Airlines not sharing lists of unruly passengers

[vernonbird]

@Azure

You seem to be acknowledging that the TSA no-fly list is not very good.

I never said it was very good.
I don’t think much of the Security Theater at airports, anyway.
Empty your pockets, go thru the scanner. Get your luggage x-rayed. Go past a bomb-sniffing dog.
Get on the plane. Leave.
Anyone raises hell on the flight, let the passengers take care of the issue.
No more removing your shoes, getting fondled, etc. Just like the Old Days, except for the dog…

@Azure

Then arguing for corporate no-fly lists that would be worse than the TSA no-fly lists in terms of:

• Having no clear process and criteria for what puts someone on the list or chance for people to defend themselves
• No definite process for correcting errors when someone is on the list who shouldn’t be
• No clear limitation on how long someone who did what they’re accused of can be banned from air travel, nor clear process for being able to travel again. Lives are long. People change. A lifetime ban is clearly ridiculous and excessive.

Those bullet points are a recap of current TSA policies/procedures.
Where exactly did I advocate for corporate nfl policies to be modeled after the TSA’s, & why do you assume corporate policies would be worse?

The TSA nfl policies are capricious & arbitrary; an airline nfl would consist of those who have openly defied airline [if not Federal] policies, and/or have assaulted employees.
You do realize these are crimes?
The mask-wearing edict has been in place for quite some time, so no one can claim they weren’t aware of it. It should be intuitively obvious that assaulting someone because they informed you of a rule you don’t like, is a no-no.

I have no problem if an airline sees fit to subject these fools to a lifetime ban. I’m okay with a 5 year ban as well. After all, there are other airlines. If the airlines share info amongst themselves, then a 12 hour bus ride to a destination that is a 30 minute plane flight might change someone’s attitude, when they discover no airline wants their business.
How’s that for ‘incentive’?

[Azure]

@vernonbird

why do you assume corporate policies would be worse ?

Because at present corporations are dolling out lifetime bans, and there is not a strict appeals process whereby a corporation that has issued a ban in error can be required to remove it. Nor a legal limitation on how long bans can last.

@vernonbird

You do realize these are crimes?

That something “is a crime” doesn’t put the perpetrators beyond consideration.

@vernonbird

How’s that for ‘incentive’?

Pretty lousy. Way too disproportionate. Also research in both criminology and health suggests that people don’t make decisions based on very long-term negatives very well, thus not justifying the extreme length. It would be extremely disruptive to people’s lives, however.

[timd]

I am surprised that passenger data is not covered by some form of data protection regulation.