Lawmakers have introduced “The Protection From Abusive Passengers Act,” which proponents says will help protect flight crews and passengers from dangerous passengers by placing them on a new no-fly list and prohibiting them from participating in certain government travel programs.
The Protection From Abusive Passengers Act Is Latest Attempt To Ban Unruly Passengers
The bipartisan legislation would create a new no-fly list administered by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) that would prohibit passengers convicted of violence onboard one airline from traveling on others.
U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D – Rhode Island) explained the impetus behind the bill:
“We’re here today to stand up for the 99.99999 percent of travelers who’ve had enough of bad behavior. There should be zero tolerance for violence aboard an airplane. This bill will help reduce incidents of in-flight violence and hold unruly passengers accountable if they break the law.”
You can read the bill here and will notice there are no details on several concerns, including:
- what lands you on the list?
- how to seek redress if you feel you were incorrectly placed on the list?
- how long do you remain on the list?
Instead, the TSA Administrator is tasked with coming up with the specifics of the policy, posting it on the TSA website for public comment, and then implementing it.
But those details matters and represent why many, including myself, are concerned about such punitive legislation.
Few people disagree that convicted offenders should not face consequences. But ensuring that there is a rapid grievance process for those who contend they were improperly placed upon the list is vital. It is those sorts of details that left some innocent passengers to languish for years on a secretive federal terrorist no-fly list. The same civil liberties violations cannot and should not be allowed de facto, by an appeals process which is woefully unable to handle caseload in an expeditious matter.
This is my primary concern about any new bill which means well but may bring more harm than help.
CONCLUSION
Congress has introduced bipartisan legislation that seeks to create a new no-fly list to prohibit violent or unruly passengers from U.S. airlines. While a laudable goal to promote the greatest good for the greatest number, the devil will be in the details. Violence preceded the mask mandate and will continue once the mask mandate is lifted. Even so, the elimination of the federal mask mandate should also promote the goal of less violence in the air. Any new list must have a clear and rapid appeals mechanism to ensure that no one is placed on the list in an arbitrary or capricious matter.
Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) is proof we can’t trust the TSA to get this right. We all should have serious concerns about this, regardless of political affiliation. Plenty of “good” government ideas that most agree with get poorly executed.
Amen
In general I think this is a great idea. However, as we have seen with the redress system it can often create problems for innocent people whose names get somehow thrown into the pile.
I have a German friend in Munich who is an established business person and travels frequently to the U.S. He somehow landed on a no fly terrorist watch list some years back! It took him months and multiple meetings to get it rectified and he still has to enter a redress number every time he flies to the U.S.
So, as great as it sounds. Be prepared for thousands of people thrown onto this list that will then have to spend countless days trying to prove it was a mistake. I am not saying don’t do it. But I am saying expect it to be messy.
So to deal with .01% of the people they will create a new list that will likely unfairly impact more than .01% in the name of protecting 99.99% of people. There was a time when I wouldn’t worry about it because the gov’t never actually does anything, but in 2022 it seems highly likely this will just get rushed through and everyone with pat themselves on the back for saving us all. No wonder I hate the government.
We already have laws that protect from this behavior, why not just actually use those to do something about these people…instead of a slap on the wrist.
The issues raised are important and a big part of why I oppose this list, but even assuming that the government handled the list perfectly (which they wouldn’t) why is no one addressing the fact that we generally don’t inflict perpetual punishment in this country. If you get drunk and cause a scene in a restaurant, you will get arrested, but not barred from dining out forever. Even drunk drivers can generally get their license back after some period of time. By all means, if someone is combative in flight they should be arrested and charged, but should a single incident, perhaps made worse through mental illness, lead to lifelong punishment?
Absolutely. When someone is acting out at a restaurant, you can call the cops. When someone is getting belligerent in flight, 35k feet above the ground, there are no cops to call. Crews should not have to be subjected to adults who cannot sit down, behave peacefully and civilly, simply relax for the flight, and keep their radical right wing nonsense to themselves. It is that easy. Just sit down and behave like you aren’t a caveman, stop spitting, keep your hands to yourself, as well as the conspiracy theories.
Seems a bit complicated, if someone misbehaves, why not just “show them the door” ?. At 30,00 feet the issue is solved there and then, and they will not cause any more problems !. No diversions, no delays, no calling the police upon arrival, no disruptions to other passengers………
There is a minor problem with the plane being pressurized …
It seems like any possible solution to anything gets shot down because it’s not perfect, IMHO “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” is almost always true.
You can find something wrong with anything. It just leads to inaction.
Counter point: The “doing something is better than doing nothing” strategy has led to countless government programs that spend tax dollars, fail to fix the problem, and create negative unintended consequences. This would almost certainly join that list.
So what are the possible alternatives for those that do not trust any government involvement? I guess just get rid of the TSA, no-fly lists, any flying restrictions, etc., and do nothing as you say?
The answer is to have fully debated, carefully drafted legislation rather than poorly thought-out, reactionary legislation (see also: Patriot Act). The TSA is a whole different discussion (Money spent: $200 billion, Terrorists caught: Zero) but the no-fly lists have been a disaster. This proposal is setting up an extrajudicial punishment system that is almost unquestionably going to harm innocent people all for the purpose of addressing a problem that hasn’t even been demonstrated to exist. I can’t find one single incident where someone caused a scene on an airplane, was charged and convicted, and then went on to cause a scene on another aircraft. That would seem to suggest that our current system of laws (which require compliance with crew) is working just fine. It is very clear that 95% of these incidents will go away when the mask mandate expires, further eroding the idea that we should hand the government another mechanism to take away people’s rights without due process or recourse.
“The answer is to have fully debated, carefully drafted legislation” …… um, sounds like the parable of the bell and the cat. Legislators acting like adults won’t happen in this country.
What we really need is a “protection from Sara Nelson and her flight attendant harpy minions act”
Oh look, it’s the disgruntled GS that’s upset that flight attendants won’t flirt with him or aesthetically appease him like it’s 1954. The world and its attitudes are changing, you should, too. You’re out of touch and have no idea what you’re talking about. Back up your comment so I can commence the dragging.
1) Flirt with a flight attendant? Ugh. I would just like to be treated decently.
2) I think you’ll find broad agreement among all American flyers that U.S. flight attendants are by far the worst in the world. That includes 3rd world airlines.
3) #2 is attributable to the union power Nelson and others exercise over our politicians, getting them to pass legislation that gives FAs authority to get passengers banned from travel for looking the wrong way.
I don’t support this because it’s unusual punishment. A single airline can refuse to do business with me if I have broken a law. However, after I have served my time & paid my debt to society, my right to fly on a different carrier. We can’t only like the constitution when it’s convenient & throw it out otherwise. People have rights.
I think it would be interesting to have a serious post on the “right of interstate travel” and if that’s really equates to a “right to fly”/ It may be correct that you have the “right of interstate travel”, but court rulings have said you don’t not have a “right” to the “most convenient” form of travel” (especially with domestic travel where there are definite choices).
If there truly was a “right to fly” would airlines be able to override that?
This may be like the freedom of speech, which is often misunderstood. The government/Congress can’t restrict my speech (with a few exceptions), but Matthew and Facebook certainly can.