4 ms·

I 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

by elihu 5y ago

I 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 ago
Well, 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 ago
  While 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.
Larrikin 5y ago
I'd much prefer these passengers be put on the official no fly list, if only to force the law suit that will eventually give EVERYONE on the list information on why they are on it, for how long, and a clear process for challenging being incorrectly placed on the list. Right now if the government thinks you might have maybe been associated with any definition of terrorism you're banned from flying with basically no recourse. The assholes punching people and grabbing butts atleast have clearly committed crimes and shown themselves to be a danger to others in the sky.
- kelnos 5y ago
  Why do you think this would force that lawsuit that would make things more transparent? There are already thousands of people on the no-fly list. I don't think the unruly passengers are in any way special such that they'd have more success challenging this sort of thing.
  - Larrikin 5y ago
    The general American public is sadly more willing to hear the plights of people when they aren't brown, foreigners, or Muslim. The No Fly list is very opaque but the author's of articles I've read where it wasn't a mistaken identity, but for a bull shit reason all tend to be at least one of those three.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  >information on why they are on it, for how long, and a clear process for challenging being incorrectly placed on the list. If the answers are anything other than "they were convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers," "for as long as the judge sentenced them to," and "by appealing to a higher court," then the only thing transparent about the list would be its transparent illegitimacy. In fact, if people could see the reason they were on it, it would seem less legitimate, because "agent #78 thought you belonged on it and his boss signed off," would serve only to highlight what the justice system abdicated when it allowed it to be set up.
- javajosh 5y ago
  >I'd much prefer these passengers be put on the official no fly list, if only to force the law suit that will eventually give EVERYONE on the list information... While I appreciate the thinking (sometimes falsely attributed to Lincoln: "The best way to fix a bad law is to enforce it perfectly"), it's a bad idea to make it easier to add people to the current no-fly list in the hopes that this will "poison the well" so-to-speak. If your idea were tried, it would result in a measurably worse world for a generation, perhaps indefinitely. The no-fly list is a great example of a "boring tyranny", a type of tyranny that politicians don't credit for confronting, and so don't even get talked about. So you'll make this change, and then for 20 or 30 years you'll hear the same exact debates about abortion and gun rights, and the worse world you made will continue in the shadows. So, no, please do not do this.
0xy 5y ago
For how long should society punish mental illness? Because this proposal is essentially punishment for mental issues. Not the first time airlines have attacked the mentally ill, they especially like to target children. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2019/08/22/flight-crew-grounded-airline-apologizes-after-family-passenger-with-autism-complains-about-treatment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2019/08/22/flight-crew... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56428231 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56428231 [3] https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2021/05/04/family-barred-from-flight-after-florida-vacation-because-boy-with-autism-wouldnt-wear-mask/ https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2021/05/04/family-barred-f... [4] https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/air-new-zealand-rejects-passenger-with-tourettes-from-flight/news-story/351584d29f9fe48a0b22039d3368b3b2 https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/air-... [5] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10168687/Man-cerebral-palsy-kicked-Ryanair-flight-270kg-wheelchair-deemed-heavy-hold.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10168687/Man-cerebr... [6] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10037077/Quadriplegic-man-bedbound-19-hours-American-Airlines-refused-load-chair.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10037077/Quadripleg... [7] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-airlines-responds-to-viral-video-appearing-to-show-a-toddler-kicked-off-a-flight-for-not-wearing-a-mask-11631808473 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-airlines-responds...
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Is it punishment, or reduction of harm? The vast majority of the traveling public would never even think about assaulting a flight attendant. Presumably most flight attendants would not like to fly with someone who has assaulted a flight attendant.
- markdown 5y ago
  It's not so much about punishment as it is about keeping people safe. If you can't behave in a safe manner in the air, you shouldn't be there regardless of your mental health.
  - ratboy666 5y ago
    You want to predict my future behaviour? In other words, read my mind? So, I cannot fly because you, without any other knowledge, are afraid of me. That is why I requested being put on the list. I encourage others to do the same. Let Delta stew in it.
conductr 5y ago
Sounds like a great equifax product
ls15 5y ago
> 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. Complaining about terrible service is certainly not a good reason to be put on the list.
ineedasername 5y ago
I disagree. No matter the circumstances, the government should not be levelling penalties against a person unless that person has 1) committed a crime and 2) the no-fly penalty is defined by legal statute and sentenced by a judge with all the constitutional protections that entails. Not by a private corporation and its employees. In this case, it seems like only #1 is fulfilled, or at least I'm not aware of any law that has no-fly as a penalty. I know, there's the normal no-fly list but I already don't understand how that passes constitutional muster as a penalty via administrative rather than criminal/legal processes.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > No matter the circumstances, the government should not be levelling penalties against a person unless that person has 1) committed a crime That is, even without further conditions, a fairly extreme position (“public civil penalties should not exist”.)
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Public civil penalties are subject to constitutional rights in the legal system and due process, and are also determined by legal statute. I don't have a problem with that. Perhaps I should have said "1) broken the law", as there are criminal laws & penalties along with civil ones. Whatever the penalty levelled against someone by the government it should stem from legal statute and constitutional due process. If I can go to court and state my case before a judge regarding a speeding ticket and minor fine, I should certainly be afforded that opportunity before I am banned from a major form of transportation all together.

by elihu 5y ago

bobthepanda 5y ago

Well, 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 ago
While 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.

