6 ms·

What is with some of the responses in this thread! I understand some cases are not so clear, but if you do something as blatant as punch a flight attendant in t

• ipaddr 5y ago
  The no fly list was setup for a reason and using it to exclude others reduces the seriousness of the original list to the point where the public will demand it's removal.
  • pooper 5y ago
    > The no fly list was setup for a reason and using it to exclude others reduces the seriousness of the original list to the point where the public will demand it's removal. 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.
  • henriquez 5y ago
    What was so serious about the original no-fly list?
    • codechad 5y ago
    • tintor 5y ago
      9/11
    • deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  • AlexandrB 5y ago
    Good? 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.
    • FabHK 5y ago
      The problem is the asymmetry of costs of a false negative and a false positive. A false positive means some dude with an unlucky name has to drive instead of flying. A false negative means some terrorist gets on a plane, blows it up, and some politicians get blamed for it. 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?
• fareesh 5y ago
  Are all violent criminals on the No-Fly List?
  • AlexandrB 5y ago
    Do you mean people who abuse their spouse regularly or people who committed a robbery 30 years ago?
• jack_squat 5y ago
  The responses in this thread were unusually crazy/crass/rude before moderation apparently stepped in. I dunno if that was a glimpse of "unmoderated HN" or if this topic in particular draws out emotions.
• justsomehnguy 5y ago
  > I think that’s grounds to be put on such a list 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!
  • Aeolun 5y ago
    If you identify people by their first and last name you’ve already committed a huge mistake. How about identifying people by their citizenship ID? I’m fairly certain it was made exactly to avoid naming issues.
    • justsomehnguy 5y ago
      >citizenship ID In the US? Ha. Ha. Ha.
• marco_yolo 5y ago
  I don't think people are saying an airline shouldn't ban but questioning whether they should be put on a federal list managed by the US government. That's a slippery slope.
  • austincheney 5y ago
    Not for violent offenders.
    • chmod600 5y ago
      If they aren't actually convicted, then yes.
• throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Perhaps all convicted violent criminals should be placed on the no-fly list automatically.
• anonymouswacker 5y ago
  Exactly! 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!
• xyzzyz 5y ago
  If you assault someone on the street, should you be banned from being on all streets, indefinitely and on the whim of the owner of one of the streets, without any legal recourse?
  • bitcharmer 5y ago
    Reductio ad absurdum. This analogy couldn't be worse. People on the street have multiple ways to deal with your shitty behaviour, including distancing or removing themselves from the situation. Not so much on the plane. Also, you do realise that streets can't crash and kill everyone who was walking on them?
  • tigershark 5y ago
    It’s a slippery slope. If you risk the life of all the passengers with your behaviour because you can’t be bothered of following the basic rules of civility you should definitely be in a no-flight list. Following your nonsensical slippery slope, we already put behind bars people that are a danger to the fellow citizens, and in some cases, yes, you are banned indefinitely from all the streets. It’s called “death penalty” and Americans should know one or two things about it. If you ask me, putting someone on a no-fight list makes definitely more sense than killing someone.
    • xyzzyz 5y ago
      Yes, if you do something deserving death penalty, it makes sense to also be banned for life from flying. However, if you are alleged to risk life of people on the street because "you can't be bothered [to follow] the basic rules of civility", there is a complex and prolonged process to put you off the street, you have plenty of opportunity for recourse, and you'll unlikely to be taken off the street for life. On the other hand, when it comes to no-fly list, there is no due process and zero recourse. 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?
• oefrha 5y ago
  As always, title is optimized for outage (left out the crucial detail — “convicted”), and people don’t read beyond the title, so there you have it. Edit: Wait, the original title does have “convicted” in it. Guess it’s the submitter optimizing for outrage.
  • tsol 5y ago
    Isn't the original title supposed to be used? Hmm
• tigershark 5y ago
  [flagged]
  • askin4it 5y ago
• runamok 5y ago
  Pretty serious crime: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/interfering-with-a-flight-attendant-or-crewmember.htm https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/interfering-... Being put on a no-fly list is probably the least of your problems. 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.
  • AlexandrB 5y ago
    The whole thing exists outside the regular justice system. Even if the airline employee puts you in the list in good faith, the criteria they used to put you there would be somewhat arbitrary (define "unruly") and not weighed against any kind of precedent for similar infractions. Appeal is also difficult.
• conductr 5y ago
  There’s a lot of gray areas too. I recall a flight where the guy across the aisle from me simply could not sit in his seat. Before we even took off they had multiple conversations with him trying to get him in his seat. In the air, he would repeatedly get up and try to lay down to sleep in the aisle. Their talks with him and me being the nearest seat, had me on edge the whole time expecting I was going to have to break up a fight or dodge a rouge fist. I firmly believe this guy needed a probationary period on air travel. 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.
• DeusExMachina 5y ago
  What I don't get, instead, are the people who, like you, find a no fly-list acceptable. 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.
  • cromka 5y ago
    > If you punch a person in a supermarket, you are not banned from supermarkets. 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.
    • lkxijlewlf 5y ago
      You should be banned from that particular supermarket. But that's up to the owner.
      • he0001 5y ago
        AFAIK the pilots decides who are eligible to get on a flight or not. So I guess they can say that they don’t want to have people with a prior history on their plane. The pilots are responsible for the flights safety.
    • DeusExMachina 5y ago
      Your comparison does not work. You can be taken away from a supermarket in that instance. You can legally come back to the same supermarket in the future. And even if the owner decides you are not welcome in his store, you can go to any other store. Banning a person from ever flying again is not the same thing at all.
• that_guy_iain 5y ago
  So you punch someone in the street, should you be banned from walking on any street anywhere in the country? 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.
  • polski-g 5y ago
    > Why are aircrafts so special that they need such special rules about banning people who commit a minor crime one time? Because unlike on the street, you can't pull out a gun and defend yourself.
    • brazed_blotch 5y ago
      You can't do that on the streets of Europe either - I don't see a no-walk-on-public-pavements list though.
      • codechad 5y ago
  • tsol 5y ago
    A private plane and a public street are indeed very different. Not that I agree with a shared no fly list between all airlines, but if a single airline wants to ban you after an incident it's not that different than Walgreens banning you because you punched an employee
    • that_guy_iain 5y ago
• nonethewiser 5y ago
  You can be banned from flying. You dont have a right to fly... it's a contract between airlines and passengers. Airlines ban passengers as they see fit. They dont need the government to ban passengers. They "need" (want) the government to act in the best interests of the airlines.
• low_tech_love 5y ago
  Because it’s literally too good to be true. Anyone would love to believe such a list will work, but measures like these will invariably become more problem than they’re worth. I bet that guy who got dragged out of the airplane some time ago would be on that list very quick. It’s a great list until you find yourself in it because you lost your patience with an attendant for being double booked. “Please calm down sir”.