Delta proposes a second national 'no-fly' list -- for unruly passengers

[marmar]

As the number of incidents with unruly air travelers keeps climbing, Delta Air Lines is out with its proposed solution.

This week, the Atlanta-based carrier shared two internal memos with its workforce, which include details about a proposed national “no-fly” list of unruly passengers.

According to the notes, Delta is urging airlines to create a unified list of banned passengers to that they can collectively work to minimize the number of inflight disruptions. Once your name is added to the list, you’d theoretically be banned from boarding a flight, regardless of which airline you’re flying.

Right now, each airline keeps its own record of unruly passengers — if you’re banned from flying Delta, nothing is stopping you from booking a United flight. (According to the memo, Delta already has more than 1,600 people on its own “no-fly” list.)

Delta’s proposed “no-fly” list would essentially become the second national database of banned travelers, joining the existing one of known or suspected terrorists that are barred from boarding a flight and entering the U.S. ............(more)

https://thepointsguy.com/news/delta-air-lines-no-fly-list-unruly-passengers/

[Skittles]

1. DO IT

fuck these assholes, they affect a LOT of people, not just the airlines

[Delmette2.0]

2. Yes, do it.

It's more than delayed flights. If they act up while in flight, they could endanger all their lives.

[HubertHeaver]

3. So there would be a variation of the No Fly List.

The No Fly List, Delta Variation.

[marmar]

4. .......

[keithbvadu2]

5. Agree!

But there must be an appeals process because such lists can have errors.

[localroger]

6. As with the existing no-fly list, without accountability and due process NO.

Yes, there are a lot of assholes out there, and something should be done about them. But a list like this compiled in secret with no accountability and no right of appeal is not the way to do it. We have already argued this in another thread. This is a bad, terrible, fascistic idea. We are not the people who do things like this. That's the other guys. You want the airline employee who doesn't like the way you look, or who took a $100 from someone else who doesn't like you, to put you on an unaccountable list that you can't appeal that makes it impossible to travel? Every list like this that has ever existed has been abused, and in many cases this abuse had to be corrected by legislation. This is why you can now organize unions without being blacklisted by your employer, why you can get a copy of your credit report and appeal the data you find there, and why you can buy a house even if the future neighbors don't like your race.

[Bucky]

11. Thank you

Mob rule always leans toward the punative approach. We should fix broken people, not just throw them out.

[Spider Jerusalem]

18. No-one has an inherent right to travel by plane

if they end up not being able to fly, too bad; they can drive, or not go (like that dipshit in Alaska who can't get to Juneau to vote in the legislature because Alaska Airlines banned her for not wearing a mask).

[localroger]

22. That's not the problem

It's not that you have a right to travel by plane, but that denial of that privilege has to be mediated by due process with reasonable means to correct errors and appeal bad decisions. Those things don't exist so far with these airline travel bans.

[Spider Jerusalem]

24. In this case, it doesn't

I don't see this as any different than an unruly fan who shouts racist slurs being banned from attending football matches (which is a thing that happens all the time, in the UK and Europe).

[forgotmylogin]

27. How about if they just implement a time limit?

Let the airlines maintain an internal list of banned passengers. If someone acts up and delays a flight or injures someone and requires restraint before, during, or after a flight, you're on the "do not sell a ticket" list for a year. The list doesn't have to be an outright ban - just guidelines airlines can take into account before selling space on an expensive flight. If there's a good reason for the person to fly (emergency, funeral...) it's at the airline's individual discretion to allow them or not.

[localroger]

28. That would be one mitigatoin

The thing is, as these lists exist now there is no accountability at all. It's already not right. It's a lot more not right if instead of one airline you get blacklisted by all of them because you were in the wrong seat and got misidentified as the "asshole" because they punched it in wrong, which is the kind of thing that happens in real life.

[PJMcK]

41. There is a process

If someone is banned from flying, they can sue the airline.

A court case would reveal quite a bit, I think.

[localroger]

43. If a common black list is being shared, how would this work?

Lawsuits are not a process, they are the last resort when the better processes don't exist or have failed. The situation is similar with civil asset forfeiture. If the cops steal less than $20,000 from you most lawyers will tell you not to bother even trying to get it back because it will cost you more to (maybe, with not guarantees) get your property back than it is worth. Is that a "process" too?

[Ziggysmom]

7. GREAT IDEA!

[Bucky]

13. That one guy shouting "You treat me like a (*)... black person!"

😆😂🤣😜😂
(at 2:27)

Yeah, fuck this guy.

[BlueIdaho]

8. Do it today

Don’t delay

[Midnight Writer]

9. Would you like schools to share info on staff who acted inappropriately and were fired?

Should police departments share info on staff they have fired?

These people are not being removed for being politically incorrect. They are being removed because they are causing so much of a danger or commotion that they may have the cops waiting for them when they get off the plane.

