Delta CEO wants U.S. to put unruly passengers on 'no-fly' list

Someone on HN many years ago recommended the book Learned Optimism saying that it changed their life. It did the same for me.

Having two drinks on the flight just means another 500cc of water, but yeah, skip rehydration after flying and you're going to have a bad time. Add booze, it will be a worse time.

It took me a moment to avoid the typical criticism of “think of the children”.

This is the real world. People drink. People do drugs. People do a lot of things.

In my opinion putting blinders on your kid is bad parenting.

I really don’t care what kids see me do. Keep the drinks coming for me!

If there are privacy issues then they could just share a list of hashes and if someone's legal name hashes to something on the list then you deny them.

1. People getting rowdy on planes recently is probably due to masking requirements

2. Airplanes have very efficient ventilation

3. Omicron is harmless to most people

4. Most people are vaccinated and protected against serious disease (Delta being the threat here, which has almost disappeared completely)

Simply remove the mask mandates and the problem will go away by itself (or at least return to normal).

That is why I requested being put on the list. I encourage others to do the same. Let Delta stew in it.

I don't think you'll find any objection towards punishing the latter in principle, but how do you propose we differentiate between "people suffering from mental illnesses pose no danger or annoyance to anyone but had a bad day and/or is experiencing a stressful event", and "violent / abusive / entitled / dangerous troublemakers"?

It seems to me you're not only okay with those actions, but want to expand punishment in a more systematic way for people who cannot control their actions and do not engage in violent behavior.

Perhaps I should have said "1) broken the law", as there are criminal laws & penalties along with civil ones. Whatever the penalty levelled against someone by the government it should stem from legal statute and constitutional due process. If I can go to court and state my case before a judge regarding a speeding ticket and minor fine, I should certainly be afforded that opportunity before I am banned from a major form of transportation all together.

Though, yeah, it feels like a bit of security theatre. A more transparent process would probably help. Maybe the thinking is that it would jeopardise sources?

I find it commendable that you are trying to protect me from unruly passengers on a flight. Do you also want to protect me from unruly people on the street, by locking those who can't be bothered to follow basic rules of civility out of public space for life, or are planes somehow special? I mean, if you just willy-nilly shoot a gun on the street, you'll be banned from the street for shorter than you'd be banned from flying for refusing to wear a mask on the plane. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

In the US?

Ha.

Ha.

Ha.

Banning a person from ever flying again is not the same thing at all.

In my area:

* First offense (failed sobriety test): 6 month ban

* Second offense: 12 month ban

Convictions are different: they draw bans of 1, 5, and 10 years. You need 4 convictions for a lifetime ban.

Most counts reset after N years.

Now compare this to the suggestions for an airline no-fly list. The permissiveness with which alcohol + driving is treated in the US boggles the mind, but I think it's clear from this a similar proposal for airlines would be very lenient.

That would probably give us more pleasure than you derive utility from your privilege to fly, depriving other people is always satisfying.

Oh your computer? Not a basic need either. Hand it over comrade, there are more socially useful purposes than posting on Hacker News!

Standard assault such getting punched is a minor crime. That is why people don't get jailed for it. It may not be enjoyable but it is a minor crime. Stating otherwise is simple a falsehood.

> So now, people who are not the police, have to "detain" this individual to keep them from hurting others.

This is some overly dramatic bullshit. Just because I punched Johnny because he was being a dick doesn't mean I'm punching anyone else. Simply people very rarely go on assault rampages. The fact you think they would shows out of touch you are.

> The plane has to divert to land so that the person can be handled by law enforcement. The 14 hour flight is now potentially 24-48 hours total, people have missed connecting flights, holidays, work meetings, etc.

Yes, and that why air rage is a much more serious crime than punching someone. We have courts and punishments for these things. Banning someone forever from being able to travel is absurd. Banning companies from providing services for someone because they found out their wife was sleeping with their best mate while in a plane is absurd.

Interesting, the state of emergency powers seem to be listed in https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=43.06.220 and https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.06.225, and the governor appears to be using fairly few of them. In fact, I don't think the Inslee is currently using any of the powers under section one of that statute. And even if he were, they certainly don't amount to the "ability to do just about anything", unless "anything" is prohibiting outdoor demonstrations.

And even those powers are subject to judicial oversight.

This is sort of already done with consumer credit agencies

I seem to recall that American, United, and Delta all use/implement Sabre in some form or another, and possibly shared a no-fly/ban list...but, my memory is a bit hazy on that.

I mean, if DHS or other TLAs flag a person as a threat, they should be able to do something about it... just not "you are on a list now because we say so" and no oversight or appeals process. This is not liberty or a free society. In a free society you don't have "national emergency" that spans multiple generations (20+yrs now) that allows overriding peoples rights and liberties.

The airlines should be allowed to refuse service so long as they are not coordinating a ban list, and even then.

A legal designation of a common carrier is a significant burden upon the freedoms of those supplying a transportation or information service - it is not a step that is taken lightly by Congress. And even that designation isn't all-or-nothing; common carriers can still refuse to provide services. For example, even the U.S. Mail can refuse to transport hazardous materials.

