36 ms·
Delta CEO wants U.S. to put unruly passengers on 'no-fly' list
- nitwit005 5y agoSeems like you should just make punching a flight staff carry enough of a penalty time that the can't fly due to being confined. If we don't think they're safe to have on a plane, they probably aren't safe in many other common situations.
- throwawaysea 5y agoI guess I’ll be putting Delta on my “no fly” list. It’s incredible that corporate overlords seek to recreate authoritarian schemes like social credit scores as a cartel.
- quantified 5y agoYou’d think that a demonstrated history of violence to air crew (for a sufficient definition of violence) would be a stronger reason than potential violence. But the no-fly list is sort of like the felony lifetime forfeiture of constitional rights, so it would seem that felonies as opposed to misdemeanors would be the minimum bar.
- SteveNuts 5y agoWhy can't Delta just make their own list, they're a private company can't they refuse service to anyone they choose?
- humanwhosits 5y agoThey do, they're advocating for a shared list
- mlindner 5y agoNo they're advocating for a government mandated shared list. They don't want a competing airline to be able to advertise that they'll fly those who other airlines won't fly. Completely different thing. They could create a shared list if they wanted to.
- quantified 5y agoI have no patience or sympathy for those causing the issue to be raised. Add this reasonable-sounding rule, it will make things worse for everyone else.
- bronco21016 5y agoThey do. And so does United, SWA, AA, etc. The thought process is that an unruly passenger on United, for example, should be banned from all airlines and air lines so they can’t go cause trouble elsewhere. I think the airlines are asking the government to step in because they’re not sure they can legally work together to ban people from all air travel. I believe a government process is the correct answer here but only with due process and guard rails.
- imroot 5y agoThey share common reservations systems, so, it wouldn't surprise me if SABRE or another GDS shares no-fly lists. I seem to recall that American, United, and Delta all use/implement Sabre in some form or another, and possibly shared a no-fly/ban list...but, my memory is a bit hazy on that.
- quantified 5y agoRight, cartel-like denial of service behavior raises real issues. Suppose all payment systems, or Facebook, Tiktok, and Substack together decided on deplatforming alliances?
- zionic 5y agoOh just you wait, someone is gonna try it. “CommonBan” will try to aggregate bans across huge swaths of disparate entities one day.
- bitwize 5y agoThe head of Microsoft's Xbox division is urging Sony and Nintendo to ban players that Microsoft deems ban-worthy. I won't be surprised if entire industries have Shinigami Eyes style blacklists of people considered too toxic to be allowed any kind of business involving whatever that industry provides within a decade or so.
- ryandrake 5y agoIn the event that an airline-shared no-fly list takes hold: In a free market, anyone is free to start an alternative airline that ignores the shared no-fly list. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to think about how that airline's average passenger will behave. You could call it ParlerAir.
- cat_plus_plus 5y agoIf they use publicly owned airports, conditions under which passengers are denied boarding can be reasonably regulated to for example not be "wrote a negative Yelp review"
- bsder 5y agoOr why don't they just, you know, prosecute these people for what is a federal felony with laws that already exist. The problem, of course, is that these people are most likely to be the kind of entitled dipshits that will make negative press for you. Oh, and don't get me started about how airline flight attendants have to pay their own legal bills in a startling number of conditions.
- mrobins 5y agoI think part of the larger challenge here is that the laws put the responsibility for enforcement on airlines. Flight attendants didn’t sign up and aren’t trained to be law enforcement officers. More stringent, wider ranging consequences add teeth to FA authority and more importantly would prevent some people from challenging the rules in the first place.
- dkjaudyeqooe 5y agoThere's nothing stopping the relevant authorities setting the length of the ban based on severity and repeat offence.
- quantified 5y agoRight, that would not be the same no-fly list concept though.
- wljlkjljlwef 5y ago
- humanwhosits 5y agoI'd be ok with it if a federal judge ordered it on a particual person, but companies sharing lists feels open to abuse.
- bushbaba 5y agoReport a safety issue against airline a. Airline a then will add you to a cross airline no fly list. Yeah, let’s not go down this path.
- matthewmorgan 5y agoI too wish our corporate overlords had more privileged access to the police mechanisms of the state
- pigbearpig 5y agoIt's not really in the interest of the "corporate overlords" to ban all of their customers. If someone can't go 3 hours without getting intoxicated and berating or assaulting a flight attendant then maybe air travel isn't for them.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoUnless you demand you money back for a cancelled/ruined/delaid flight and they threaten to put you on that list as a form or retaliation so you back off.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y agoNo, but it is perfectly acceptable to said corporate overlords to crush a couple innocent customers under the wheels of a well-oiled machine that usually produces outcomes that are good for them. Which means that with such a list in place, it'll usually be great because you'll have fewer assholes next to you on the plane... until you get that one flight attendant who has a bad day and gets you blacklisted from air travel for some petty reason with zero recourse.