Larrikin 5y ago

I'd much prefer these passengers be put on the official no fly list, if only to force the law suit that will eventually give EVERYONE on the list information on why they are on it, for how long, and a clear process for challenging being incorrectly placed on the list. Right now if the government thinks you might have maybe been associated with any definition of terrorism you're banned from flying with basically no recourse. The assholes punching people and grabbing butts atleast have clearly committed crimes and shown themselves to be a danger to others in the sky.

kelnos 5y ago
Why do you think this would force that lawsuit that would make things more transparent? There are already thousands of people on the no-fly list. I don't think the unruly passengers are in any way special such that they'd have more success challenging this sort of thing.
- Larrikin 5y ago
  The general American public is sadly more willing to hear the plights of people when they aren't brown, foreigners, or Muslim. The No Fly list is very opaque but the author's of articles I've read where it wasn't a mistaken identity, but for a bull shit reason all tend to be at least one of those three.
whatshisface 5y ago
>information on why they are on it, for how long, and a clear process for challenging being incorrectly placed on the list. If the answers are anything other than "they were convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers," "for as long as the judge sentenced them to," and "by appealing to a higher court," then the only thing transparent about the list would be its transparent illegitimacy. In fact, if people could see the reason they were on it, it would seem less legitimate, because "agent #78 thought you belonged on it and his boss signed off," would serve only to highlight what the justice system abdicated when it allowed it to be set up.
javajosh 5y ago
>I'd much prefer these passengers be put on the official no fly list, if only to force the law suit that will eventually give EVERYONE on the list information... While I appreciate the thinking (sometimes falsely attributed to Lincoln: "The best way to fix a bad law is to enforce it perfectly"), it's a bad idea to make it easier to add people to the current no-fly list in the hopes that this will "poison the well" so-to-speak. If your idea were tried, it would result in a measurably worse world for a generation, perhaps indefinitely. The no-fly list is a great example of a "boring tyranny", a type of tyranny that politicians don't credit for confronting, and so don't even get talked about. So you'll make this change, and then for 20 or 30 years you'll hear the same exact debates about abortion and gun rights, and the worse world you made will continue in the shadows. So, no, please do not do this.

0xy 5y ago

For how long should society punish mental illness? Because this proposal is essentially punishment for mental issues. Not the first time airlines have attacked the mentally ill, they especially like to target children. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2019/08/22/flight-crew-grounded-airline-apologizes-after-family-passenger-with-autism-complains-about-treatment/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2019/08/22/flight-crew... [2] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56428231 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56428231 [3] https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2021/05/04/family-barred-from-flight-after-florida-vacation-because-boy-with-autism-wouldnt-wear-mask/ https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2021/05/04/family-barred-f... [4] https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/air-new-zealand-rejects-passenger-with-tourettes-from-flight/news-story/351584d29f9fe48a0b22039d3368b3b2 https://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/incidents/air-... [5] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10168687/Man-cerebral-palsy-kicked-Ryanair-flight-270kg-wheelchair-deemed-heavy-hold.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10168687/Man-cerebr... [6] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10037077/Quadriplegic-man-bedbound-19-hours-American-Airlines-refused-load-chair.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10037077/Quadripleg... [7] https://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-airlines-responds-to-viral-video-appearing-to-show-a-toddler-kicked-off-a-flight-for-not-wearing-a-mask-11631808473 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-airlines-responds...

bobthepanda 5y ago
Is it punishment, or reduction of harm? The vast majority of the traveling public would never even think about assaulting a flight attendant. Presumably most flight attendants would not like to fly with someone who has assaulted a flight attendant.
markdown 5y ago
It's not so much about punishment as it is about keeping people safe. If you can't behave in a safe manner in the air, you shouldn't be there regardless of your mental health.
- ratboy666 5y ago
  You want to predict my future behaviour? In other words, read my mind? So, I cannot fly because you, without any other knowledge, are afraid of me. That is why I requested being put on the list. I encourage others to do the same. Let Delta stew in it.

conductr 5y ago

Sounds like a great equifax product

ls15 5y ago

> 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. Complaining about terrible service is certainly not a good reason to be put on the list.

ineedasername 5y ago

I disagree. No matter the circumstances, the government should not be levelling penalties against a person unless that person has 1) committed a crime and 2) the no-fly penalty is defined by legal statute and sentenced by a judge with all the constitutional protections that entails. Not by a private corporation and its employees. In this case, it seems like only #1 is fulfilled, or at least I'm not aware of any law that has no-fly as a penalty. I know, there's the normal no-fly list but I already don't understand how that passes constitutional muster as a penalty via administrative rather than criminal/legal processes.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> No matter the circumstances, the government should not be levelling penalties against a person unless that person has 1) committed a crime That is, even without further conditions, a fairly extreme position (“public civil penalties should not exist”.)
- ineedasername 5y ago
  Public civil penalties are subject to constitutional rights in the legal system and due process, and are also determined by legal statute. I don't have a problem with that. Perhaps I should have said "1) broken the law", as there are criminal laws & penalties along with civil ones. Whatever the penalty levelled against someone by the government it should stem from legal statute and constitutional due process. If I can go to court and state my case before a judge regarding a speeding ticket and minor fine, I should certainly be afforded that opportunity before I am banned from a major form of transportation all together.