No-fly bill for unruly passengers

[poweRob]

I hope it passes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/04/06/no-fly-list-unruly-passengers-tsa/

​

Lawmakers introduced legislation Wednesday to create a “no-fly” list for unruly passengers, part of an effort to address the rise of violent incidents in airplanes.​

​

Under “The Protection From Abusive Passengers Act” unveiled by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), people convicted of assaulting crew members aboard an aircraft could be placed on a “no-fly” list that would be maintained by the Transportation Security Administration. Those individuals also could be barred from special programs that allow for expedited passenger screening, including TSA’s PreCheck program and Global Entry, which is managed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.​

 

[EdwinWillers]

This would be a bill I could get behind.

 

[Josie]

I hope it passes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/04/06/no-fly-list-unruly-passengers-tsa/

​

Lawmakers introduced legislation Wednesday to create a “no-fly” list for unruly passengers, part of an effort to address the rise of violent incidents in airplanes.​

​

Under “The Protection From Abusive Passengers Act” unveiled by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), people convicted of assaulting crew members aboard an aircraft could be placed on a “no-fly” list that would be maintained by the Transportation Security Administration. Those individuals also could be barred from special programs that allow for expedited passenger screening, including TSA’s PreCheck program and Global Entry, which is managed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.​

I support it.

 

[Chillfolks]

As long as it’s clearly defined wha behavior gets one on the list, they are informed of their placement on the list, and their is a clear way to challenge being placed on the list and be removed. I don’t really see any issue with this.

If it’s something that is kept secret under a national security umbrella and not open then I could see taking issues with that.

 

[EdwinWillers]

As long as it’s clearly defined wha behavior gets one on the list, they are informed of their placement on the list, and their is a clear way to challenge being placed on the list and be removed. I don’t really see any issue with this.

If it’s something that is kept secret under a national security umbrella and not open then I could see taking issues with that.

My first reaction as well - but then I read it would be those "convicted of assaulting crew members" and that dissolved that concern.

 

[Chillfolks]

My first reaction as well - but then I read it would be those "convicted of assaulting crew members" and that dissolved that concern.

If that is all then fine, however I am still skeptical as I suspect there are other behaviors that may cause one to be banned that are not listed in the press bulletin.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I hope it passes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/04/06/no-fly-list-unruly-passengers-tsa/

​

Lawmakers introduced legislation Wednesday to create a “no-fly” list for unruly passengers, part of an effort to address the rise of violent incidents in airplanes.​

​

Under “The Protection From Abusive Passengers Act” unveiled by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), people convicted of assaulting crew members aboard an aircraft could be placed on a “no-fly” list that would be maintained by the Transportation Security Administration. Those individuals also could be barred from special programs that allow for expedited passenger screening, including TSA’s PreCheck program and Global Entry, which is managed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.​

Cool. 👍

 

[EdwinWillers]

If that is all then fine, however I am still skeptical as I suspect there are other behaviors that may cause one to be banned that are not listed in the press bulletin.

Perhaps. But if the behavior is such that they can be convicted of assault - what "other behaviors" concern you that might not appropriately fit the description of "assault?"

P.S. not arguing, just trying to understand your concern.

 

[Chillfolks]

Perhaps. But if the behavior is such that they can be convicted of assault - what "other behaviors" concern you that might not appropriately fit the description of "assault?"

P.S. not arguing, just trying to understand your concern.

You accidentally brought to light one of my concerns. At first, and the article says, it was people convicted of assault and now it was easily slid down to someone who can be convicted may be placed on the list not actually already has and it would not surprise me if the wording is more along the lines of anyone who has been charged with no matter the odds of a conviction. As long as it’s a post conviction penalty it’s not an issue as due process has taken place. If it’s something you can get placed on without being convicted then that’s more of an issue. I am skeptical this will be a read my lips no new taxes or you can keep your doctor type of government bait and switch

 

[Patriotic Voter]

As long as it’s clearly defined wha behavior gets one on the list, they are informed of their placement on the list, and there is a clear way to challenge being placed on the list and be removed. I don’t really see any issue with this.

My hair stylist's sister is an American Airlines flight attendant. During one haircut, she told me about her sister dealing with a drunk passenger who refused to wear a mask. As long as there is a mask mandate, that idiot will be on the no-fly list, and he knows it.

Would you let a drunk man challenge such a decision?

 

[Chillfolks]

My hair stylist's sister is an American Airlines flight attendant. During one haircut, she told me about her sister dealing with a drunk passenger who refused to wear a mask. As long as there is a mask mandate, that idiot will be on the no-fly list, and he knows it.

Would you let a drunk man challenge such a decision?

I would say the behavior of the man needs to be listed as an offense he may be placed on the no fly list for. I would also say there needs to be a conviction before placing him on the list. I would not recommend showing up drunk to court but yes that person should have the ability to challenge the charges made against him.

 

[watsup]

Heck with the conviction. That takes way too long. Flying is a privilege, not a right. You become physically unduly ONCE, you lose your PRIVILEGE to fly. That’s the only way to stop it. An aircraft is a confined space with no way to escape any violence, so any fighting whatsoever means no more flying.

 

[MaryP]

Is it mostly wearing masks that is making people go berserk? I hate to see people lose their flight privileges forever over a temporary rule that will no doubt be gone in another year. Yes, they should be booted from flying, but for how long? When the mask restrictions come off, so should the no fly restriction. That doesn't apply if the issue was something other than masks.