- picardythird 5y agoCan you explain a scenario where the innocent customers get crushed under the wheels of the well oiled machine? I just don't think it's that hard to get on a plane and be reasonable for the time you're on there.
- smnrchrds 5y ago> Can you explain a scenario where the innocent customers get crushed under the wheels of the well oiled machine? All the people who have their Google or Apple accounts closed or their Paypal or bank accounts frozen with no explanation and no recourse. All the news about newborns and toddlers being denied boarding planes (or facing extra scrutiny, which is easy to temporarily resolve at the gate when the kid is 3 but becomes harder and harder until impossible to resolve as they get older and reach adulthood) because their name is like someone on the list. The French woman whomwas mistakenly declared officially dead and has been fighting for years to be recognized as alive and be able to renew her driver's license/healthcare coverage/passports/etc. The world is full of these examples. We should avoid adding more to it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List_Kids https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Fly_List_Kids https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/12/french-woman-spends-three-years-trying-to-prove-she-is-not-dead https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/12/french-woman-s...
- chimeracoder 5y agoA cool thing about the US no-fly list is that - at least as of eight years ago[0] - there's no way to tell if you're on it (short of attempting to fly and being denied, and even then they generally won't tell you the real reason). There's also no real way to get off the no-fly list: IIRC, as of about eight years ago, only one person had actually managed to do so[0], and it involved a very protracted federal lawsuit that involved them having to first prove that they were even on the list in the first place in order to demonstrate standing. Furthermore, because of the geography of the US and the lack of alternate options, being put on the no-fly list can effectively leave you stranded in foreign countries (there aren't really passenger boats anymore, for the most part) or de facto stranded even within parts of the US if you're unable to drive for long distances (which many people can't do). [0] Ask me how I know
- hyperhopper 5y ago1. Were you on the no fly list and did you manage to get off? 2. Asking us to ask you is some clickbaity bullshit. You know you're leading the question, just put your thoughts down instead of practically asking us to ask you.
- DangitBobby 5y agoOr they can engage in whatever non-toxic way they desire.
- Scramblejams 5y agoOkay, I'll bite; how do you know?
- Rebelgecko 5y agoDHS has issued many thousands of traveller Redress Numbers. It's not that rare, Senator Ted Kennedy was probably the most famous person who had trouble with the nofly list.
- chimeracoder 5y ago> DHS has issued many thousands of traveller Redress Numbers. Officially, redress numbers are ostensibly used for disambiguating people with similar names, etc. That's not the same thing as getting off the list if you were the person placed on it in the first place. There is, as of very recently, an "official" process for getting off the no-fly list, but it's incredibly recent and still incredibly onerous, so very few people have actually completed it successfully. https://theintercept.com/2021/05/30/no-fly-list-terrorism-watchlist/ https://theintercept.com/2021/05/30/no-fly-list-terrorism-wa...
- legalcorrection 5y agoFlight attendants and gate agents well on their way to being the most powerful petty dictators in America. Put that seat back forward, turn your cellphone off, and don't you dare hit that service button. Don't use the bathroom during takeoff and landing, shit your seat instead. Stuff your suit into your carry-on, I don't care if it gets wrinkled and if you were going to hang it as soon as you get on the plane. Give me any lip service, and you'll never fly again. Who are they gonna believe? I'm a 20-year-tenure unionized flight attendant whose lobbyists get a red carpet at the FAA. You're a nobody with a coach class plane ticket.
- Rebelgecko 5y agoIf you ask nicely they usually have a closer where they'll hang your garment bag. But if you have the same kind of attitude as the woman who knocked out an FAs teeth because she was asked to wear a mask, they won't go out of their way to help you.
- legalcorrection 5y agoYes, once you get on the plane. But every so often, the gate agent says that the suit counts as a third carry-on and makes me stuff it into my roller bag instead, even if I'm flying first class and going to hang it as soon as I got onto the plane (and even if not, it fits on top of roller bags in the overhead compartments). Just pure malice on their part. Fwiw, I've almost always been allowed to hang it once I'm on the plane. And 90% of flight attendants are extremely pleasant. But there are also plenty of tyrannical ones who cherish every bit of authority they get. Between the unionization and lack of competition in the airline market, airlines feel it's worse for their bottom line to try to discipline bad flight attendants than to treat their customers well.
- lokar 5y agoThem being wrong and petty does not give you the right to throw a tantrum.
