Delta asks for Federal "No Fly List" for unruly passengers

[JimMIA]

Delta Airlines has formally asked the US Department of Justice to create a "No-Fly List" for unruly airline passengers. Obviously a lot of airlines already have their own list, but Delta is now asking DOJ to create a list like they have for terrorists.

I personally think that's quite a bit much. I have no problem with airline lists, I have no problem with airlines sharing their lists and excluding flyers who are on any airline's list -- but involve the government? I'd much rather see the industry solve their own problem.

Here's a link: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/05/del...to-put-unruly-travelers-on-a-no-fly-list.html

 

[Evita_W]

I agree, although I do think a lot of the behavior outside will go away if masks are no longer required and airlines would stop selling or allowing alcohol permanently.

 

[SteveH]

I agree with you @JimMIA to some degree. I think for some passenger issues, if it forces a plan to land, requires restraint or the the person has charges brought to them then it should be an FAA list. But that no-fly lust must have a way for a person to know they are on the list and refute the ban. But I think for minor issues the airline and other airlines should have the ability to ban or flag a passenger that may have been unruley, but again they most allow the person to know they are on the list and refute it. By having the Feds in charge IMHO there is less chance of secrecy.

 

[JimMIA]

I agree, although I do think a lot of the behavior outside will go away if masks are no longer required and airlines would stop selling or allowing alcohol permanently.

I think I read this week that Southwest was getting ready to resume serving alcohol after a 2 year stoppage due to Covid. Alcohol is just pure profit for the airlines.

 

[JimMIA]

I agree with you @JimMIA to some degree. I think for some passenger issues, if it forces a plan to land, requires restraint or the the person has charges brought to them then it should be an FAA list. But that no-fly lust must have a way for a person to know they are on the list and refute the ban. But I think for minor issues the airline and other airlines should have the ability to ban or flag a passenger that may have been unruley, but again they most allow the person to know they are on the list and refute it. By having the Feds in charge IMHO there is less chance of secrecy.

Yeah, whether it is a government list or an airline-industry list, there clearly have to be criteria for putting people on the list. There is a huge difference between being snotty to the flight crew or gate agents and having to be physically subdued and causing the flight to be diverted. People who create real risk to flight crews and other passengers seriously need to take a bus from now on. Flying on commercial airlines was not "...a HUMAN RIGHT" last time I checked.

But what do you do with the folks who get into an argument over a seat in the waiting area and a big brawl ensues? I mean, I think they should be banned from going out of their houses -- but that may not be enforceable.

 

[SteveH]

I think I read this week that Southwest was getting ready to resume serving alcohol after a 2 year stoppage due to Covid. Alcohol is just pure profit for the airlines.

I'd say that issue is made even worse by airport restaurants serving or over serving, then the airlines keep the supply going and you end up with some idiot fueled by liquid courage thinking they are Thor instead of Fat Thor.

 

[thanxfornoticin]

I think I read this week that Southwest was getting ready to resume serving alcohol after a 2 year stoppage due to Covid. Alcohol is just pure profit for the airlines.

Yes, pure profit to help the bottom line for airlines - and sports stadiums, and theme parks, and restaurants..... it's a big money-maker, and the consequences are often ignored.

 

[lockets]

I'm usually all for the less government interference, the better.

However the airline industry sharing lists and self-policing instead of escalating it to the Federal level which already has a protocol in place for this? Ummm.... I'm I can't even trust the airlines to notify me when they cancelled my flight or answer their phone within 20 minutes. How can I trust them to collectively agree and enforce that violent passengers are kept off all their flights?

Airlines are hurting for money and after a while might happily take any reservation they can whether they "should" or not. What happens if the airlines share the list with each other and a passenger falls through a loophole and is booked into a flight anyway. Then they seriously hurt or kill someone or endanger the flight? It's a nightmare waiting to happen.

That being said, the distinction needs to be made between unruly vs. violent (or a criminal act). The latter should be put on the Fed list.

I think this was a very responsible move on Delta's part. There needs to be some oversight.

Alcohol may be a contributing factor, but lack of alcohol can also make certain people irate. And some people that don't drink at all are still in need of some serious anger management or mental health support. I don't think the problem is going to be solved based on alcohol.

 

[EACarlson]

The issue with the industry coming up with a list is that it would probably be an antitrust violation. The no fly list as currently constituted violates due process and needs to be overhauled. If the DOJ and DOT came up with a process that allowed people to know if they were on the list and an open petition to get off the list I would be alright with it.

 

[Anna131517]

I’m all for it. These unruly passengers are a threat to others. Why should they be able to continue to put the rest of us at risk? They should be put on the list conditionally after an incident and permanently or for a set period of time after being found guilty of a federal offense on an airplane. The purpose of the Transportation SAFETY administration is to ensure transportation is safe. This would achieve that goal.

 

[mikehn]

I think its a catch 22. You all know how it works, the airline has to make up that lost alcohol profit some how and so they raise their prices some where else, like fares and luggage fees. Where are all these unruly passengers anyways? Never ever had one aboard my flights.

 

[DLgal]

I am all for this. Flying is a privilege, not a right.

 

[elcapitanJack]

It does seem like the news is reporting on way more overserved and agitated passengers on flights and in airports over the last two years.

