Jump to content

No Fly List For Those That Disrupt Commercial Flight --Common Sense move!


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/594428-senate-republicans-urge-doj-to-reject-request-for-no-fly-list-for

Quote

 

Eight Republican senators are urging the Justice Department to reject a request to create a “no fly” list for unruly passengers, saying it “would seemingly equate them to terrorists.” 

In a letter dated Monday and addressed to Attorney General Merrick Garland, the senators pointed to data from the Federal Aviation Administration that found most violations are related to a refusal to wear a face mask as required by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and said there was “significant uncertainty around the efficacy of this mandate.” 

“Creating a federal ‘no-fly’ list for unruly passengers who are skeptical of this mandate would seemingly equate them to terrorists who seek to actively take the lives of Americans and perpetrate attacks on the homeland,” the senators wrote. “The TSA was created in the wake of 9/11 to protect Americans from future horrific attacks, not to regulate human behavior onboard flights.”

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I have to say I agree with this. While I hate the mask mandate and think it’s way overdue to expire ( it will be gone by April I believe) this is a good idea. You do not start s**t on an airplane. Crews have enough to deal with and far too many disregard their fellow passengers.Passenger behavior has declined over the years.  I feel many people I see on planes these days don’t know how to act in flight and shouldn’t be there anyway. Throw the book at em. 

Edited by Boatdrinks
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, sherpa said:

Bad idea.

Here's a little inside information.

Airlines have their own internal  "no fly" lists.

They are called revenue protection lists and are populated by known bad actors and certified frauds.

No need to go beyond that.

No sure I understand your point. Are you saying there is no problem because airline have already taken care of it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tiberius said:

No sure I understand your point. Are you saying there is no problem because airline have already taken care of it? 


I didn’t understand it either and you bring up a good point. Yes the airlines are controlled by the federal government but I feel it should be up to the airline who they choose who to serve or not serve. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No sure I understand your point. Are you saying there is no problem because airline have already taken care of it? 

 

Not saying that at all.

 

Recent passenger behavior resulting in schedule interruptions is an issue, but most of it is covid related.

The issue is handled by processes already in place, ie., removal and in more egregious instances, prosecution.

We don't need a national policy to have some centralized list of folks who do stupid things, probably only once.

Each airline can decide for itself, as they already do.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, sherpa said:

 

Not saying that at all.

 

Recent passenger behavior resulting in schedule interruptions is an issue, but most of it is covid related.

The issue is handled by processes already in place, ie., removal and in more egregious instances, prosecution.

We don't need a national policy to have some centralized list of folks who do stupid things, probably only once.

Each airline can decide for itself, as they already do.

 


I agree. To permanently ban someone from flying for doing something stupid (usually alcohol fueled) is beyond draconian. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, sherpa said:

 

Not saying that at all.

 

Recent passenger behavior resulting in schedule interruptions is an issue, but most of it is covid related.

The issue is handled by processes already in place, ie., removal and in more egregious instances, prosecution.

We don't need a national policy to have some centralized list of folks who do stupid things, probably only once.

Each airline can decide for itself, as they already do.

 

So a list exists? Already? That’s what you are saying. The airlines share this info with each other

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So a list exists? Already? That’s what you are saying. The airlines share this info with each other

Why do you continue to suggest what people are saying without reading what they said?

I said what I said and nothing more.

I am not familiar with each airline, but I know that the one I worked for has a revenue protection list that prohibits reservations from proven offenders.

I doubt that it is shared, nor should it be.

If some offense rises to the level of criminal complaint, each airline can determine how it wants to deal with it.

Edited by sherpa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, sherpa said:

Why do you continue to suggest what people are saying without reading what they said?

I said what I said and nothing more.

I am not familiar with each airline, but I know that the one I worked for has a revenue protection list that prohibits reservations from proven offenders.

I doubt that it is shared, nor should it be.

If some offense rises to the level of criminal complaint, each airline can determine how it wants to deal with it.

Thanks for the clarification, no need to get exercised.

 

From the article: “If the airlines seek to have such a list created, they would be best served presenting that request before Congress rather than relying on a loose interpretation of a decades-old statute originally written to combat terrorism," the senators wrote.

