It actually blew my mind when I heard that you could assault someone on a plane and not be instantly banned
If you punch a person on the street, you get charged. Same if you punch a flight attendant on a plane.
You might even go to jail in both cases. But what you don't get in the first case is to be put on a blacklist that prevents you from using some services. If you punch a person in a supermarket, you are not banned from supermarkets.
What you advocate for reminds of proscription lists in ancient Rome or the social credit system of the CCP.
If you punch a person in a supermarket, authorities can be summoned to take you away. If you do that on a plane, that can't be done. Planes are safe because things are heavily regulated and expected to go according to an extremely strict plan. Any aberration increases the risk of a catastrophic event.
Banning a person from ever flying again is not the same thing at all.
(Though I can imagine some libertarians reply "well, just take your own plane..." :-)
If you drive drunk and are caught, you can lose your license, which technically, means you can never drive yourself again.
I haven't audited all 50 states, but at least in all the states I've lived in, there is no way to permanently lose your license from any number of DUIs. The license suspensions (and jail time) go up for each DUI someone gets, but they're always able to get their license back at some point.
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!
Uh, I dunno. We definitely banned disruptive people from our supermarket. And we’d happily let other supermarkets nearby know that Mr. X was an asshole that should be treated with extreme caution (and vice versa).
I don’t see why the government needs to get involved with this though. Airlines are perfectly capable of making and sharing such a list themselves.
In the US, airlines are common carriers - which involves certain obligations like published pricing and non-discrimination - but that still allows them the right to refuse carriage on reasonable grounds. You can argue what "reasonable grounds" means, but "criminal history of violent or disruptive behavior onboard an aircraft" seems like it's probably going to suffice.
Clearly the system has not been abused too much if you are not even aware this is how it already works.
Yes, in an ideal world this wouldn't be needed because you could trust the police to handle such cases adequately, but they don't. Hence, where justice fails, you see alternative systems prop up (also see #metoo, cancel culture).
Why are aircrafts so special that they need such special rules about banning people who commit a minor crime one time? Remember these crimes are minor crimes. Yet people are honestly thinking the correct level of response for an assualt is the inability to use an entire industry.
Of course Airlines want the power to banish people from the industry and give their hosts and hostesses power that people will be afraid of them and just comply with everything and anything. These people already have a lot of power in the fact not complying is a crime.
But to be fair, this is coming from a country where there freedoms are so limited it's a crime to cross the street in the wrong area.
Because unlike on the street, you can't pull out a gun and defend yourself.
Secondly, you're sealed into a tube with 100 other passengers, over the Atlantic ocean on a 14 hour flight. One passenger who cannot control themselves, decides they're going to punch a flight attendant. Now what? You can't just call the police (like you can on the street).
So now, people who are not the police, have to "detain" this individual to keep them from hurting others. 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.
So how and why people continue to compare punching someone on the street with punching someone on an airplane, is beyond me. While they're both technically assault, that's where the comparison ends.
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.
And howd you know that? wait for them to punch others too? or wait for Johny's friend to return the deed?
Well doesnt matter to me. Anyone who resorted to violence while on a flight should be detained, even if the assaulter assault that_guy_iain for being a dick
So you're for tying people up incase they do something? Anyways, having seen people get slapped and punched quite a few times. It's an issue between them.
> or wait for Johny's friend to return the deed?
You tying the attacker up will not prevent Johnny's friend from attacking him, in fact you're making it easier. In fact, you're escalating the situation over all. In many cases, you can tell the attacker to sit down over there and victim to sit over there. If they're attacking flight crew, this has been a situation that has been esclating for a while so they're just gonna tape them up as is their job.
> Well doesnt matter to me. Anyone who resorted to violence while on a flight should be detained, even if the assaulter assault that_guy_iain for being a dick
That's fair enough, but that is not what the topic at hand is. The topic at hand is, whether or not as part of their punishment by the government that they should never be allowed on a flight ever again?
Edit: Wait, the original title does have “convicted” in it. Guess it’s the submitter optimizing for outrage.
It think the risk is in transparency. If I piss off an airline employee in some way and they decide to punish me in this way with no recourse it's a problem.
I hope so but I wouldn't hold my breath. I remember initially the "enhanced" security pat down was "random" which meant they'd pull aside only brown people. Guess what if it is truly random then grandma on a wheel chair should also be subject to the same "enhanced" pat down. Then they did "enhanced" security pat down on grandmas on wheel chairs but I don't see the public demanding (at least not successfully) the removal.
The whole thing is an opaque mess and includes many false positives. I certainly don't feel any safer flying with the list in place than I would otherwise. To me it seems like another example of post 9/11 security theatre.
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?
Also Let’s not forget stadiums ban people for heckling, booing, or other extreme conduct. You’ll get kicked out of a movie theater for disruptive behavior, etc. The punitive actions shouldn’t be too foreign.
Also, take away a person's license for life if they assault someone while driving!
If they're rude in a restaurant/grocery store/etc., just ban them from society forever!
Make one mistake, and you're fucked for life!
Especially considering nobody has the same first and last name as some other person and government, security and low wage slaves at airlines are never ever make mistakes.
To the glorious days of flying without disturbances!
How about identifying people by their citizenship ID? I’m fairly certain it was made exactly to avoid naming issues.
In the US?
Ha.
Ha.
Ha.
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?
Not so much on the plane. Also, you do realise that streets can't crash and kill everyone who was walking on them?