It’s Time to Share Information on Problem Passengers — But How Much?

Air Canada has made a government proposal that airlines should be able to share information about unruly passengers. While airlines are allowed to ban particular passengers from flying on their metal if they have had problems with unruly behavior, they are not permitted to exchange information about passengers with other carriers — even if the person is considered a safety risk. I don’t see why that should be the case.

In fact, I’ve had a related idea for a while — and hear me out before you get upset. Sometimes I wish that there were a way for flight attendants to put remarks in our tablets about problem passengers (for internal use).

I see the potential problems that would need to be addressed for this to work as intended. It would not be a great idea for any one person to be able to say anything they want about a person they’ve allegedly had an altercation with. So I don’t mean a free-for-all — a put-whatever-you-want-in-their-record-because-you-don’t-like-them situation. It would require certain controls.

For example, in both the U.S. and Canada threatening behavior is divided into four levels. Level One describes verbal disruptive behavior; Two is physically abusive behavior; Three is life threatening; Four is attempted cockpit breach. Air Canada’s proposal would see airlines sharing information regarding Level Three and Four events. For such serious offenses, this should have been allowed long ago.

To relate it to the tablet idea, perhaps flight attendants could make a note when a Level Two incident occurs, or even outstanding Level Ones. We get the occasional passenger who is so willfully and gleefully uncooperative you know they’re doing it on purpose. It’s no secret that relatively few incidents incur any sort of consequence.

I’ve literally had a passenger say, “What are you gonna do? We’re on take off now. You going to land the plane because I won’t stop using my phone? I do this all the time and no one can stop me.” As infuriating as it is, if it doesn’t escalate further, they’re right. It’s usually not worth the travel inconvenience to the entire flight full of passengers and ourselves (not to mention the paperwork) to take it further. It is this interaction that made me wish I could warn other crews about him. Some of you might be asking, why wouldn’t we issue a Disturbance Report here? Honestly, because it doesn’t feel like they have any effect.

Let’s pause here for a reminder that a large percentage of passenger behavior problems don’t even get reported. I know this first hand. One reason for this under-reporting is because it’s a lot of trouble for us and it seems that nothing ever comes of it. Often the passengers get more agitated, more irate, more difficult to handle … and once the flight lands the authorities go, “Meh, we’re on the ground now. Let’s just forget about it. Bye.” That is so exhausting and demotivating. No one has ever been able to answer whether Disturbance Reports carry any consequence. I believe it simply means the incident gets reported to the FAA, where it becomes a statistic. That’s a lot of stress for a “+1” to be written in a category on a chart somewhere.

There was once a rumor that three Disturbance Reports on a passenger meant the person was banned from the airline. When I tried to confirm this I was told it’s not true. So I’m back to square one with the reports.

However, if, for example, issuing a Disturbance Report (which requires witnesses, etc.) meant that we could record it in the passenger’s listing so that other crews could be forewarned of bad behavior histories (within a reasonable time frame), it would feel like all the hassle was worth it. It’s so frustrating when you know the behavior will be immediately forgotten, and the person can do it ad nauseam without any chance of recognition that it’s a pattern.

Knowing that a worrisome or dangerous incident will not be shrugged off would make me more likely to report things that in all honesty should be reported. I’m not advocating that we smear any passenger who one time lost their cool. I’d simply like for there to be actual consequences for repeated, troublesome behavior. Having some level of their passenger anonymity reduced seems like a fair enough response.

I admit it calls for a lot more debate than we get from my personal musings on an idea I got after a particularly galling passenger. However, it’s not crazy. Agents can put notes in passenger records, and in my experience that works just fine.

I realize that if airlines currently can’t even share information on passengers that physically threaten crew, other travelers, or even the cockpit, my idea is probably not going to happen anytime soon. That’s fine — as long as we can start by getting behind Air Canada’s idea. That seems long, long overdue.

This week I’m set to see the film Neerja. Next week’s Crewed Talk will be a review of this incredible flight attendant’s story. If you’ve seen it, or plan to, I’d love to hear your thoughts on Facebook.

[Photo: Getty]