It's a mechanism that has already been tried elsewhere, it's not a new idea

It always fascinates me how people don't draw pause from how eagerly people seem to be to shluff people into the "non-person" bin in ideological discussion.

The Dr. refused a lawful (if highly fucking annoying) request, and then when they tried to force ably remove him, he started screaming. He was not "beaten" or "physically attacked".

What does that have to do with it? We all have important reasons we just absolutely have to be on that particular flight, but we're not entitled to be there.

I would have been incredibly annoyed had I been in his position... but I would have sucked it up and gotten off the plane, not acted like an entitled child, clinging to my seat. Should he have been hurt the way he was? No, of course not. But, c'mon, it's ridiculous to suggest that he wasn't in the wrong at all here. He was given a lawful order to vacate the plane, and refused. That's not "had done nothing wrong". Quite the opposite.

It’s not that simple. This was a crew being sent to operate another plane. If they can’t move the crew, that could potentially cancel several other flights, and affect hundreds of other passengers.

(Also: RIP you beautiful guitars and cellos unjustly sacrificed)

But a guitar you say I gotta check it at the gate

Well that isn't gonna happen get your hand off the case

Get your hand off the case less you wanna lose an arm

You are quoting an opinion letter to the Lancet, not peer reviewed research (see the "CORRESPONDENCE" in the top left corner). Passing opinions/letters off as peer reviewed research can legitimately be classified as "fake news"

The authors of the study that this letter referenced responded to the letter:

"Although our findings support Franco-Peredes’ conclusion that vaccination status should not replace social and physical public health mitigation practices, the above clarifications explain why our findings do not support his assertion that mandatory vaccination of health-care workers would not reduce nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmission."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

And.... what keeps on getting lost is airlines like Delta and United would never find the space to get this bad if future customers would vote with their dollars and simply choose not to purchase their product. Then change would happen.

https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/john-oliver-how-airlines-...

The plane returned to the gate, a security agent came on board, removed them (no force needed). Then we had to confirm their baggage was off the plane, get new paperwork, push back again, adjust takeoff slot, etc.

We wasted 40 minutes of time for the ~100 people on the plane. Some may have missed connecting flights.

While I don't think a lifetime ban from civil aviation is warranted, I think a significant fine and a temporary ban would be appropriate.

>Delta CEO wants U.S. to put convicted unruly passengers on 'no-fly' list

And the first paragraph says:

>Delta Air Lines (DAL.N) wants the U.S. government to place passengers convicted of on-board disruptions on a national "no-fly" list that would bar them from future travel on any commercial airline, according to a letter seen by Reuters.

Seems like the proposal involves courts.

[1] If you have really strong allergies for example for peanuts, you're obliged to inform the airline about it, and then the final decision on whether you fly or not belongs to plane captain. If they agree, it usually involves things like banning peanuts from the flight (no matter where bought), and keeping a steward(ess) with epipen close by for the whole of the flight. At least one person got banned from a low cost airline in Europe when they opened their airport-bought peanuts on such a flight (after multiple repeated announcements that it's disallowed). The air isn't cycled enough to prevent peanut dust from causing anaphylactic shock on the other side of an 737.

There is no way an unlisted video should be treated as a private video.

And it won't be the last time Google changes opt-out, that's for sure.

I'll take the CEO's word on this one:

>...Munoz issued an additional statement, apologizing and promising that such an incident would never again occur on a United aircraft.

Yes, the airlines reserve the right to not let you board due to their overbooking. In the case of the United passenger (and many others that came to light after this assault) the person had already boarded. At that point, the reasons for not transporting (Rule 21) are spelled out and they don't include reasons like ("we decided to use the seat for our employee" or "a gold member wants the seat"), etc.

The idea of involuntary bumping itself should probably be viewed as regulatory capture. We don't allow that in other industries. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of overbooking as it allows for more efficient use of planes. Whether that results in lower ticket prices or leads to more profit for the airline will actually vary, but it is ultimately immaterial - making more productive use of airplanes is good for everybody. The issue is involuntary bumping and people treating this as somehow acceptable. If the airlines screw up and have too many passengers for too few seats, it is up to them to solve the problem through voluntary means and not assault. Just about everyone has a price they would be willing to give up their seat and it will be different than the person next to them. If you are traveling on a last minute ticket to visit a family member in the hospital, you might not be willing to delay your travel for any amount of money. If you are traveling on a vacation, the amount might be relatively little. Also some passengers will value some things more than others - offering a year of platinum level membership might entice a business traveller, offering money might entice a college student, upgrades to first class might entice others, etc.

Is the only real option for the 8 figure club to buy a jet card/fractional for international private flight?

They just need bodies.

https://www.propublica.org/article/stebbins-alaska-cops-crim...