- 5y ago
- voidfunc 5y agoWasn't the No-Fly list originally just for terrorism? Once again... expanding scope.
- bmitc 5y agoDomestic terrorism is a thing.
- senectus1 5y ago
- chii 5y agoterrorists and misbehaving citizens are different - the citizen isn't doing it for a political purpose, while terrorists are. it's better to have a separate category for such citizens - nuisance passengers - and allow the airline to charge extra if you're on the list...or pay to get off it.
- heavyset_go 5y ago> terrorists and misbehaving citizens are different - the citizen isn't doing it for a political purpose, while terrorists are. There are plenty of US citizens that are motivated by politics to be violent on planes and either not care about hurting others, or deliberately hurt others.
- senectus1 5y agodefinitely agreed. in the US in particular
- voidfunc 5y agoThat's not the point. We gave the government power for a very specific reason, and now that power is being overextended for a use it was never intended.
- 5y ago
- mlindner 5y agoHell no. If they're violent then get them arrested and prosecuted. Banning them from flying forever is a complete government overreach. If they're just complaining loudly and being unruly without being violent (shouting/refusing to do things) then remove them from the flight and ban them from your airline as is your right, but none of that is against the law.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ramesh31 5y agoThere needs to be an appeals process. You cannot strip someone of their fundamental right to movement for the rest of their life with no recourse because they had a bad day one time.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoOr maybe they didn't, what are reprecussions to the company for lying? 'Oops, was a mistake'.
- Rebelgecko 5y agoI think it's more or less established that flying on a plane isn't a right in the US. That's part of why the 4th amendment challenges to the TSA haven't been effective.
- hindsightbias 5y agoPilots have recourses, passengers as cargo do not.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- salawat 5y agoSee, I'm surprised that readings of the 10th Amendment aren't the end all be all answer to that statement. >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
- notriddle 5y agoIn what way does airline travel not count as interstate commerce?
- kube-system 5y agoOnly if you’re Southwest Airlines and the year is before 1979 ;)
- cat_plus_plus 5y agoIf someone commits a crime, they can be banned from flying until and unless they can prove sufficient rehabilitation. However, they are first entitled to a fair trial and most restrictions are not imposed for the lifetime. If anything, publicly owned airports can require airlines to provide better evidence than "donna wanna" for denying boarding to passengers.
- brandonmenc 5y agoHey, the right to fly is not in The Constitution! /s
- wljlkjljlwef 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mlazos 5y agodo you know what /s means?
- programmarchy 5y agoPoe’s law strikes again, the bewildering effects of illocutionary force revealed.
- programmarchy 5y agoIf you don’t like it, there’s nothing stopping you from starting your own airline. It’s called the free market, pal.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- 4oh9do 5y agoWhat about putting unruly airport staff on a similar list? I trust everyone remembers a few years ago, when David Dao was dragged off a United flight for refusing to vacate a seat he had paid for [1]. > Dao, a pulmonologist and folk musician, refused to surrender his seat when requested because he needed to see patients the following day. Chicago Department of Aviation Security officers (ASO) were called to remove him from the plane; in the process, they struck Dao's face against an armrest, then pulled him, apparently unconscious, by his arms along the aircraft aisle past rows of onlooking passengers. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_inc...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoIf they ask you to get off then you get off. This isn't hard.
- tartoran 5y agoNot that simple. Why inconvenience someone who paid for their ticket and not have the staff come on the next plane? There’s an easier solution, find someone to volunteer giving up their seat for a voucher or some attractive offer. People’d volunteer to give up their seat
- 908B64B197 5y ago
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 5y agoWhen is fighting with security the answer?
- niij 5y agoIt got him a multi million dollar payout and actually cost united much more money than that. They got bad press from it and surely a decent number of people who will boycott/avoid them from now on. Simply complying would have kept the status quo.
- jds375 5y agoWhat is with some of the responses in this thread! I understand some cases are not so clear, but if you do something as blatant as punch a flight attendant in the face I think that’s grounds to be put on such a list. There should be a policy so that after a period (or going through some program) you could then be removed from the list though.. It actually blew my mind when I heard that you could assault someone on a plane and not be instantly banned
- ipaddr 5y agoThe no fly list was setup for a reason and using it to exclude others reduces the seriousness of the original list to the point where the public will demand it's removal.
- pooper 5y ago> The no fly list was setup for a reason and using it to exclude others reduces the seriousness of the original list to the point where the public will demand it's removal. I hope so but I wouldn't hold my breath. I remember initially the "enhanced" security pat down was "random" which meant they'd pull aside only brown people. Guess what if it is truly random then grandma on a wheel chair should also be subject to the same "enhanced" pat down. Then they did "enhanced" security pat down on grandmas on wheel chairs but I don't see the public demanding (at least not successfully) the removal.
