned the man and dragged him from the plane. At no point was he the aggressor or agitator. It was entirely an "oopsie we screwed up, but it sucks for you". Agreement or not, thats not how you do business unless, and only unless, you basically have a monopoly on the situation. Which they do. And is exactly why the notion of such a "list" is a terrible idea. Heres the specific incident I am referencing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_inc...

m-p-3 5y ago

> Why would we continue to propose ideas to bolster no fly lists when they clearly haven't had the desired outcome of not having passengers become unruly. Like prison, the idea is that the consequences are normally a sufficient deterrent. The fact that it isn't always sufficient is not a reason to remove those consequences. I do however believe in rehabilitation, and maybe a program that banned passengers needs to follow to be taken of the no-fly list could be a way out. But again, there's no silver bullet and someone will go through the program, won't learn anything and become a repeat offender.

croutonwagon 5y ago

Additionally there have been cases where the flight attendant or otherwise have abused their power and tossed people for whatever reason. Off the top of my head some incidents I recall seeing in the news the last few years: >Pilot tosses passenger for having a hat that says has curse words or are deemed “inappropriate”. There’s multiple examples. >Boarded and seated passenger is forcibly deplaned because another employee wants to deadhead in his seat. In general I avoid flying, partially because I’m tall. Partially because the entire experience from getting to the airport to the flight itself is just one experience where at any time you will hit someone that’s a bit power trippy and agitated. I’ve turned down jobs due to travel requirements as a result. And don’t regret it.

bronco21016 5y ago
>Boarded and seated passenger is forcibly deplaned because another employee wants to deadhead in his seat. That’s a pretty gross mischaracterization. Deadheading crew members are simply doing as asked by their employer. That man wasn’t kicked off, and abused, because an employee “wanted” his seat. He was removed because the fine print of the agreement when you purchase a ticket allows airline management to make those types of choices. The deadheading crew members weren’t involved in any of the altercation if I remember correctly. I’m not trying to argue it was right at all but it definitely was not the fault of a crew member.
- croutonwagon 5y ago
  Sorry. Wasnt trying to mischaracterize it as the fault of the deadhead in that case. But to allow a passenger to board, take a seat (with an entire family) and then bump him, was an aggressive action because an employee of the airline made a mistake (generally you get bumped when you try and check in). Additionally in that specific instance, the flight attendant that DID bump him (not the deadhead) refuse to up their offer to entice volunteers (carrot) and chose the stick after a single offer of some pittance (like $50-100 credit). They immediately went to the stick and chose someone. At the first sign of pushback they called airport police and bludgeoned the man and dragged him from the plane. At no point was he the aggressor or agitator. It was entirely an "oopsie we screwed up, but it sucks for you". Agreement or not, thats not how you do business unless, and only unless, you basically have a monopoly on the situation. Which they do. And is exactly why the notion of such a "list" is a terrible idea. Heres the specific incident I am referencing here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_inc...