Originally published at: Airlines not sharing lists of unruly passengers | Boing Boing
Originally published at: Airlines not sharing lists of unruly passengers | Boing Boing
That seems like a bad idea (the airlines NOT sharing this info, to be clear)… people who are making scenes like this are likely doing it for the clicks and noteriety (and to try and get everyone else to “rebel” with them, I guess), and they’ll just go do it on another airline.
Good on Delta for pushing for sharing information. These people are a danger to themselves and others.
Behaving like this on a plane – drunk or not, illegal or not – makes one an arsehole who does not deserve to fly with normal people. If they’re arsehole enough to do it on one airline’s flight, chances are high they’ll do it on another.
Airlines should share these lists, either directly amongst themselves or in a government escrow repository. And these arseholes should be put on notice that they’ll be on the financial hook to the airline and the flight’s passengers for every aspect of the delay and injury they cause.
This is the nut of the issue, not willingness on the part of (most of) the airlines from what I’ve read. The legal ramifications for both private enterprise and the Fed are pretty vast and unexplored. I agree that it needs to be implemented in some form, but that form is quite a sticky question.
If airlines do share their no fly lists, and I hope they do, I hope they allow the public to search for themselves. I’d hate to find out that I was mistakenly added to a no fly list by mistake, for example because I changed my seat on the plane with some malcontent.
Agreed. As long as it is just one company choosing not to do business with some individuals, there is effectively no accountability or oversight. Once people are placed on a private sector no-fly list there will be challenges and it won’t be pretty.
I don’t have much sympathy for the people throwing toddler tantrums on airplanes, but I also don’t have a lot of trust in the airlines here. Getting incorrectly banned* from one airline is one thing. Getting a lifetime ban on all air travel with no transparency, accountability, or right to appeal to a neutral party is something else entirely.
- It doesn’t take a lot of searching in the BB archives to find examples of flight attendants behaving just as badly as these anti-mask idiots.
My son’s a flight attendant. He has had to confront several belligerent anti-maskers, some of which were taken off planes before the flight; others met by airline officials after flights. No violence yet, though plenty of foul language. He says the worst flights he works are to Alaska, Vegas and Florida. And yes, alcohol is often part of the problem, especially the Vegas flights (both to and from).
I was hoping the other airlines would pick up Delta’s suggestion. Perhaps they will if this behavior escalates.
Yeah, there’s a point in what the airlines want to do, but at the same time, this is a combination of post-9/11 “concern” with the ever-present elitist image of air travel (as opposed to buses and other “lower class” forms of public transport) in an attempt to maintain flying as a relatively classy transportation mode. These people are terrible, but let’s not overlook what else is inherent in a no fly list that has no accountability in who it gets to exclude.
But at least on the upside these airlines can get those coveted Gorilla Tape sponsorships.
While it is in itself a good thing, I firmly believe the intention is a big, fat CYA and nothing more.
It’s funny how each source has its own magical thinking about why people misbehave on flights, as if we invented alcohol and started drinking last April
Sure, alcohol may not be the cause of the problem, but it’s a no-brainer that someone who boards the plane already hostile and belligerent will likely become more so if they’re drunk. An ounce of prevention doesn’t seem out of line.
Seen through a wider lens, this whole trend is insane. Supposed adults launching tantrums, even becoming violent, over mask wearing. Over a harmless procedure that could save their and others’ lives. All because they’ve been force fed a diet of utter bullshit by cynical bastards who couldn’t care less if anyone (other than themselves) dies.
Of course it’s a bad idea. Having airlines share lists of ‘banned passengers’ just creates an unaccountable no-fly list managed by corporate interests with no oversight or appeal. I’m not even all that keen about individual airlines being allowed to unilaterally ban people.
If the FAA wants to slap people with a temporary ban from air travel after they’re convicted of doing something disruptive and illegal enough that they had to land the plane and drag them off, that’s one thing.
An oligopoly cartel that happens to run a piece of infrastructure deciding to run its own ban-list is another. They’re subject to regulation. Not being able to do this is a regulation they should be subject to, and, as a socialist, I’ve never been all that keen on the appeal to “But isn’t the right of corporations to be free from oversight and criticism regarding what they do with their property important?” even if I don’t like the current targets.
QFT. Shaming doesn’t work for these people, maybe jail time or a substantial fine (none of this wrist-slap rubbish) will make them rethink their butthurtiness over having to comply with a safety directive.
I don’t have much sympathy for such folks, either, but draconian measures that lack due process need to be curtailed, not expanded in this society. We don’t need to treat them like sex offenders, who at least get out of jail (most of them).
Why let government have a monopoly on secretive no fly lists that only contain people who must deserve to be on them? No one has ever been put on such a list for bogus reasons. What could go wrong? /s
One mistake–or one racist or bigoted flight attendant having a bad day? Say hello to Greyhound.
Some reasonable, common standard with due process of review and a method for regaining the privilege of air travel would need to be implemented and adhered to for a shared blacklist to seem remotely just.
As you immediately referred to, though, there are currently dozens of unaccountable no-fly lists managed by corporate interests with no oversight or appeal. I don’t like lists, but I like your idea of the FAA nationalizing the list and adding due process to get off it if there must be one.
You will be able to appeal to Airline Court, consisting of one judge from each major airline. Or you redeem five million miles.
Interfering with a flight crew is a Federal Crime:
up to 20 years in the pokey and/or $35k fine.
In addition, the TSA requires wearing a face mask in airports and on the plane, subject to fines:
Various politicians have been photographed while not wearing masks. It would be amusing to see them being frog-marched off the plane…
If a passenger’s actions warranted an arrest, then they should expect to lose their flying privileges, and their name put on a dnf list. Same with anti-makers [especially if it is a politician].
How, exactly, would someone be ‘incorrectly banned’?
I’m pretty sure if someone is convicted of interfering with a flight, their banning is justified.
Pretty sure the TSA has had a no-fly list for about 20 years now, so that ship done sailed.
‘Both Sides’, eh?
Yep, & some of 'em are killing people over it.
Those Bastards need to be held accountable. Since people have died/been killed because of their bullshit, I don’t think being charged with multiple counts of manslaughter is out of line.
The TSA has had the same thing in place for about 20 years, so…
So, you are fine with passengers being unaccountable for their behaviour? If I owned a business, & a customer came in & acted like one of these assholes, they would be banned, & I would alert neighboring businesses, as well.
The best ounce of prevention might be on time departures and on time arrivals. If passengers aren’t kept waiting, they won’t spend time in bars getting drunk and frustrated.
If the definition of ‘accountable’ is ‘bad people have bad things happen to them’ then I don’t have much use for accountability.
If you mean that people who endanger others should be given an incentive not to, not be put in a position where they can continue to endanger others, and only be stigmatized for a limited time and then reintegrated as full members of society, then I’m in favor of that.
I’m also in favor of airlines being ‘accountable’ and having specific oversight and limitations on the degree to which they can deprive people of aspects of society that are considered to be normal facilities available to everyone.