- henriquez 5y agoWhat was so serious about the original no-fly list?
- rdtsc 5y ago> Delta previously called on other airlines to share their unruly passenger “no fly” list to ensure individuals "who have endangered the safety and security of our people do not go on to do so on another carrier," Bastian wrote. With companies competing, things could get heated with rival company pilots, flight attendants and executive teams being “accidentally” inserted in the no-fly list. Algorithm error strikes again, how unfortunate (shrug).
- wljlkjljlwef 5y ago
- Fede_V 5y agoI'm a bit torn: I see the potential for civil liberties abuse, but, one of the things I loathe the most about American culture is how entitled 'consumers' feel towards treating workers that are serving them. I feel that the mistreatment of airport staff is that kind of behaviour taken to extremes- and it's something I'd like to see utterly crushed.
- 4oh9do 5y agoI think one of the sore points is that airport workers routinely mistreat customers. True, usually not to the point of physical violence, but plenty of mistreatment regardless. A trite example I just experienced last week: my flight was cancelled, so I stood in a line along with everyone to get rebooked. By the time I got to the counter at the gate, the agent said I had to go to the main ticketing desk in departures to rebook. I asked why the dozens of people in front of me got to rebook right here at the counter. The agent then just acted like I was not there and turned around and started casually chatting to the other staff there. That kind of rudeness happens all the time, and it is precisely what leads to escalations. The point is that treating staff with disrespect is certainly not justified, but neither is it out of the blue, more often than not it is reciprocal behavior. Flyers are treated like rubbish by airline staff.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 5y agoI think it’s true that there is some amount of dehumanization on both ends as a coping mechanism. But we cannot equivocate some casual dehumanization on the part of staff with actual physical abuse or endangering the lives of hundreds of people - those are two entirely different things and shouldn’t even be discussed in the same context as one justifying the other.
- 4oh9do 5y agoI didn't mean to equate the two (violence and rudeness), I was just making the connection that the one leads to escalation of the other. I suspect it's not as if a passenger just runs up to an airline staff member and punches them, a propos of nothing, out of thin air. What I can see as a much more likely scenario is that the staffer acts in a manner the customer doesn't like, the customer curses at them for it, the staffer yells at them, etc. And this can be minimized by offering way more customer service training than it seems like most airlines have. I fly very frequently, weekly usually. And I see and experience absurdly unnecessary rudeness all the time. Another, relatively minor, example from a few weeks ago: when a plane landed, a woman stood up while the seatbelt light was still on. The male flight attendant snarled at her "SIT BACK DOWN, RIGHT DAMN NOW!". Screaming and cursing at customers is not acceptable, and again it doesn't justify escalation, but it certainly creates the breeding ground for it.
- TedShiller 5y agoPutting offenders on the no-fly list doesn't make sense, because it violates people's right to move freely. However, severe penalties make complete sense. I mean like a $50,000 civil fine plus cost of fuel plus cost of hotels for all passengers for a flight that has to make a diversion. Plus criminal penalties if injuries or assault are involved.
- code-e 5y agoSounds like the same thing to me, unless you're wealthy. The no-fly list seems a little less discriminatory in that regard.
- kelseyfrog 5y agoAnd if people wanted to, they could simply charter their own planes if they are put on a national no-fly list.
- otterley 5y agoThere’s no right to move about the country freely by airplane.
- TedShiller 5y agoYou might feel different if you happen to be on the no fly list
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- elihu 5y agoI think this is probably a good idea, but not as an extension of the current no-fly list, which is opaque and lacking accountability. The "disruptive passenger" no-fly list should have clear criteria for why people are put on it and for how long, and a clear process for challenging being incorrectly placed on the list. Ideally this would be a bit better than having airlines collaborate amongst themselves to create their own no-fly list which can't be legally challenged because they're private organizations that can mostly do what they want. On the other hand, being blacklisted by private companies would in some ways be less creepy/authoritarian than the no-fly lists as they exist now.
- bobthepanda 5y agoWell, the article specifically says people convicted of assaulting or other disruption should be placed on the no-fly list. Which is a fairly high bar, we don't really hand out unfounded criminal convictions for assault.
