Delta Air Lines asks other carriers to share 'no fly' lists

[SheltieLover]

https://www.localmemphis.com/mobile/article/travel/delta-asks-other-airlines-share-no-fly-lists/85-0752b662-ef19-4974-a128-12f9552e886d

"A list of banned customers doesn’t work as well if that customer can fly with another airline," Kristen Manion Taylor with Delta Air Lines wrote.

ATLANTA — With recent events of passengers confronting crew members or acting disorderly, Delta Air Lines is now asking air carriers to share 'no fly' lists.

Leaders with the Atlanta-based airline released statements to their teams this week "in response to recent incidents involving unruly passengers," saying 1,600 people are now forbidden from flying with Delta.

More at link. Great idea, imo!

[hlthe2b]

1. I feel certain United and American will comply. I hope the smaller ones will as well.

Those non-American major airlines with big presence her should as wlel.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. Southwest Too

I heard on local Chicago radio news that SWA is offering to share their list to other carriers.
Can't find anything on the net yet, but I heard the news around 12:30 today.

[napi21]

2. 1,600 is a lot of people in a fairly short time! Sad there are so many JAs in the world. I hope

the other air carriers agree to share their info. Delta's right. It doesn't mean much if all a passenger has to do is go to another carrier.
I guess people have stopped thinking. They KNOW the suspensions are only being enforced by the flight team. If they reslly have to bitch ast someone, they ought to contact the carriers officers.

[bahboo]

3. I'm a Delta FF, and I heartily approve of this...

[Blecht]

10. Fast forward? Fan fiction?

Friendly fire?

Forfeit?

Final Fantasy?

Foo Fighters?

Fantastic Four?

Found footage?

[leftieNanner]

11. Frequent Flyer is my guess. nt

[tableturner]

4. Why would ANY airline refuse to cooperate on this? Probably none....

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. We need vaccine passports and to exclude/shun assholes who refuse to be vaccinated

We need a central list of asshole who disrupt flights and we need all passengers on a flight to be vaccinated

[SheltieLover]

29. +1,000!

[LiberalFighter]

6. Should be federal in this case.

[dv421]

8. Agreed

These people should go on the federal terrorist no fly list. I've had more than 1 flight delayed multiple hours due to these maskholes.

[localroger]

7. While this is appealing, it is also a deeply terrible idea

If these companies were sharing black lists of people fired for union organizing we would be screaming bloody murder. The justification for letting companies refuse service to anyone for any reason (with narrow specifically enumerated exceptions) is that you can always do business with someone else. When one company becomes an effective monopoly and they ban you without recourse, it can ruin your life even if the reason you were banned was a misunderstanding or a bad day. (Facebook and Google, I'm looking at you.) Making the blacklists global among all the companies in a competitive industry has the same effect, and was used very effectively to suppress workers' rights activism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Yes there are a lot of assholes out there and something needs to be done about them, but these bans can also be arbitrary and there is effectively no due process or reasonable expiration of your penalty. This is bad. It was bad when it was done to those who were fighting for us, and it's bad when it's done to people we don't like because it is unfair and draconian.

[fescuerescue]

13. +1

This kinda power should only be done through the courts with review and chance for appeal.

[Sherman A1]

15. I disagree

The people on these lists have exhibited behavior that is to be kind, not acceptable in polite society and they have gotten themselves placed on the lists because of said behavior.

This is a self inflicted wound and they need to be walking to their destination.

[localroger]

24. So you trust corporate entities...

...and their employees not to ever abuse these lists?

[Sherman A1]

34. Probably more than I trust the people on them

who have certainly behaved in a manner which is unacceptable.

[Mr.Bill]

21. Not saying it's never happened

but firing people for union organizing is against federal law. I doubt companies would want to give federal authorities more evidence to prosecute them with.

[localroger]

23. That law exists because...

...before it existed entire industries colluded to blacklist such "troublemakers" all the time.

[getagrip_already]

25. there are all kinds of lists shared that could affect almost anyone.....

