Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Travel&Dining > Travel News
Reload this Page >

AP News: Congress to consider new no-fly list for unruly passengers

AP News: Congress to consider new no-fly list for unruly passengers

Old Mar 29, 2023, 5:26 pm
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2023
Posts: 55
AP News: Congress to consider new no-fly list for unruly passengers

"The legislation would let the Transportation Security Administration ban people convicted or fined for assaulting or interfering with airline crew members."

"It would be separate from the current FBI-run no-fly list, which is intended to prevent people suspected of terrorism ties from boarding planes."

https://apnews.com/article/travel-unruly-passengers-airlines-congress-63a881bf36740d8867a4c5c849e1021c
N830MH likes this.
hiker67 is offline  
Old Mar 29, 2023, 8:46 pm
  #2  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 42,964
Originally Posted by hiker67
"The legislation would let the Transportation Security Administration ban people convicted or fined for assaulting or interfering with airline crew members."

"It would be separate from the current FBI-run no-fly list, which is intended to prevent people suspected of terrorism ties from boarding planes."

https://apnews.com/article/travel-unruly-passengers-airlines-congress-63a881bf36740d8867a4c5c849e1021c
This sounds interesting in theory, but I would oppose nearly any legislation that gives the TSA more power.
moondog is online now  
Old Mar 29, 2023, 9:16 pm
  #3  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: on the path to perdition
Programs: Delta, United
Posts: 4,807
Under the measure, people who were fined for or convicted of “serious physical violence and abuse” while traveling by air would not be allowed to fly on commercial planes.
The bar is fairly high. Frequently PAX are asked to leave a flight but are not even charged let alone fined or convicted.
trooper likes this.
FlyingUnderTheRadar is offline  
Old Mar 30, 2023, 5:51 am
  #4  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: OSH
Programs: SWRR, HH, SM, TSA Pre
Posts: 773
As long as there is a documented path to be removed from the list, addition to the list requires a conviction and the list is made public, I have no issue with it. I would prefer that it be maintained by DOT rather than DHS, but small issue.
SPN Lifer likes this.
EAJuggalo is offline  
Old Mar 30, 2023, 10:31 am
  #5  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MCI
Programs: AA Gold 1MM, AS MVP, UA Silver, WN A-List, Marriott LT Titanium, HH Diamond
Posts: 52,661
Why would there need to be two lists? Does the FBI list have a process to get removed from the list? I realize the FBI can put someone on the list for being *suspected* of terrorism, and this new proposal would require a *conviction* of a crime, but that's just modifying the criteria to get added to the list. That seems systemically easier to implement for everyone than adding more lists.

And I trust the FBI to run it more than I trust the TSA.
pinniped is offline  
Old Mar 31, 2023, 2:59 am
  #6  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,094
The FBI has a process to get off the blacklists, but that doesn’t guarantee getting off them even when otherwise free to move about the country.

Originally Posted by FlyingUnderTheRadar
The bar is fairly high. Frequently PAX are asked to leave a flight but are not even charged let alone fined or convicted.
The bar is unfairly low when it is “fined or convicted”.

I don’t welcome giving the TSA additional powers to make travel inconvenient for Americans who are otherwise lawfully free to roam about the country.
moondog likes this.
GUWonder is offline  
Old Mar 31, 2023, 9:04 am
  #7  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,808
Originally Posted by GUWonder
The bar is unfairly low when it is “fined or convicted”.

I don’t welcome giving the TSA additional powers to make travel inconvenient for Americans who are otherwise lawfully free to roam about the country.
A while back we were on a relatively small plane, one cabin, and a woman plopped herself down in the first row of seats. From there she kept bobbing up to peek into the cabin, sometimes trying to snap photos. FA asked for her boarding pass, tried to redirect her to her assigned seat, near the back of the plane. Passenger refused, FA stepped away for a moment, passenger again tried to look into/enter cockpit, this time flight crew stopped her. Now pilot and FA were directing her to her assigned seat, she strapped herself into row 1, refused to move.

This went on for 90 minutes, until finally the police removed her from the plane. Flight had missed its take-off slot, so there was another 45 minutes of delay. Most passengers missed connections, had to moved to later connections or got stuck overnight, etc. Many people had their plans ruined, were put to extra expense, airline schedule was messed up, crew schedules messed up, etc.

If someone who chooses to behave in a way that causes so many others trouble and expense is inconvenienced by having to travel by methods other than by air, I'm fine with that. Actions have consequences.
hiker67 and pudgym29 like this.
CDTraveler is offline  
Old Mar 31, 2023, 5:46 pm
  #8  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,094
Originally Posted by CDTraveler
A while back we were on a relatively small plane, one cabin, and a woman plopped herself down in the first row of seats. From there she kept bobbing up to peek into the cabin, sometimes trying to snap photos. FA asked for her boarding pass, tried to redirect her to her assigned seat, near the back of the plane. Passenger refused, FA stepped away for a moment, passenger again tried to look into/enter cockpit, this time flight crew stopped her. Now pilot and FA were directing her to her assigned seat, she strapped herself into row 1, refused to move.

This went on for 90 minutes, until finally the police removed her from the plane. Flight had missed its take-off slot, so there was another 45 minutes of delay. Most passengers missed connections, had to moved to later connections or got stuck overnight, etc. Many people had their plans ruined, were put to extra expense, airline schedule was messed up, crew schedules messed up, etc.