If they acted that way at work, would they not be fired? And wouldn't the employer, fairly or not, share that information with other employers?

I don't see the difference between this and the grocery stores sharing a bad check writer's list.

[meadowlander]

17. Airlines are private companies. If bars can refuse service, so can they.

[localroger]

23. And we allow that because there are alternate venues for you to do business with.

But if an entire industry bans you, and there is no due process or right of review and appeal, that will get abused. Your competitor slips an airline employee $100 and suddenly you're on the list. You don't know why and there's now one you can ask because there's really no record of why you're there. That will happen. It's evil and fascistic and our side doesn't do that kind of shit.

[meadowlander]

37. There are alternate ways to travel and options like teleconferencing that don't require travel.

Most companies actually want to make money and you don't make money by banning people who didn't do anything and refusing to let them make their case.

Sorry, but I think the scenario where an airline employee has it in for you and sneaks your name onto the list and then the airline refuses to hear your objection is fanciful at best.

Delta flies 170 million passengers a year and only has 1,600 people on its shit list. What does that tell you?

Private companies don't have to serve people that abuse their staff and threaten their other customers driving them away. But my experience has always been that most companies are extremely risk averse when it comes to banning customers and don't make a stink unless it's really, really bad and they have effectively no other option.

[Bucky]

10. I dunno. I know this pandemic has some people acting like shitheads

But unless it's potentially dangerous behavior, people who behave shittily once ought to get a second chance. America is the land of second chances. Let's lean into our strengths.

Maybe make them put up an extra security deposit and require them pass an air safety or basic civil decorum class before letting them fly again. That's what we do with poor drivers.

[Captain Stern]

16. I don't think anyone 'acts' like a shithead.

Shitheads are shitheads, and a lot of them are good at acting like they are not shitheads. But sometimes the mask slips. When that happens I'm fine with a place of business saying they are not welcome.

I'm fine with second chances too. But, that should be up to the business.

[Bucky]

19. I'm basing shitheadedness on behavior

So yes, one has to literally "act like a shithead" in order to be one.

What else could you possibly base judging someone to be a shithead on?

[Captain Stern]

21. I respectfully disagree.

First off, I'm in no way taking this point super seriously, and I hope you aren't either.

But, I was using the term "acting" as in pretending.

For instance, Robert Downey Jr. isn't Tony Stark....but at times, he 'acts' like Tony Stark...but he's still just Robert Downey Jr. (which is still really cool).

But, the folks on planes that go on rants, and treat the employees like crap, or make things miserable for other passengers, aren't 'acting'. They are being who they are. They are shitheads.

Probably most of the time, it isn't even obvious that they are shitheads. But, then they show who they are. I don't think being a shithead is part-time thing.

[Bucky]

32. Nah, it's an academic argument

But thank you for clarifying that.

And I see we are using different meanings for acting, which sorta kills the argument.

My point was heading toward not judging people by what's inside their heads. Only by their words or actions. Y'know, it's interesting how it's us Democrats are in many ways the party of personal responsibility now, contrary to decades of Republican propaganda, as evidenced by our valuing of supporting the government in a crisis. I mean, that's the literal definition of conservative. Meanwhile the Republicans are the party of disrupting social norms and resisting law enforcement. We're trying to save society and they're trying to burn it all down.

[localroger]

25. That's fine if your ex didn't pay an airline employee $100 to put you on the list

You don't think that happens? It has happened with regularity every time such a list has existed, and it's why so many of them such as credit reports are now regulated to make them transparent and accountable.

[Captain Stern]

29. Yes, it's absolutely fine if my ex didn't do that.

And it sucks that yours did.

But, that isn't a good argument against the airlines sharing lists.

It's a good argument for making sure the lists are transparent, just like credit reports..as you pointed out.

[localroger]

30. Dude, chill. I don't even have an ex.

But the existing situation is actually not good with these stupid lists, and sharing them makes it far worse. There needs to be an organized authority with due process managing this or it is not a thing that should be done. We do not do this. We are the good guys. It's the other guys who do fascistic shit like this and we should not be trying to be like them.

[Captain Stern]

33. I just don't see anything wrong with the lists, or sharing them.

I don't have a problem with Delta banning somebody for life that is seriously disruptive.

When Delta does that, they are actually saying they would rather not have that person's money, than to ever deal with them again. Businesses would rather never have to say that.

What Delta would like to have happen, is for no one to be disruptive. (The less people that are banned, the more money they make) But, they realize that if they are the only ones banning people like that, that it might not be that big a deterrent for people that might be inclined to be assholes on the plane. So, they are asking other carriers (their competitors) to share their lists of banned people.

Maybe if folks know that if they are banned from one airline, then they are done flying..forever..they might have a little more self control.

