Originally published at: Delta Airlines wants a national no-fly list for unruly passengers | Boing Boing
…
8 Likes
Hey, if it’s good enough for terrorists.
19 Likes
It would be funny if doing this prompted the no-fly list to revise it’s verification/etc methods. If unfortunate brown people can be barred from flying for sharing the same name with a suspected radical, I wonder how white people will react when they can’t fly across the country because some other Kevin Johnson caused a scene.
18 Likes
Very long overdue. And might I add stiffer fines and longer jail terms.
12 Likes
Funny? They’d better re-think the terrorism no-fly list. It’s been overdue for years. Remember, Senator Edward Kennedy was barred from a flight in 2004 because somebody was using his name as an alias.
I have no objection to a no-fly list if they do it transparently with clear standards for being put on the list and with a reasonable appeals process and all the other kinds of protective features that they never bothered to include in the original no-fly list. I mean, we take driver’s licenses away from people who drive dangerously.
I’m still concerned that they’ll fuck it up, though.
13 Likes
Mmmm… I am ok with that, but limit it to 3-5 years.
I don’t know if it will make people behave or not. Many of them face charges on the ground, but doesn’t seem to deter them. Still, if you can’t act reasonable on a flight, you don’t need to fly.
9 Likes
I’m absolutely certain they’ll fuck it up. It will be about a New York minute before it starts to be used as a threat against reasonable complaints and merely “discussion”. One person’s trouble maker is another person’s completely reasonable request.
6 Likes
I really don’t like the idea of something like a no-fly list without serious transparency, oversight, and an appeals process. Being included on that kind of list can cause real financial damage to someone, and that shouldn’t be allowed for arbitrary or unverifiable reasons.
What I wouldn’t mind would be a list shared between airlines that includes a photo and the actual reason that person was added. Then it’s up to the airline or even the ticket agent to decide whether to let them on board, and it’s possible to send the request up the food chain.
I’m thinking of my years in hotels, and the number of calls back and forth going “this guy just left here and I wanted to warn you he might be coming your way”. Sometimes it’s because they were drunk and disruptive. Sometimes because they did serious property damage. Sometimes they were just a dick. But we had enough information to make a somewhat informed decision whether to deny them service when they showed up.
13 Likes
These maskholes are terrorists!
11 Likes
It’ll make flights to and from Texas, Nevada and (of course) Florida more pleasant. Those flights are notorious amongst the crews as having a higher probability of an arsehole passenger.
6 Likes
Rather than limit it to 3 years, have a mandatory review after 3 to 5 years if the person listed requests it. The review can look over the details of the ban, and the person’s behavior since the ban, such as if they have been convicted of other violent incidents since then.
There are people whose behavior has been so egregious that they should be banned for life. But by having a mandatory review period available after three to five years, and periodic additional reviews available at say, five-year intervals, people whose behavior is not that egregious have some recourse going forward.
4 Likes
I like the idea as I don’t want to get on a plane with one of these nut-cases.
BUT I also fear it will be abused for other reasons, like the current no fly list, to make life miserable for people that are no risk at all.
4 Likes
Nah. Fuck 'em. I’m sick of the rest of humanity bending over backwards to accomodate these assholes. They sure as shit won’t do anything to make life easier for anyone that don’t think is a “real American”… At some point, these people need to be shown that there are actual consequences for their shitty behavior that puts others in danger.
9 Likes
Can’t say I like that. Too many situations occur where lower grade service staff have to make decisions under pressure from the dipshit manager on duty.
I’d rather give all airlines a representative on the board maintaining the list so each airline has a say. In case of a disagreement, the person can be put on the list but flagged differently by each airline, like “Delta says no-fly, Frontier says fly but limit alcohol consumption…”
Along with maintaining reasons why the person was added. Not a blind, names-only list like the terrorism list.
5 Likes
As you say, I think it might be a more reasonable thing for airlines to do. There’s nothing wrong with Delta saying, “Southwest told us you acted like an asshole on your last flight, so we’re not going to sell you a ticket.” Getting the government involved means that there will be an opportunity to politicize the process.
I know that the airlines would prefer the government do it, so they can pass on responsibility.
4 Likes
You just know Spirit would rebrand as NoFly Air and invite them all.
7 Likes
It’s a slippery slope, but I’m willing to shove them down it, sure.
3 Likes
And an automatic sunset of X months, which the airlines should appreciate, because they don’t actually WANT to not sell tickets.
1 Like
Good point.
And where are the good white conservative Christians apologizing for all the maskholes and QNuts and insurrectionists and other RWNJS, saying “I’m sorry, we’re not all like that, I apologize for them on behalf of all white conservative Christians”?
Is it only Muslims, black people, and “others” who are supposed to do that?
No Fly should mean No Fly. Just like if you lose your license you shouldn’t be able to borrow your buddy’s car instead.
4 Likes
Um, it was just a Spirit Airlines joke. I know a federal list would extend to them.
2 Likes