 

[EnigmaO01]

Heck with the conviction. That takes way too long. Flying is a privilege, not a right. You become physically unduly ONCE, you lose your PRIVILEGE to fly. That’s the only way to stop it. An aircraft is a confined space with no way to escape any violence, so any fighting whatsoever means no more flying.

Agreed. The airlines should be able to kick off anyone that causes issues. Why does congress have to get into this?

 

[jcgriff2]

I hope it passes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/04/06/no-fly-list-unruly-passengers-tsa/

​

Lawmakers introduced legislation Wednesday to create a “no-fly” list for unruly passengers, part of an effort to address the rise of violent incidents in airplanes.​

​

Under “The Protection From Abusive Passengers Act” unveiled by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), people convicted of assaulting crew members aboard an aircraft could be placed on a “no-fly” list that would be maintained by the Transportation Security Administration. Those individuals also could be barred from special programs that allow for expedited passenger screening, including TSA’s PreCheck program and Global Entry, which is managed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.​

This was settled months ago by our idiot AG who said such passengers would be labeled as "Domestic Terrorists". Did Garland finally come to his senses?

I too hope it passes.

 

[SCrider]

As long as it’s clearly defined wha behavior gets one on the list, they are informed of their placement on the list, and their is a clear way to challenge being placed on the list and be removed. I don’t really see any issue with this.

If it’s something that is kept secret under a national security umbrella and not open then I could see taking issues with that.

Kept secret? I'm all in favor of public shaming of these people.

 

[SCrider]

Is it mostly wearing masks that is making people go berserk? I hate to see people lose their flight privileges forever over a temporary rule that will no doubt be gone in another year. Yes, they should be booted from flying, but for how long? When the mask restrictions come off, so should the no fly restriction. That doesn't apply if the issue was something other than masks.

if wearing a ****ing mask is enough to make them snap they are too unstable to be flying anytime.

 

[MaryP]

if wearing a ****ing mask is enough to make them snap they are too unstable to be flying anytime.

I agree it's totally ridiculous to go bananas over wearing a mask, but it has been a common affliction. If that's their only issue, I think they should get a second chance once the mask restriction is off.

 

[SCrider]

I agree it's totally ridiculous to go bananas over wearing a mask, but it has been a common affliction. If that's their only issue, I think they should get a second chance once the mask restriction is off.

I would guess 90% also have alcohol in there system while acting like assholes.

 

[MaryP]

I would guess 90% also have alcohol in there system while acting like assholes.

Then my reprieve is off the table. If you can't be a happy drunk, stay sober in the skies or take the bus.

 

[SCrider]

Then my reprieve is off the table. If you can't be a happy drunk, stay sober in the skies or take the bus.

yep,
Not sure why you would give them a pass because of the mask mandate though. I think they just think it's an excuse to act out, and they will get a pass because so many on the right are against masks. The fact is they are creating a very real danger to their fellow passengers.

 

[MaryP]

Months ago, I watched a video of people losing it in stores when they were told to put on a mask, and the reactions were hysterical. Way way over the top. Rants, laying prone on the floor, throwing everything from their cart all over the floor while screaming and swearing. Best laugh I had in ages. I doubt if they were drunk. People just went temporarily insane over wearing a mask. We are a country of fruitcakes.

 

[MamboDervish]

Is it mostly wearing masks that is making people go berserk? I hate to see people lose their flight privileges forever over a temporary rule that will no doubt be gone in another year. Yes, they should be booted from flying, but for how long? When the mask restrictions come off, so should the no fly restriction. That doesn't apply if the issue was something other than masks.

I don't agree. The passengers are told they must wear a mask before they board, which means that they are deliberately choosing to make a scene once they've boarded. If they were going to refuse to comply with the rules, they should have never boarded in the first place, and should be permanently banned from flying. Just as there are regulations regarding how your possessions are stowed in the plane, regulations regarding wearing your seat belt, regulations about not smoking, etc, the purchase of your ticket is a contract to obey whatever regulations that airline puts on you. If you don't like the rules, don't get on the plane. It should be exactly the same if a person decides they're going to smoke on the plane. Light up once, and spend the rest of your life taking alternate transportation.

Once it is understood by the raging public that those rules will be enforced, and the ban is lifelong, then the problem will stop.

 

[AGENT J]

I hope it passes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2022/04/06/no-fly-list-unruly-passengers-tsa/

​

Lawmakers introduced legislation Wednesday to create a “no-fly” list for unruly passengers, part of an effort to address the rise of violent incidents in airplanes.​

​

Under “The Protection From Abusive Passengers Act” unveiled by Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Reps. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), people convicted of assaulting crew members aboard an aircraft could be placed on a “no-fly” list that would be maintained by the Transportation Security Administration. Those individuals also could be barred from special programs that allow for expedited passenger screening, including TSA’s PreCheck program and Global Entry, which is managed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.​

GOOD, stop these nutters from endangering the rest of the country

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21579731/bill-text.pdf

 

[EnigmaO01]

I agree it's totally ridiculous to go bananas over wearing a mask, but it has been a common affliction. If that's their only issue, I think they should get a second chance once the mask restriction is off.

No second chance for assholes.