- emn13 5y agoWhile I agree that a conviction is much better than nothing, I don't share your faith in the accuracy of our criminal justice system, especially if a plea bargain (aka blackmail) was involved at any stage of the process, whether for the convicted, or for any of the witnesses. Additionally, prosecutorial discretion is a pox on the fairness of justice - but we have so many laws on the books that removing prosecutorial discretion is entirely unreasonable. And then there's the questionable quality of judges exacerbated by the fact that many are explicitly elected (i.e. picked for politics not competence), or political appointees without an appointment process that itself has any reasonable checks, and finally that they are large unaccountable; judicial misconduct appears to be worryingly common, whistleblowers are often at the mercy of judges or their pals, and the process to evaluate claims of misconduct is much too cosy and insufficiently guards against influence by the perpetrator and their friends, and punishments are laughable lax compared to the consequences such misconduct might have for victims thereof. Of course, at least judges are human and many will therefore be honest and try to do their best despite the system they work in, but it's still a pretty flimsy basis for trust.
- hammock 5y agoIs this a bit like creating a "social credit score"? Is it criminal to be "unruly"? (Yes I know these are private companies, etc) In the case of actual convicted criminals, our existing justice system can already limit flying as a condition of probation or parole. Why is this needed?
- kelseyfrog 5y agoThat's the beauty of private enterprise. They can do the same things as an authoritarian government without any of the anti-authoritarians being able to make their claims. The end result is the same and it's even harder to stop. Any claims that airlines will compete on not having a private no-fly list are baseless. It simply won't be a point of product differentiation.
- systemvoltage 5y agoYeah, the counter argument to this never made any sense to me "It is a private company, they can do whatever they want". Yes, within reason. When private enterprises collectively act as a proxy of authoritarian powers, something is deeply wrong.
- Taniwha 5y agoIt's much more like the public sex offender lists maintained by some states - the key word in the article was "convicted"
- annoyingnoob 5y agoSounds ripe for abuse. One airline employee doesn't like you for some reason and bam you are on the no fly list.
- stjohnswarts 5y agoThis would be a boon. Clearly they can't be trusted on jet powered tubes in the sky. They could potentially kill someone who is on the edge with a heart attack or stroke. There be a limit to it, say 5 years? I don't think it should be a forever thing.
- engineer_22 5y agoWhy stop there? How about a social credit rating - we can use the digital vaccine passports as baseline existing infrastructure and build on top of that. Then we can really punish the ones who refuse to comply. /s
- Taniwha 5y agoBut this isn't a social credit rating, they're asking that people criminally convicted through due process be put on this list, much like the lsts states maintain for people convicted of sex offences, I assume that airlines will be able to decide whether or not to sell tickets to these people much as people can choose whether or not they want to move in next door to a sex offender
- engineer_22 5y agoSex offenders and obstinate passengers are a curious comparison.
- Taniwha 5y agoIt's the lists that I'm comparing not the passengers themselves - the point is that putting someone, after conviction, on an appropriate public list that 3rd parties can use to decide whether or not to buy a house next door to a person or to sell a plane ticket to someone - is a way to apply public policy. It's a mechanism that has already been tried elsewhere, it's not a new idea
- salawat 5y agoYet inevitably, everyone unpopular will get bundled with the terrorists/pedophiles/non-humans according to the relevant in-group. It always fascinates me how people don't draw pause from how eagerly people seem to be to shluff people into the "non-person" bin in ideological discussion.
- JohnTHaller 5y agoFirst Paragraph: "Delta Air Lines (DAL.N) wants the U.S. government to place passengers convicted of on-board disruptions on a national "no-fly" list that would bar them from future travel on any commercial airline, according to a letter seen by Reuters." Note the key word "convicted" in there. Yes, this about people convicted of things like assaulting crew on an airplane.
- kerneloftruth 5y agoThey're also including non-violence such as refusal to wear a mask. This quickly becomes "didn't follow an instruction".
- JohnTHaller 5y agoRefusal to wear a mask followed by refusal to leave the plane, which is criminal trespass. Plus you're required by law to follow the instructions of the cabin crew when on an aircraft.
- moistrobot 5y agoNow i'm just imagining flight crew yeeting unmasked people off of planes in mid-air
- xiphias2 5y ago,, allows the U.S. government to prohibit persons considered a threat to civil aviation from traveling on airlines.'' I would put Boing CEO as the first person on this list.
- imgabe 5y agoGreat idea. Anyone who does anything wrong should be banned from the place where they did something wrong forever with no recourse or mechanism for lifting the ban. Act unruly in a grocery store? You're banned from grocery stores for the rest of your life. Act unruly at work? You're banned from having a job for the rest of your life. Act unruly in a restaurant? No more restaurants for you, ever again. What will happen to all these people who have been cast out of the public sphere and shunned by society? Who cares! They acted unruly once, there can be no forgiveness, no amends, no possibility for growth and change. I'm sure they'll all just quietly slump off to the shadows and die without a fuss so we won't ever have to think about them again. Meanwhile, the rest of us good, law-abiding citizens who have never done a single thing wrong or ever been rude to anyone in our entire lives can live in peace. Finally!