Everyone has been personally affected by the pandemic, had our health and freedoms threatened, been inconvenienced. Well, some people believe that unvaccinated, anti-mask people are responsible for that. We know that's not true. Unvaccinated antimask people create really one public health risk-- they are incapacitated by, and die from, coronavirus in higher proportions. They are the quintessential eggshell-skulls of our time. Rather than treating them with care and compassion like the vulnerable conscientious objectors they are, these people are treated with derision. I think that's because many people see membership on team 'flatten the curve' has some relationship to a wish to curtail the loss of freedom and threat to health. That's counterfactual, and the maths related to mask efficacy (or inefficacy) render it highly implausible. However, as with many things, those with the least understanding and reason tend to be the most certain and urgent in their views.

Maybe replacing "against chaos" with "against violence of individuals" might help to reduce that bias?

I’m assuming the captain believed the potential passenger would be disruptive (which he clearly was).

It looks like private security who were masquerading as police were physically removing a peaceful protester. That puts the blame on them for how it happened, but the airline was within its rights to refuse to fly the passenger who broke their contract.

A better option would have been for the captain to refuse to fly (claim a technical issue or out of hours) thus deplane the entire plane, and sue the passenger for the disruption as he breached the contract.

The entire flow was terrible - they should have deplaned the entire plane then reboarded, denying passengers boarding at that point - just like they would if it turned out the seats were dangerous for example. After the peaceful protest began they should have cancelled the flight. They went this way because of operational convenience (save 30 minutes), and thus risked a peaceful protest that they couldn’t handle without costing them even more (cancelling the flight). At that point they chose to ask private security to remove the protesters and that security failed to do so safely, and there’s the potential lawsuit (not that US police are much better at conflict resolution)

I don’t see any way that passenger was going to fly that day though, if the pilot decides he doesn’t want you on the plane, you’re not going anywhere, at best you can sue for breach of contract and then argue the contract terms that presumably restrict damages are unlawful, but that doesn’t happen on the plane.

Nobody defended the airline, and many said that they should've approached it differently. However, once the decision has been made, regardless of whether it was correct/fair/just, the situation has now changed to eviction and that is standard anywhere: ask first, then order, then use force. Air travel is more security sensitive and therefore more forceful, but that's all there is to it.

A civil issue with improper removal should be dealt with at the gate or other civil courts, not by refusing to move which only escalates into a much bigger federal security problem.

> "favor of the right for a corporation to expel anyone for any reason"

This is an incorrect assumption. Corporations do have some rights to refuse service for certain reasons. They can't do whatever they want, just like a private individual doesn't have the right to do whatever they want. Neither extreme is acceptable.

> "society means to be free from the violence imposed upon citizens by any authority, against the one to whom society means the enforcement of a set of rules protecting it against chaos"

These are not opposing views. Freedom doesn't exist without order, and order doesn't exist without rules, and rules don't exist without enforcement, and enforcement doesn't exist without violence.

Society is the collective agreement that your rights are my responsibility; you're free from violence until you break the rules, at which point authorities that are explicitly granted a monopoly on violence will use it to enforce the rules. Of course there are various factors and complexities involved, but the fundamentals are pretty straightforward.

If a change of weather results in weight and balance no longer be correct for safe flight, booting off passengers in order of "who loses first on oversold flight" is probably the least problematic way possible.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/27/travel/airlines-bumping-r...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/omribenshahar/2017/04/14/david-...

> Generally, no. If you have met the following conditions, airlines are not allowed to deny you permission to board, or remove you from the flight if you have already boarded the flight: You have checked-in for your flight before the check-in deadline set by the airlines; and

>A gate agent has accepted your paper boarding pass or electronically scanned your boarding pass and let you know that you may proceed to board. However, airlines may deny boarding or remove you from a flight even after accepting your boarding pass and informing you that you may proceed to board if the denial or removal is due to a safety, security, or health risk, or due to a behavior that is considered obscene, disruptive, or otherwise unlawful.

They can easily use safety under “weights and balances” as the reason.

But, would this passenger have acted any differently if they had to ask him to leave under one of the acceptable conditions? Based on his reasoning, I highly doubt it.

It’s not uncommon on the type of aircraft operated by Republic that after boarding, they need to vacate a few seats based on fuel requirements (changing weather). I’ve had times we taxi, then return to the gate to offload passengers because the wind changed directions. I’ve many times seen passengers get upset, but the system the airlines use to select passengers is fairly objective. Based on fare type, when you purchased, etc.

Also, from a legal perspective, once the airline asked him to leave, even if they broke the rules it’s still trespassing. If the airline asks me to leave, I’m not arguing. I leave and handle the situation with customer service. I’ve had this happen. And I’ve been “bumped” incorrectly before, and well compensated after.

Also… I agree with the airlines reasoning that they needed to move a crew. If they can’t position a crew, that’s 150 bumped passengers with a significant domino effect (potentially four or five doctors… that did the right thing and bought the appropriate fares) rather than just four.

And since they were, once he's asked to leave and doesn't he's now in the process of disrupting flight operations and interfering with a staff members duties by not leaving.

Very politely refusing to leave private property when asked to is very politely committing trespassing and that situation always escalates to involving the police.

Who, in the performance of their duties, should not use excessive force or cause physical injury but again - this is a separate matter to whether they have the authority to remove an uncooperative passenger, which as your link asserts repeatedly - they do.