Delta wants other airlines to share 'no-fly' lists of unruly passengers | Hacker News Reader

Delta wants other airlines to share 'no-fly' lists of unruly passengers

cnbc.com

23 pointsDocFeind22 comments

Delta is one of the better airlines but when you herd and shuffle people around like animals, they're bound to lash out like animals. Well no one wants to be trapped in an enclosed space with an unruly person and we act as if the only solution is banning people and potentially tossing them into an even smaller enclosed space that will reinforce their bad behavior.

Why would we continue to propose ideas to bolster no fly lists when they clearly haven't had the desired outcome of not having passengers become unruly. It's not preventing a problem. Instead airline companies or possibly the requirements of government regulations the need to make the airlines treat people like humans. Provide seats that accommodate people, provide legroom that accommodate people, provide personal space that accommodates people. Yes all of this cuts into profit margins but the sole pursuit of profit margins has not produced a better experience and has not produced a safer experience.

> Why would we continue to propose ideas to bolster no fly lists when they clearly haven't had the desired outcome of not having passengers become unruly.

Like prison, the idea is that the consequences are normally a sufficient deterrent. The fact that it isn't always sufficient is not a reason to remove those consequences. I do however believe in rehabilitation, and maybe a program that banned passengers needs to follow to be taken of the no-fly list could be a way out. But again, there's no silver bullet and someone will go through the program, won't learn anything and become a repeat offender.

Additionally there have been cases where the flight attendant or otherwise have abused their power and tossed people for whatever reason.

Off the top of my head some incidents I recall seeing in the news the last few years:

>Pilot tosses passenger for having a hat that says has curse words or are deemed “inappropriate”. There’s multiple examples.

>Boarded and seated passenger is forcibly deplaned because another employee wants to deadhead in his seat.

In general I avoid flying, partially because I’m tall. Partially because the entire experience from getting to the airport to the flight itself is just one experience where at any time you will hit someone that’s a bit power trippy and agitated.

I’ve turned down jobs due to travel requirements as a result. And don’t regret it.

>Boarded and seated passenger is forcibly deplaned because another employee wants to deadhead in his seat.

That’s a pretty gross mischaracterization. Deadheading crew members are simply doing as asked by their employer. That man wasn’t kicked off, and abused, because an employee “wanted” his seat. He was removed because the fine print of the agreement when you purchase a ticket allows airline management to make those types of choices. The deadheading crew members weren’t involved in any of the altercation if I remember correctly.

I’m not trying to argue it was right at all but it definitely was not the fault of a crew member.

Sorry. Wasnt trying to mischaracterize it as the fault of the deadhead in that case.

But to allow a passenger to board, take a seat (with an entire family) and then bump him, was an aggressive action because an employee of the airline made a mistake (generally you get bumped when you try and check in).

Additionally in that specific instance, the flight attendant that DID bump him (not the deadhead) refuse to up their offer to entice volunteers (carrot) and chose the stick after a single offer of some pittance (like $50-100 credit).

They immediately went to the stick and chose someone. At the first sign of pushback they called airport police and bludgeoned the man and dragged him from the plane. At no point was he the aggressor or agitator.

It was entirely an "oopsie we screwed up, but it sucks for you".

Agreement or not, thats not how you do business unless, and only unless, you basically have a monopoly on the situation. Which they do. And is exactly why the notion of such a "list" is a terrible idea.

Heres the specific incident I am referencing here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Express_Flight_3411_inc...

Are people still allowed to learn from mistakes these days?

if they got on jet blue's list for being an asshole sure... let them try someplace else. but if they attacked flight crew? ban them across the board, for life.... no reason to ever need to hit a flight attendant, and they shouldn't have to live in fear from an aggressive passenger...

I think you missed the larger context and idea here. Have you ever made a mistake, say a speeding ticket? What if you could not do that thing again for the rest of your life? Is a criminal once a criminal forever? Why do we let people out of prison?

Note, the vast majority of airline "unruliness" is verbal not physical

A criminal once is a criminal forever.

I don't agree with that idea, but that's effectively how things work, you might find exceptions to the rule, but once your reputation is tainted with a legal charge, it follows you forever within society.

So forgiveness is gone forever?

Hopefully not, but at the present moment everyone* in society is calling for blood over every little* thing.

*Not literally, but it feels that way/my perceived experience.

I agree, Joe Rogan closed a recent podcast with a great thought on this.

Paraphrasing, we are all Americans, we need to remember that though we have different views we have far more in common and we can only get better by coming together.

> Have you ever made a mistake, say a speeding ticket?

The vast majority of motorists have exceeded the posted speed limit intentionally or not. But only a small minority will get into a physical altercation with the police officer that's issuing a citation.

Hence the idea that most unruliness is verbal not physical.

Most airline incidents do not involve physical altercation, yet you could get banned from all airlines?

That would be like getting a traffic ticket and having your license revoked. Typically that happens with repeat infractions

Mistakes have consequences, doesn't mean you can't still learn from them.

I would be surprised to see even a single example of a person getting belligerent enough to a flight crew to get put on an airline's ban list, who then goes and does the exact same thing at another airline.

I would surmise that most people are going to be extremely regretful after the reality of the first incident sets in. And even those that somehow don't accept being in the wrong, are still going to realize that fighting another battle on a different plane isn't an effective path to their goal.

I'd say that making passenger bans more uniform is actually just another part of the trend of hyperreality that is causing hysteria in the first place.

One can just as easily flip this massive generalization: are people still supposed to face consequences these days?

They’re adults. They’re more than capable of knowing the consequences and acting accordingly. I’ve been on over 100 flights. I’ve never seen an incident in person. Most people behave. The children kicking the seats are common enough, let’s not encourage adult tantrums.

If Delta tells Southwest I was once an unruly passenger, how is that not defamation or some form of actionable harm to my reputation?q

I you were an unruly passenger, it can't be defamation because it isn't false.

Yeah, but for defamation the burden of proof is on delta.

I mean Delta can just tell Southwest "these are our banned passengers; do what you want with this information (but also give us your list)."

Also casinos in the US seem to do this without any defamation lawsuits so it probably would work.

So accusations without an opportunity to provide a defense of your character will be shared? I'm adding Delta to my no fly list.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com