- unnouinceput 5y agoIt's sarcasm, yes? Tell me this is sarcasm.
- imgabe 5y agoYeah, I thought I had laid it on pretty thick… Poe’s law strikes again
- ransom1538 5y agoYes. I have tried super sarcastic comments before - what I realized is some cultures do not have sarcasm - which makes it more funny - but they downvote super confused.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- charlieyu1 5y agoAny no-fly lists should be illegal. You can’t get a license to fly while not being able to deliver service in reliable ways.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- joebob42 5y agoThey need to figure out their shit with regards to randomly cancelling every other flight and refusing to compensate me first.
- WesolyKubeczek 5y ago
- dathinab 5y agoBetter title: Delta CEO wants to treat unruly passengers like potential terrorists... Isn't it enough to just ban then from Delta airlines? There are just that many airlines so it's not that people could just switch airlines for the rest of their live.
- incompatible 5y agoDid they ever fix that hilarious problem, where they'd put say "John Smith" on the list, and then everybody with that name would be banned?
- RedXIII 5y agoLooks like the war on terror finally came home to roost.
- bmitc 5y agoJesus, what is going on with people? This virus has just turned people insane or emboldened them to release their insanity. (I'm referring to the increased number of unruly incidents from passengers.)
- _8j50 5y agoThe no fly list shouldn't be a thing. Even for suspected terrorists. If you are guilty, you get arrested. If you are suspicious, you get extra scrutiny at security. Travel is as fundamental a right as speech and propery ownership. You don't put convicted road ragers and drunk drivers on a no-drive list. Either a person has liberty and the presumption of innocence or they don't. Eithet they are punished once and for good by the law or they are not. This tongue-in-cheek betrayal of every fundamental binding principle of a democratic society has gone out of hand. No double jeopardy, no unequal treatment before the law, no presumption of guilt, no extrajudicial punishment. Or let's just get rid of the facade and let the oligarchs appoint a dictator to do their bidding.
- thethimble 5y agoDrunk drivers can lose their license?
- beerandt 5y agoThey can still ride, just not operate, which is what requires the license. No license is required to be a passenger in a car or on an airplane.
- _8j50 5y agoYet, on planes your travel even as a passenger can be restricted with no due process, judicial oversight and sometimes as a double punishment. I mean, if DHS or other TLAs flag a person as a threat, they should be able to do something about it... just not "you are on a list now because we say so" and no oversight or appeals process. This is not liberty or a free society. In a free society you don't have "national emergency" that spans multiple generations (20+yrs now) that allows overriding peoples rights and liberties. The airlines should be allowed to refuse service so long as they are not coordinating a ban list, and even then.
- _8j50 5y agoBetter analogy would be for public transport passengers.
- MisterMower 5y agoWell Delta, if you don’t want passengers acting like animals, stop treating them like animals.
- bryanrasmussen 5y agoIt would be nice to know exactly what constitutes unruly, one example was given of violence but is violence a necessary component of unruliness for the airlines? This definition https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unruly https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/unruly Unruly people are difficult to control and often do not obey rules: an unruly class of adolescents Unruly hair is difficult to keep tidy, often sticking up or out: an unruly mop of black hair does not inspire great confidence, I've had one incident where I got accused of being drunk because I was doing stretches waiting for the flight and they almost didn't let me on the plane. I guess if my respectable looking colleague hadn't explained to them I wasn't drunk and didn't drink I might have ended up categorized as unruly.
- Simon_O_Rourke 5y agoDefinitely, if it's some fixed term ban, a few years rather than indefinitely. And a longer ban for subsequent incidents. And I'm not just talking about loud antivax people, but folks who are just too dumb, too drunk or generally too much of a doofus to be let on a flight. Of course allowances would have to be made for Tourettes sufferers and the like, and that's where a blanket ban becomes difficult. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/panic-ryanair-flight-passenger-threatening-25585017 https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/panic-ryanair-fligh...
- betwixthewires 5y agoYeah lets just add people that flick their boogars to that list too. And people that don't like it and say so, let's add them as well. While we are doing this, let's go full Facebook/google play/opioid prescription and not have a way to call and figure out what happened. Just you find yourself on the list and that's that! Sounds wonderful.
- zenmaster10665 5y agoWhat I learned here is that there are a lot of people in HN that think the airlines have some sort of ultimate rights. That isn't true, and they are ignorant of the facts... Who knew HN was full of airline shills! https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer-protection/bumping-oversales https://www.transportation.gov/individuals/aviation-consumer...
