4 ms·

We often talk about how we need an alternative recourse for customers banned by Google. Some kinds of companies should be more closely watched than others with

We often talk about how we need an alternative recourse for customers banned by Google. Some kinds of companies should be more closely watched than others with regards to new policy on consumer rights, and the more important the service the more we should apply elevated scrutiny to those companies. Air travel warrants higher scrutiny.

jmye 3y ago
I disagree. I think No Fly Lists absolutely need the highest scrutiny, but I don’t know that there’s a good argument for individual airlines to not be allowed to restrict who flies with them, especially given the last few years of nutcases fighting and opening emergency doors and whatever else. At least in Western countries, being barred from one carrier is largely irrelevant to one’s ability to travel, that it’s hard to see a good argument for not allowing it. Google, at least, is vastly more pervasive for most people.
- bradly 3y ago
  > I don’t know that there’s a good argument for individual airlines to not be allowed to restrict who flies with them If other airlines banned this flyer as well would that be a problem?
  - lxgr 3y ago
    If it happens systematically and in a way that effectively creates one big multilaterally maintained and honored private “no fly” list and a corresponding chilling effect? Absolutely. Otherwise, I’m afraid we’ll quickly have such a list for people exercising their legitimate EU flight compensation rights or anything else inconvenient for airlines. Airlines should on the other hand be free to set their own restrictions on filming in their planes and publishing that material – clearly communicated at the time of booking. I’ve been on a flight with a Youtube “personality” just looking for drama with the airline, and even as a bystander I found it obnoxious (and I didn’t want to end up in that video myself).
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    I think air travel is a privilege, not a right. If some idiot ends up blacklisted by enough airlines that air travel becomes impractical for them, tough shit. He can still travel by land or sea, and those methods of travel are also considered privileges. Noone is entitled to means of travel beyond their own two feet, or a practical equivalent for the handicapped, in spaces they have a right to access.
  - jmye 3y ago
    If they did it independently, no. I don’t think it’s a travesty if someone pushes everyone to refuse to do business with him. If the airlines passed names around, it’s effectively a worse NFL and, I think, should either be prohibited or run by a very transparent agency with clear challenge rules. No comment on how realistic the latter actually is.
- plagiarist 3y ago
  Fighting and attempting to open doors in air is No Fly List material. Give us something that warrants being barred from one airline but not from air travel.
  - jmye 3y ago
    I don’t really want to play rules lawyer. In general, if you refuse to comply with crew member instructions, per the contract of carriage (I’m probably getting that name wrong), the airline should be able to tell you they no longer want your business.
    - singleshot_ 3y ago
      That’s actually a federal regulation that requires passengers to follow all lighted signs, placards, and crew member instructions, not a TOS.
      - jmye 3y ago
        Ah, fair enough - I know it's also in the COC - Rule 21.H for United for instance (no idea on other US carriers or European carriers), though United's COC in general provides some better answers to the question. - https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html#rule-21 https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html#r...
        singleshot_ 3y ago
        Reading further, there are some Part 141 regs that address very narrow crew member instructions (e.g., don’t smoke) and a federal law that prohibited (broadly defined) interference with a flight crew.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  So business should never be able to restrict who uses them?
  - culebron21 3y ago
    In some countries, the law is that if you're working on a "public offer" deal (where you don't sign any contract), you can't restrict. Any restriction (like asking a disabled to get out of expensive cafe to not bother other people) can be punished. If you need to sign a contract with a representative, then yes, they can choose not to do it.
  - jmye 3y ago
    Sorry, did you misread my comment? I think they absolutely should be able to put restrictions on their customers, provided they’re not the “only game in town”.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    It’s so funny to me that when we are talking about network neutrality or Section 230, everyone comes out of the woodwork chanting “common carrier” but somehow when the term actually has some practical and relevant application, crickets.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

jmye 3y ago

I disagree. I think No Fly Lists absolutely need the highest scrutiny, but I don’t know that there’s a good argument for individual airlines to not be allowed to restrict who flies with them, especially given the last few years of nutcases fighting and opening emergency doors and whatever else. At least in Western countries, being barred from one carrier is largely irrelevant to one’s ability to travel, that it’s hard to see a good argument for not allowing it. Google, at least, is vastly more pervasive for most people.

bradly 3y ago
> I don’t know that there’s a good argument for individual airlines to not be allowed to restrict who flies with them If other airlines banned this flyer as well would that be a problem?
- lxgr 3y ago
  If it happens systematically and in a way that effectively creates one big multilaterally maintained and honored private “no fly” list and a corresponding chilling effect? Absolutely. Otherwise, I’m afraid we’ll quickly have such a list for people exercising their legitimate EU flight compensation rights or anything else inconvenient for airlines. Airlines should on the other hand be free to set their own restrictions on filming in their planes and publishing that material – clearly communicated at the time of booking. I’ve been on a flight with a Youtube “personality” just looking for drama with the airline, and even as a bystander I found it obnoxious (and I didn’t want to end up in that video myself).
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  I think air travel is a privilege, not a right. If some idiot ends up blacklisted by enough airlines that air travel becomes impractical for them, tough shit. He can still travel by land or sea, and those methods of travel are also considered privileges. Noone is entitled to means of travel beyond their own two feet, or a practical equivalent for the handicapped, in spaces they have a right to access.
- jmye 3y ago
  If they did it independently, no. I don’t think it’s a travesty if someone pushes everyone to refuse to do business with him. If the airlines passed names around, it’s effectively a worse NFL and, I think, should either be prohibited or run by a very transparent agency with clear challenge rules. No comment on how realistic the latter actually is.
plagiarist 3y ago
Fighting and attempting to open doors in air is No Fly List material. Give us something that warrants being barred from one airline but not from air travel.
- jmye 3y ago
  I don’t really want to play rules lawyer. In general, if you refuse to comply with crew member instructions, per the contract of carriage (I’m probably getting that name wrong), the airline should be able to tell you they no longer want your business.
  - singleshot_ 3y ago
    That’s actually a federal regulation that requires passengers to follow all lighted signs, placards, and crew member instructions, not a TOS.
    - jmye 3y ago
      Ah, fair enough - I know it's also in the COC - Rule 21.H for United for instance (no idea on other US carriers or European carriers), though United's COC in general provides some better answers to the question. - https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html#rule-21 https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/contract-of-carriage.html#r...
      - singleshot_ 3y ago
        Reading further, there are some Part 141 regs that address very narrow crew member instructions (e.g., don’t smoke) and a federal law that prohibited (broadly defined) interference with a flight crew.
Ekaros 3y ago
So business should never be able to restrict who uses them?
- culebron21 3y ago
  In some countries, the law is that if you're working on a "public offer" deal (where you don't sign any contract), you can't restrict. Any restriction (like asking a disabled to get out of expensive cafe to not bother other people) can be punished. If you need to sign a contract with a representative, then yes, they can choose not to do it.
- jmye 3y ago
  Sorry, did you misread my comment? I think they absolutely should be able to put restrictions on their customers, provided they’re not the “only game in town”.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  It’s so funny to me that when we are talking about network neutrality or Section 230, everyone comes out of the woodwork chanting “common carrier” but somehow when the term actually has some practical and relevant application, crickets.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]