If someone who chooses to behave in a way that causes so many others trouble and expense is inconvenienced by having to travel by methods other than by air, I'm fine with that. Actions have consequences.
Actions have consequences, as your post acknowledges, and thus no need for addiitonal government blacklists to deal with such matters. We already have ways to deal with the supposed problems being carted out to try to expand non-judicial, administrative power vis-a-vis airline passengers.

1. Court-ordered sentencing — be it fines or otherwise — for those convicted of wrongful actions is already punishment, so no need to pile on punishment beyond that which comes from a court-ordered conviction and public awareness of the conviction from a criminal trial when the misbehavior is criminal and the person is found guilty of a crime,

2. There is already the ability to pursue civil litigation and sue misbehaving passengers whose behavior is disruptive to such extent that damages are realized. And that only requires a simple majority at most to met out punishment for damages arising from disruptive behavior.

What problem will this blacklisting proposal solve that isn’t already addressable by criminal prosecution and civil litigation against problem individuals in an open court hearing with a fair trial under the rule of law?
GUWonder is offline  
Old Mar 31, 2023, 6:33 pm
  #9  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 4,808
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Actions have consequences, as your post acknowledges, and thus no need for addiitonal government blacklists to deal with such matters. We already have ways to deal with the supposed problems being carted out to try to expand non-judicial, administrative power vis-a-vis airline passengers.
Hardly non-judicial, the ban would only apply to "people convicted or fined for assaulting or interfering with airline crew members." - would it make you happy if the ban was part of the sentence handed down by a judge?

Originally Posted by GUWonder
1. Court-ordered sentencing — be it fines or otherwise — for those convicted of wrongful actions is already punishment, so no need to pile on punishment beyond that which comes from a court-ordered conviction and public awareness of the conviction from a criminal trial when the misbehavior is criminal and the person is found guilty of a crime,
Drunk drivers can be banned from driving to protect the public. Banning persons convicted of disrupting flights from doing it again also serves to protect the public. As for public awareness of the problem serving as a deterrent, all I can say is have you read what's been happening the past few years? Lots of media coverage of air rage arrests, and the problem is still getting worse, so public awareness as a deterrent ranks as a complete failure.

Originally Posted by GUWonder
2. There is already the ability to pursue civil litigation and sue misbehaving passengers whose behavior is disruptive to such extent that damages are realized. And that only requires a simple majority at most to met out punishment for damages arising from disruptive behavior.
Nice fairy tale. Do you really think it is viable for the 90+ people who missed connections, missed meetings/personal events, had extra out of pocket expenses, etc. to pursue civil litigation against the disruptive passenger? Police usually don't even make the name available, let alone whether or not charges were filed, then there's the logistics of getting to the appropriate jurisdiction, finding and serving the offender, getting a trial, etc, alone actually collecting on any court ordered for damages.

Originally Posted by GUWonder
What problem will this blacklisting proposal solve that isn’t already addressable by criminal prosecution and civil litigation against problem individuals in an open court hearing with a fair trial under the rule of law?
Effective deterrence, because despite the remedies you claim currently exist, the number and frequency of incidents of air rage/disruption of flights are still increasing. People, passengers and crew, trapped in a metal tube far above the ground don't have ready access to law enforcement, no escape from violent perpetrator(s), and despite various post 9/11 changes, there is still the potential for an incident to bring the plane down. If someone is convicted in a court of law of assaulting or interfering with airline crew members, I am in favor of banning them from future air travel, and I would add a conviction for physically assaulting other passengers to the list of ban worthy offenses.
SPN Lifer likes this.
CDTraveler is offline  
Old Mar 31, 2023, 7:30 pm
  #10  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,094
1. “Fined or convicted” means that it would be possible for a non-judicial administrative power to ban a person by issuing a fine even in the absence of the person being convicted by a judicial body in an open court hearing with a fair trial under the rule of law.

2. The analogy with drunk drivers doesn’t fly. Drivers are licensed to drive, while airline passengers need not be licensed to be passengers any more than passengers in a car. Also, drivers who were drunk drivers are not banned from driving to protect the public in the absence of the person’s arrest and conviction with a court-ordered sentence that revokes their ability to drive by suspending/revoking a driving license in the jurisdiction (regardless of license-issuing jurisdiction). To be issued a fine is possible even in the absence of an arrest, let alone a conviction; but where in the country is a fine for DWI/DUI due in the absence of a no-contest plea or guilty plea/conviction on a DWI/DUI charge?

3. The airline can sue even if one or more passengers isn’t willing to do so. If none are willing to do so, then perhaps it’s because they find damage is de minimis in the holistic sense. And even with a lawsuit where the claim ends up dismissed, the lawsuit or threat thereof can be considered deterrence.

4. Effective deterrence, to the extent that is practical, is already in place via criminal trials and civil litigation. Lack of impulse control, lack of anger management, and other mental disabilities are not going to be checked by yet more aviation-related blacklisting when it’s that very lack of impulse control, of anger control and mental disabilities that give rise to disturbances.

5. There is more than enough power already in the hands of the government and of the airlines without giving them even more. And despite all that power, incidents with misbehaving passengers keep happening. Apparently, more power doesn’t necessarily equate with more deterrence effectiveness.
moondog and N830MH like this.

Last edited by GUWonder; Mar 31, 2023 at 7:58 pm
GUWonder is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.