- manigandham 5y agoThese rules were changed after this incident: > "On January 13, 2021, the United States Department of Transportation amended its rules, forbidding involuntarily bumping from an overbooked flight after boarding starting on April 21."
- XorNot 5y agoYour link is literally a very large list which argues against you entirely: > The business practice of bumping is not illegal. Airlines oversell their scheduled flights to a certain extent in order to compensate for “no-shows.” Most of the time, airlines correctly predict the “no shows” and everything goes smoothly. But sometimes, passengers are bumped as a result of oversales practices. ... > it is legal for airlines to involuntarily bump passengers from an oversold flight when there are not enough volunteers > If there are not enough passengers who are willing to give up their seats voluntarily, an airline may deny you a seat on an aircraft based on criteria that it establishes Not to mention: > Other Reasons You May Be Removed From a Flight ... * Attempting to interfere with the duties of a flight crew member. * Disrupting flight operations or engaging in unruly behavior. As well as: FAA regulations state that “no person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being operated.”
- zenmaster10665 5y agoHe didn't interfere or disrupt the flight operations through unruly behaviour. He didn't assault, threaten, intimidate or interfere with anyone. This was all on video...United were in the wrong. That is why they settled the suit - and why the rules were changed! It amazes me that people think this is ok - and that David Dao was somehow in the wrong here.
- agilob 5y agoPut also unruly tax evading people and companies on no-foreign-accounts list
- hkt 5y agoI'm just about old enough to remember when the no fly list was for (suspected) terrorists. Does it have a life prior to the 00s or is this a measure for containing terrorism an example of something introduced and then generalised?
- redleader55 5y agoThat sounds a lot like social credit score from China.
- say_it_as_it_is 5y agoGiving attendants the power to put a passenger on a no-fly list is a big mistake. Attendants are difficult to deal with, disgruntled, and very capable of punishing passengers who legitimately disagree with them.
- anovikov 5y agoIt all goes from tickets becoming too cheap and thus service level too low. It encourages people to behave like rednecks, and also enables actual rednecks to fly. I see best fix in government-mandated minimum quality level (in terms of seat size, catering, boarding time, etc), which will force price increases due to increase of costs, and also make people less nervous as conditions both on the ground and on the plane will be less crowded. Make something like "euro business" the minimum service level possible.
- BeFlatXIII 5y agoI wonder how many socioeconomic problems have been caused by the middle class learning to economize and inadvertently destroying the market for mid-tier goods & service levels as a result.
- anovikov 5y agoDon't blame the people... This was an obvious consequence of deregulation (that let airlines reduce quality and prices at will) on one hand, and emergence of the Internet where search engines let people pick by the lowest price. It's not surprising at all people started doing just that once they could. Government should simply mandate minimum quality and as a consequence, effectively, minimum price. Nothing will happen if ticket prices will double - they are so cheap today.
- topspin 5y agoMore government lists.
- eternauta3k 5y agoPlease use the normal justice system with its existing checks and balances, thank you.
- mberning 5y agoWhy do they need the government to do this? Just ban them from your particular business and move on. It’s their right as a business to deny service. Every day we are inching closer to a Chinese style centrally managed social credit system. Often at the behest of big business. Hmmmmm.
- wilde 5y agoCan’t Delta just keep its own no-fly list? They’re a private company. They have the right to refuse service, no?
- lkxijlewlf 5y agoThey should be able to, yes.
- csee 5y agoAlso, can't Delta work with other airlines on maintaining a joint list? Why does this need government intervention? It should be easy to set it up among themselves.
- hogrider 5y agoIt's a huce liability even if on paper they can just refuse service.
- tinus_hn 5y agoIt’s just another instance of cancel culture leaking into the real world. We have learned nothing from the ‘turrist no fly list’ fiasco.
- lkxijlewlf 5y agoI agree, but not necessarily in the permanent no-fly list (unless their behavior warrants it). There should be a process to get off of the list after a period of time.
- crisdux 5y agoHow bout airlines and government stop making everything about the flying experience worse and worse every year. It doesn't need to be like this. And in other countries it's not. We are making this a stressful experience.
- greenbcj 5y agoThe airlines need to figure this out on their own. Commuter rail lines deal with much worse, and somehow don’t need a special list; instead, relying on the same criminal trespass laws the rest of us use. And… to be fair, far more railroad conductors have been hurt or killed by passengers than airline employees. Railroads solved this problem a number of ways, but one way was having their own law enforcement agencies. The airlines, which are far more profitable, instead get this service mostly subsidized by taxpayers, through local police almost always stationed at airports, air marshals provided by the FAA, and passenger screening by TSA.