 

 

And no, this is literally the air lines trying to create this. So obviously a  non complaint trouble maker could cause chaos on one flight after another. No way! 

 

 

So I simply disagree with you. People not wearing masks on a closed airplane during a pandemic and then causing troubled about it at 30,000 feet should be proscribed 

1 hour ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Seems to me every airline should be able to do whatever they want. Follow my rules or I’m kicking off my planes forever. They can choose to up charge them for forgiveness and share lists with the others. Why does the fed need to be involved? 

The airlines are asking the feds for help to do what you agree they should be able to do, what’s the problem? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Thanks for the clarification, no need to get exercised.

And no, this is literally the air lines trying to create this. So obviously a  non complaint trouble maker could cause chaos on one flight after another. No way! 

 

 

So I simply disagree with you. People not wearing masks on a closed airplane during a pandemic and then causing troubled about it at 30,000 feet should be proscribed 

The airlines are asking the feds for help to do what you agree they should be able to do, what’s the problem? 

 

I am not interested, let alone "exercised."

Delta did this.

It's not "the airlines," per your claim.

Frankly, it is idiotic to restrict people from ever flying because of some mask issue, and would tie up countless, non productive hours and expense of litigation.

It's simply crazy.

No fly lists exist for serious issues. No problem there.

 

Honestly, based on what you post here, and the the evidence of your depth of understanding of things, I would restrict you from sitting in an emergency exit isle.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

Thanks for the clarification, no need to get exercised.

 

From the article: “If the airlines seek to have such a list created, they would be best served presenting that request before Congress rather than relying on a loose interpretation of a decades-old statute originally written to combat terrorism," the senators wrote.

 

 

And no, this is literally the air lines trying to create this. So obviously a  non complaint trouble maker could cause chaos on one flight after another. No way! 

 

 

So I simply disagree with you. People not wearing masks on a closed airplane during a pandemic and then causing troubled about it at 30,000 feet should be proscribed 

The airlines are asking the feds for help to do what you agree they should be able to do, what’s the problem? 


Simple- I don’t want politicians having the control over who may and may not fly on airplanes in cases of airline policy violations. That’s authoritarian and an eventual $30 million dollar department of no fly list management waste of my tax dollars that Washington keeps stealing. 
 

I’m happy for airlines to be given the legal right to enforce their own no fly lists as non discriminatory and for airlines to choose to exchange those lists with other airlines as they wish. 
 

and where do you want to take this? Should felons be allowed to fly? They clearly lacked respect for authority. 
 

Tibs you yourself have violated rule of this chat board at some point I’m sure. How does Washington know you won’t bring that unruly discord on a plane? 
 

Edited by Over 29 years of fanhood
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, sherpa said:

 

I am not interested, let alone "exercised."

Delta did this.

It's not "the airlines," per your claim.

Frankly, it is idiotic to restrict people from ever flying because of some mask issue, and would tie up countless, non productive hours and expense of litigation.

It's simply crazy.

No fly lists exist for serious issues. No problem there.

 

Honestly, based on what you post here, and the the evidence of your depth of understanding of things, I would restrict you from sitting in an emergency exit isle.

Lol, boy, you are so exercised. 

 

And, ya, it is the airlines. Not to be mean, but you do not seem very bright 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not exercised at all.

I really don't care.

 

Not very bright?

Thirty-two years in that industry. Twenty seven as a captain, ten of those as a check airman, certifying other captains and first officers on the 757, 767 and 777 around the world for our company.

 

Ya. I really care how a guy on a message board who proposed sending " two US squadrons of fighters/interceptors," to the Ukraine is judging my "brightness."

 

  • Haha (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

Not exercised at all.

I really don't care.

 

Not very bright?

Thirty-two years in that industry. Twenty seven as a captain, ten of those as a check airman, certifying other captains and first officers on the 757, 767 and 777 around the world for our company.

 

Ya. I really care how a guy on a message board who proposed sending " two US squadrons of fighters/interceptors," to the Ukraine is judging my "brightness."

 

 

Yeah but do you know how much starch goes in the Captain's uniform? Huh....HUH..... HUH??

Well Tibs does so there!! 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...