Credit history is one, but beyond that there are clearing houses for

-- renter histories including late payment, late fees, evictions, etc
-- job histories - some including termination events
-- customers who frequently return goods

Some are official, some underground. But negative information about people is available from a variety of sources.

[localroger]

32. And many of those lists have been reformed by legislation

The reason you can get a copy of your credit report and appeal the data found there is that they were opaque and abused. The reason you are protected from being asked certain questions at job interviews is that they were abused. Every such list that has ever been created has eventually been abused, and these airline lists are classic in that they are completely opaque with no accountability, no manner of appeal, and no sunset date. You're saying that creating a new list like that is a good thing?

[getagrip_already]

41. no, not good at all.....

Just that it isn't a "new" thing. If we can add legislation to make the reasons transparent and with a method of appeal, I'm all for that.

Southwest is infamous for kicking people off flights for wearing attire someone on the flight crew finds offensive; some just revealing, and some political. There is no way some karen in a uniform should be able to ban you from flying for wearing a pro-biden tee shirt.

So in that respect I agree with you. I was just pointing out these lists are everywhere.

[KS Toronado]

26. Apples & Oranges IMO

Union organizing is helping people, refusing a lifesaving vaccine & refusing to wear a mask
is potentially killing a stranger.

[localroger]

36. That's quite true if you are totally 100% certain that everyone on the list actually deserves it

We obviously see the worst of the worst here but as others have also mentioned, we have no accountability as to what criteria exist or what it takes to either get put on the list or removed from it. It's totally ad hoc. The British took something like 300 years to figure out why courts shouldn't work that way and we sensibly inherited that wisdom in forming our own legal system. Anything that can change your life as radically as being banned from flying should be subject to due process, appeal, and review or it should not be done.

[BannonsLiver]

40. Lol

We’re in the 21st century now. Turn the page. Also, get some valid comparisons. Railroads?

[localroger]

42. "LOL" isn't much of a critique. Why is it so funny?

The comparison between airlines today and railroads at the turn of the 20th century is actually pretty close. There were a few big players who were colluding to control the market as if they were a single monopoly. Same with the oil companies. These are the reasons we have antitrust laws, but ever since Reagan they have been doing everything possible to erode the power of those laws so that big corps can do whatever they want again. Do you really want to give these powerful entities carte blanche to ban people from long-distance travel without having to give a reason or any right of appeal? If so, history would like a word with you. On this scale the present looks a lot more like the past than you might realize.

[Patton French]

9. I'm all for fewer crazies in the air (n/t)

[fescuerescue]

12. Yea. That has no chance to backfire at all

We definitely should give 3 or 4 powerful corporations to stop certain people from traveling based on their own internal criteria, without the ability to appeal or review.

And it's not like large corporations ever make mistakes.

what could possibly go wrong?

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Disagree

Unless the feds actually start prosecuting these idiots (it's a federal felony to interfere with or disrupt flight operations), the airlines have only these bans to protect millions of their other customers.
And, I don't understand your assumption that these are internal, hidden criteria.
Being disruptive on a flight is against codified law. It's public knowledge.
What other criteria do you think they have that we all wouldn't know?

[LeftInTX]

17. They haven't prosecuted anyone??? Geesh.....

FAA can fine without court action. They are increasing fines, however I don't know if any of the people who were fined offended again. My hunch is that they did not and many of the unruly passengers are doing it because they feel that they there are no penalties.

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-fines-against-unruly-passengers-reach-1m

My hunch is that there are a few prosecutions out there, but most are just fines. Most are not fined at all. I wonder why?

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Misdemeanors

The equivalent of disturbing the peace.
But, they're not bringing the felony hammer down.
A $50,000 fine and 12 months, plus a criminal record would dissuade this crud. But, it keeps happening because there are insufficient consequences.

[fescuerescue]

31. So have you seen the corporate minutes?

of when an airline decides to ban someone? I haven't.

Courts are public. Internal corporate meetings aren't.


I'm not saying don't ban these yahoos. I'm just saying that this is the domain of the court system, not internal corporate decisions.

[LanternWaste]

35. You then believe the airlines sharing a list should be illegal?

If not, what then would be the mechanism preventing the airlines from sharing a list of abusive and violent customers?