- sokoloff 5y agoAir Marshals also work for the TSA, not the FAA. Much of the funding for this security is paid by direct taxes on tickets.
- trentnix 5y agoSeems pretty awful to suggest that the government-managed 'no-fly' list should be used for anything after watching how poorly it was used and abused as a security measure. But considering the airlines look to the government to solve their financial problems, it's no surprise they would look to the government to solve their passenger problems as well. I assume begging for government intervention has become an airline CEO reflex, at this point. Bureaucracy, security theater, and airline/airport ineptitude has turned flying into a painful, regrettable process. Add shrinking seat space and airport and airplane booze to the mix and you've got a recipe for stress, discomfort, and short tempers. I suspect booze is actually the primary culprit. I've flown a few hundred flights in my time and only witnessed two, rather tame, incidents that caused people to be kicked off flights or caused in-air arguments. In one case the culprit was very drunk. The other case the culprit was very hung over.
- dijonman2 5y agoCocktails is one of the few things that make long flights bearable. Please, allow me that one comfort in an otherwise horrible and miserable process.
- bsagdiyev 5y agoAgreed, I have a pretty horrible panic attack that starts with the takeoff roll, eases a bit when we're in the air and will return with any turbulence. Alcohol helps this significantly.
- 300bps 5y agoI’m glad that helps but just wanted to point out that there are ways of dealing with anxiety and panic attacks that don’t involve self-medicating. Someone on HN many years ago recommended the book Learned Optimism saying that it changed their life. It did the same for me.
- bsagdiyev 5y agoI have a therapist and currently am medicated through a psychiatrist, she recommended breathing but also said if having a beer or two helps that she's not going to tell me not to do it. I can take a look and give that a read though.
- hogrider 5y agoGood. What is wrong with these people anyway? It seems to me we just accept karen behavior when they should be commited to a mental institution they are clearly not functioning.
- dijonman2 5y agoThis is all about masking, nothing else. Truly sad.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jwsteigerwalt 5y agoThe article mixes three different concepts that should make all readers pause: “convicted”, “zero tolerance” and sharing lists the airlines already keep. It needs to be more clear what’s being proposed. Barring passengers previously convicted of felony assault on an airplane is very different then appearing on a list maintained by a private company about high maintenance customers…
- supportlocal4h 5y agoWhy can't Delta just maintain their own list? Why does the government have to do everything?
- FabHK 5y agoIf sharing among airlines is involved, one might want to upgrade it from self-regulation to gov't supervised.
- kwhitefoot 5y agoWhy isn't it enough to share such lists with the other airlines? Why should the government get involved?
- snowwrestler 5y agoWhen I worked retail we had pictures up in the break room of known local shoplifters and folks who tried to pass bad checks. We would recognize them when they came in, and tell them they had to leave or we would call the police. But: we did not ask the police to maintain this list for us.
- giarc 5y agoMake it like insurance, "you've shown to cause issue in the past, your flight will now cost 8x what everyone else is paying". You can continue to fly, but it's going to cost you an arm and a leg.
- peter303 5y agoIf "conviction" is a standard, then 95% of the culprits dont need to worry. Less than 5% of disturbers are fined according FAA news releases. Much fewer are criminally convicted. (FAA cant do criminal convictions because it has to refer such people to prosecutors.) when did you read of of one of the 6,000 2021 disturbers receive jail time? I get my numbers from the FAA news releases. Every few months they report fines of unruly passengers. But they report only a handful cases compared to the 500 or so monthly incidents in 2021. Here is the most recent press release: 8 fines of 300 cases, or less than 3%. https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-levies-161823-against-eight-passengers-alleged-alcohol-related-unruly-behavior https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-levies-161823-against-eight... There are several such releases in the list with equally dismal numbers.
- ineedasername 5y agoHaving the government decide or manage penalties for non-crimes, or that don't have "no-fly" as a statutory penalty, seems like an incredible abuse of due process. Penalties without even a trial. Penalties that can impact economic opportunities and family cohesion. There's no reason that airlines couldn't do this themselves, and if they really think it can't be done as private businesses and want the government to get involved then it should be on the books as a criminal penalty with all the constitutional rights that go along with trials, appeals, constitutional rulings on the law itself, etc.
- ratboy666 5y agoIt is interesting that Delta should want this. I want to be put on the 'no-fly' list. Delta should create a portal for this. I want on, and I can nominate many others. Indeed, I think that Delta's business should be tanked. Of course, I attempted to get added to the no-fly list, as it seems quite special. Unfortunately, it appears that this is not possible (I may try phoning it in later). https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/system-unavailable1.html https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/system-unavailable1.... It would be sad if this is restricted to unruly passengers only.