"We" , as in the government of the people, and by the people already ban people from flying with no due process. It's called the 'No Fly List'.

[localroger]

39. So if you're in seat 37C, and the asshole is in 36C

...and the flight attendant texts in row 37 instead of 36 you're fine with being banned for life without any review or appeal? Because that's what happens when this kind of thing becomes entrenched. It usually takes 10-20 years for the legislature to force them to get fucking real and fix it, like it did with union organizing suppression and credit reporting.

[Captain Stern]

42. C'mon man..is that how Delta makes their lists now?

Somebody just texts in a seat number? I think not. And, I don't think you actually believe it works that way either.

People are put on these lists for actual reasons. They actually get their names. There are incident reports filed. In a lot of cases, the person is physically removed from the plane, and they know they aren't welcome to fly Delta any more.

However, if you're on the Federal 'no fly' list, you might find out that you're on the list until you try to board your flight.

[localroger]

44. That's always how it starts, but it's never how it ends. History. /nt

[Arazi]

20. Nope. They've proven they can't be trusted

No way should they be given another chance to potentially get violent 30,000 miles in the air when nobody can get off and no law enforcement can be called to help.

No fucking way

[LiberalFighter]

12. The Trump family should be automatic on the list.

There may be a point where they can't maintain their own jet and would have to use commercial flights.

[monkeyman1]

14. a complete list & data base for all air lines to use & run on every booking ! period !

[Hekate]

15. Go for it

[madville]

26. Can someone change their name and evade the list?

Just curious how they verify folks on it. I don't recall airlines collecting social security numbers from passengers.

[localroger]

45. This is part of the problem. The way the list is maintained is totally opaque.

In a less opaque example, my real life name is Roger Williams, which happens to be one of the most common names among English speaking people, and some fucking moron at DHS decided "last name, first name" was an appropriate index for the list of bad guys needing extra security screening. So back when I was flying a lot about once a year I'd get singled out when trying to re-enter the US and even though I have a passport, driver's license, and TWIC card spend an hour or two watching some poor schmuck trying to tick the check box so I could get through customs. Nearly missed two flights because of that nonsense. And this is a list that actually is maintained by the government, not unaccountable private entities.

So no, no universal no-fly lists maintained by the airlines themselves. That is a thing that is even worse than the asswipe who is acting out three seats down, and I've seen it personally from both directions.

[GoodRaisin]

31. Absolutely.

Keep the knuckleheads off the planes.

[struggle4progress]

34. ... (FAA) ... has .. received over 4,385 reports of unruly passengers in the past year

and proceeded with 162 enforcement cases. Approximately 3,199 of the reports dealt with passengers not complying with federal mask mandates ...

https://www.newsweek.com/unruly-passenger-allegedly-fought-flight-attendant-attempted-storm-cockpit-plane-1632509

[cstanleytech]

35. Honestly I would oppose letting the airlines create such lists. Now if the federal government wants

to expand its current no fly list and add such people to as well as the usual method of appealing a persons name being added that is one thing but airlines themselves or any service being allowed to create any such list that prevents people from traveling should not be allowed.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

36. Yes, absolutely.

I was an airline ticket agent at National Airport in Washington, DC from January 1969 to August, 1979. Afterwards I'd tell people that the job was even harder than childbirth.

It was bad enough back then, and I suspect it is many orders of magnitude worse now. Back then we could count on flying around the world for free, in no small part because flights were rarely full. Now, flights are almost always booked full, which means that non-revs (non revenue passengers as we employees were because we essentially paid nothing for our flights)simply cannot get on board a flight.

I can't imagine.

I had the immense good fortune to work in what was probably the very best decade for non revving. In ten years, there were exactly two times I did not get on the first flight I wanted. I also almost always flew first class, which of course spoiled me immensely. So nowadays, between the awfulness of the passengers, and not being able to travel, I'm somewhat surprised the airlines have not had a huge loss of employees.

[Sgent]

40. There are probably some antitrust issues

but they can most likely be worked around. I would however want to limit it to passengers who caused a flight disruption, were arrested, or were fined by the FAA.

[DBoon]

46. This is NOT like the terrorist no-fly list

You would not get on this list for visiting certain countries

You would not get on this list because you have a foreign sounding name, or a name like a known terrorist

You would not get on this list for reading the wrong books, joining the wrong political organization, working for the wrong employer or having relatives in a foreign country that is not liked

You would not get on this list for joining a church with a suspicious name

You would only get on this list for disrupting the operations of a flying metal cylinder going hundreds of miles an hour at tens of thousands of feet above the ground, with hundreds of people inside it who could die if the plane is not flown properly.

You would only get on this list for potentially endangering the lives of hundreds of other passengers and by doing so in full public view of those passengers.

In short, you would only get on this list because you want to get on this list, because you deliberately created a deadly hazard in full public view.