 

[EACarlson]

I am all for this. Flying is a privilege, not a right.

Here is how it would actually work out, a flight attendant on a power trip reports a passenger for "unruly" behavior, embellishes and states that the passenger threatened them. They are now banned from flying on any airline in the US with no recourse. At least at current time, if a single airline does this than there is recourse of other airlines to do business with.

It does seem like the news is reporting on way more overserved and agitated passengers on flights and in airports over the last two years.

Are there more? Or are they being reported on more?

 

[DLgal]

Here is how it would actually work out, a flight attendant on a power trip reports a passenger for "unruly" behavior, embellishes and states that the passenger threatened them. They are now banned from flying on any airline in the US with no recourse. At least at current time, if a single airline does this than there is recourse of other airlines to do business with.

Are there more? Or are they being reported on more?

I doubt it would "go down" like that.

An airplane isn't exactly an environment where an accusation can be made with no witnesses. I'm sure there will be an extensive enough process that includes witness statements and more than one person to corroborate a story before someone is banned by the federal government. If someone is going to be disruptive ENOUGH to get arrested and force an emergency landing, I really don't care what their side of the story is. They don't deserve to fly.

I'm sure it won't be a lifelong ban either. I'm sure there will be an appeals process and all that. There needs to be a message sent that behavior like that has no place on an airplane. Flying on a plane isn't hard. You board, sit down, and do your best not to disturb others. There is no excuse for getting into any sort of confrontation.

 

[philharmagic fan]

I think its a catch 22. You all know how it works, the airline has to make up that lost alcohol profit some how and so they raise their prices some where else, like fares and luggage fees. Where are all these unruly passengers anyways? Never ever had one aboard my flights.

A few months ago we were flying from Newark to Orlando when the pilot came on the intercom, announced that there was an incident near the back of the plane (we were a few rows from the front and totally unaware until the announcement) and that if the parties involved didn't take their seats and follow flight attendant instructions, we would be diverting to an airport in Virginia. Evidently things cooled off enough that we continued on to Orlando, but we all had to sit on the plane for 20 minutes after arriving at the gate while law enforcement boarded and escorted two families off.
If we HAD diverted, besides interfering with the airline's schedule and possibly costing them money, it would have disrupted the travel plans of the other 100+ people on board. Why should well-behaved, rule-following passengers have their vacations delayed by a few idiots? I'm all for a zero-tolerance policy with no-fly-list assignments varying in length with the severity of the bad behavior.

 

[EACarlson]

I doubt it would "go down" like that.

An airplane isn't exactly an environment where an accusation can be made with no witnesses. I'm sure there will be an extensive enough process that includes witness statements and more than one person to corroborate a story before someone is banned by the federal government. If someone is going to be disruptive ENOUGH to get arrested and force an emergency landing, I really don't care what their side of the story is. They don't deserve to fly.

I'm sure it won't be a lifelong ban either. I'm sure there will be an appeals process and all that. There needs to be a message sent that behavior like that has no place on an airplane. Flying on a plane isn't hard. You board, sit down, and do your best not to disturb others. There is no excuse for getting into any sort of confrontation.

I have very little faith in the federal government operating a list like this fairly. I remember how many people had major issues when the no fly list started in 2002 and there was no oversight or transparency on how one got on or off the list. If the criteria for inclusion on the list is going to be a conviction for something occurring in the air then I'm all for it. But the current criteria is secret and very open to being abused by people on all sides.

You seem sure of an awful lot that is completely opposite of how the no fly list has been implemented for 20 years now.

I'm completely with you that messages have to be sent and laws have to be enforced, unfortunately that just doesn't seem to be happening. If they publicly followed through with prosecutions of those involved in many of these incidents there would be fewer of them.

 

[mikehn]

Im not opposed to a no fly list. I'd like to know what the definition of 'unruly' is. Unruly, disruptive, whatever other adjective is thrown out there. The flying public pays good money for transportation services. Some pay a hefty premium to get from point A to point B at a specific time on a specific day. Im not sympathetic to any party who breaks the terms of a contract. I think the flying public is tired and tempers flare.

 

[Renarr]

While I agree with the idea of a no-fly list fundamentally for unruly passengers (carefully defined enough), I do wonder aloud how much some of these conditions would be better if airlines weren't continually trying to squeeze the seats tighter and tighter together in coach.

 

[bumbershoot]

I’m all for it. These unruly passengers are a threat to others. Why should they be able to continue to put the rest of us at risk? They should be put on the list conditionally after an incident and permanently or for a set period of time after being found guilty of a federal offense on an airplane. The purpose of the Transportation SAFETY administration is to ensure transportation is safe. This would achieve that goal.

They were unruly once. And now they have to be on a no-fly list for-what-might-be-forever? Why?

My mom had a neighbor who spent time in jail because he was an addict and that caused issues on the plane. He was convicted, was in prison, lost his wife and home. In the late 90s. Is he still a problem who is putting you at risk? Or has he been punished enough?

There needs to be a message sent that behavior like that has no place on an airplane.

Being arrested is that.

People losing control on an airplane aren't thinking "let's see...if I do this, I might be arrested and charged with a criminal offense, but that's OK. Oh but an all-airline no fly list, well, gosh I shouldn't yell at the flight attendant then." They are simply losing control. I doubt they are weighing their punishment options.