[localroger]

37. Ask the railroads

They were regularly sharing lists of "union troublemakers" in the late 19th century until the government stepped in and told them to cut the bullshit. Don't think corporations and their employees won't abuse a list like this. Every time one has existed it has been abused and in many cases, such as credit reports, it has taken government action to force transparency and accountability on them. When there is due process and a right of appeal, then fine. But just giving a few big corporations the ad-hoc ability to ban you from all services is a bad idea even if 99% of the people they do it to are bona fide assholes who deserve it. There are ways to do this that aren't fascist and evil.

[fescuerescue]

38. It's illegal to do so for employees

Lots of history on this. It's only half a step removed for interstate travel.

How would you feel if they decided to blacklist all union officials from traveling by air?

[Raster]

18. Completely disagree. Have you ever been on a flight with one of the loud, obnoxious tRumpists?

You know, the ones threatening to hurt the other passengers? The ones that refuse to wear masks? The ones that refuse to follow even the most basic of safety precautions? The ones that assault the flight crews?

Ever been stuck on the tarmac for hours because one of the "fuck your feelings" decides to have a mental meltdown and EVERYONE on the plane is invitied... whether they want to be or not.

COMPLETELY DISAGREE!!! The sooner those assholes are banned from flying EVERY AIRLINE, the better.
Being able to fly is a privilege, and one that should be revoked FOR ANYONE that causes trouble.
And HELL YES, the airlines should share their lists. The Feds should share their lists.

[fescuerescue]

30. Major corporations are RARELY on our side

Just because they are at this precise moment, doesn't mean they will stay that way.


in your example. I have!

I lost 3 hours of my life due to someone having a mental breakdown over a seat assignment. I was stuck on what was supposed to be a 38 mile (40 min) flight from Cincinnati to Dayton (tail end of a longer trip).

So while I share that frustration, I don't think handing over nationwide "no-fly" powers to a corporation is a good idea. We have courts for this sort of thing.

Today it's banning over masks.

Tomorrow it's airlines banning certain Democrats who are flying to demonstrations.

[localroger]

33. Not to mention

...the airline employee who doesn't like the way you look and puts you on the list maybe because they don't like your race, the logo on your T-shirt, or your reading material.

...the airline employee who will take a picture of Ben Franklin from anybody who doesn't like you to put you on the list.

...the airline employee who misspells someone's name or misidentifies you by the seat you're in and ends up putting you on the list by accident instead of the actual asshole

Right now there is NO method of appeal if you are at the wrong end of something like this. It's bad enough if you realize you can't fly Delta any more, but if you can't fly AT ALL and there is no appeal, no investigation, no record of when or why you were put on the list, and no expiration to give you a second chance, this is a very bad, fascist, un-American thing to its core. We have spent most of our history figuring out that these things were bad in other contexts and fixing them.

[IronLionZion]

19. There is a federal no-fly list

I'm interested in flying airlines that have banned disruptive assholes.

[LeftInTX]

22. I think they should be banned for a year.

Just my opinion. It's a punishment. Banning for life is a bit much...If they offend afterward, then make the ban longer.

[IronLionZion]

27. Sounds good, and a fine or criminal charges if they were violent.

[LeftInTX]

28. The FAA does fine. And they don't need to press charges.

They should be fining more unruly flyers though.

https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/faa-fines-against-unruly-passengers-reach-1m

[Treefrog]

39. I'm on board with this. Causing chaos and havoc at 30,000 feet is a good enough reason for me.

They should never fly again.

[Captain Stern]

43. Good Idea. I hope they do it.

It's clear to me that they are speaking about unruly passengers.

I'm fine with folks that can't behave being banned from flying on a particular airline. And, I'm fine with different airlines sharing their lists of unruly passengers that they have banned, and then other airlines banning those same people.

That is all this is about, and nothing more.

Of course, the 'could' or 'might try to' , or 'think about' banning other people. But, that's no good reason to oppose what they are proposing now. That's just a slippery slope argument.

If they try to ban people for being in unions, or because of their race, or because of their nationality, or political affiliation....then, I will oppose those things.