MIflyer12 wrote:

DaCubbyBearBar wrote:

Does SWA have a No Fly list? If yes, how about a lifetime ban? Just inches away from the mouth are your eyes.... thankfully they were damaged

I don't understand the popularity of flight bans in this forum. Airlines aren't law enforcement agencies. Carriers aren't offering due process rights. The industry does receive a lot of financial support from city and federal government, even before covid, and so can reasonably be considered common carriers - they need to carry anyone who buys a ticket.

I'm hoping the perp gets eighteen months for assault, not a flight ban.

This line of thinking is exactly why society is headed in the direction it’s going. Never hold the person who commits the act of violence/crime fully accountable, a slap on the wrist and call it a day. What a joke.

In the meantime in Europe I can't even fly 100 miles without the obligation of a negative covid test plus many days in quarantine. Why would you physically attack a crew member? Why don't you appreciate the fact that you can still travel through the air?

MDC862 wrote:

What is it that the airline employees say, that this all started ramping up with the "stimi-money people?"

Because it’s true.....

kalvado wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

There is a difference between a ban as a result of the legal process in a court of law and an at-will ban by the airline people advocate, where a passenger may - or may not - even have a chance to defend themselves.
DHS tried something similar and was heavily criticized. The airline will just be sued out of existence after a few screwups - and rightly so.

Any private business (like WN) has the right to refuse service to any customer for their actions as long as it is not based on bias against a federally protected class of people. Good luck winning cases like these.

Bans imposed after a passenger was convicted in common court may be defensible. Without that... good luck.
It will boil down to "common carrier" status, "reasonable" ban - and by the time ACLU brings the case to SCOTUS airline would have enough negative publicity to just collapse under its own weight.

At the end of the day, an airline is still a non-government owned company. As long as their behavior isn't discriminatory, they can ban whomever they want. No different than bars that ban patrons who get into fights, retail stores that ban people who shoplift, restaurants that ban patrons for doing the dine-and-dash, stadiums that ban fans for throwing things during sporting events, etc.

Revelation wrote:

"Seething at home" IMO comes from the blame culture that most media sources of all political ilks push to gain ratings and thus advertising revenue. The rest IMO largely comes from bad parenting. A person should lose this kind of attitude early in life, never mind still have it on full display at age 28.

Totally agree; even now, I see parents watching passively while one of their brats screams, throws things in public, breaks things, and its, '' oh, they're ok, just a bit upset.'' And the parent gives them whatever it is they want. Riiight. What they need is a good, old fashioned paddling. And now, you see these 28 year old (2 year olds) acting out again. But we've got this thing, oh corporal punishment is awful, you can't do that to a child!!! What nonsense. Yes, you can, and you should. It's part of development, growing up, respecting parental authority. Plus, doing the right things later in life. And the phrase, ''just you wait until your father (or mother) gets home!!'' should again strike concern in little misbehaving hearts.

Boeing757100 wrote:

You know how air marshals are equipped with guns with hollow-point bullets? Why not give those to flight attendants as well? As Montgomery said in the article, misbehavior is reacing intolerable levels.

You have 570 posts in a year... I hope you aren't making those kinds of suggestions in other threads with regularity... No, I don't want my flight attendant armed to the teeth... No more than I want my local police department having military grade armoured vehicles. Arming everyone to the teeth isn't going to reverse any trends....

IADCA wrote:

Yes, let's give numerous weapons to people who don't have training to use them, no area to secure them, and are doing a thousand other things in-flight - as compared to an air marshal, who has one job. No potential for anything to go wrong here, especially when the levels of violence involved are hardly anything that would justify shooting someone, or quite likely shooting and missing in a pressurized tube.

Thank you for that!

slvrblt wrote:

Revelation wrote:

"Seething at home" IMO comes from the blame culture that most media sources of all political ilks push to gain ratings and thus advertising revenue. The rest IMO largely comes from bad parenting. A person should lose this kind of attitude early in life, never mind still have it on full display at age 28.

Totally agree; even now, I see parents watching passively while one of their brats screams, throws things in public, breaks things, and its, '' oh, they're ok, just a bit upset.'' And the parent gives them whatever it is they want. Riiight. What they need is a good, old fashioned paddling. And now, you see these 28 year old (2 year olds) acting out again. But we've got this thing, oh corporal punishment is awful, you can't do that to a child!!! What nonsense. Yes, you can, and you should. It's part of development, growing up, respecting parental authority. Plus, doing the right things later in life. And the phrase, ''just you wait until your father (or mother) gets home!!'' should again strike concern in little misbehaving hearts.

This made me think of Veruca Salt in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory lol
https://youtu.be/5wAlQf4WdiE

I had lunch with an ex-USN friend and the conversation came around to bad behavior. He had an enlisted troop in his squadron on a carrier. Guy was always argumentative and getting in trouble. Finally, sent to a brig staffed by the Marines. Came back about 60 days later, having “fallen” down the stairs a few times, remarkable change in attitude and performance after his brig time. Some people just have never been indoctrinated in good behavior and are hard cases. A few hits and time to think about life as it should be, they become great adults. We let people throw tantrums without painful consequences.

MIflyer12 wrote:

DaCubbyBearBar wrote:

Does SWA have a No Fly list? If yes, how about a lifetime ban? Just inches away from the mouth are your eyes.... thankfully they were damaged

I don't understand the popularity of flight bans in this forum. Airlines aren't law enforcement agencies. Carriers aren't offering due process rights. The industry does receive a lot of financial support from city and federal government, even before covid, and so can reasonably be considered common carriers - they need to carry anyone who buys a ticket.

I'm hoping the perp gets eighteen months for assault, not a flight ban.

It baffles me how many people don't understand the basic tenets of the Constitution.

You have no constitutional right to fly on an airplane, especially one owned by a private entity such as an airline. They have as much right to trespass someone and ban them from their property as you do with your home. You have no right to due process from a private entity.

Would love a demographic break down of these incidents.

kalvado wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

I don't understand the popularity of flight bans in this forum. Airlines aren't law enforcement agencies. Carriers aren't offering due process rights. The industry does receive a lot of financial support from city and federal government, even before covid, and so can reasonably be considered common carriers - they need to carry anyone who buys a ticket.

I'm hoping the perp gets eighteen months for assault, not a flight ban.

You have got to be kidding me. An employee of the airline (a business) was brutally assaulted by a customer. There should be no option for attacker to fly ever again. No different from any other business having a no-trespass against someone. Should get a fine, jail time, and the ban.

There is a difference between a ban as a result of the legal process in a court of law and an at-will ban by the airline people advocate, where a passenger may - or may not - even have a chance to defend themselves.
DHS tried something similar and was heavily criticized. The airline will just be sued out of existence after a few screwups - and rightly so.

Nonsense.

They can ban you because they don't like the color of your eyes or how you walk down the jetway. As long as they're not discriminating against you as a protected class, they can do whatever the hell they want - it's their property. You have no constitutional right to patronize a private business.

KCaviator wrote:

Would love a demographic break down of these incidents.

Care to share why and what difference it would make?

bpat777 wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

Would love a demographic break down of these incidents.

Care to share why and what difference it would make?

Because statistics are always beneficial for long-term solutions.

KCaviator wrote:

bpat777 wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

Would love a demographic break down of these incidents.

Care to share why and what difference it would make?

Because statistics are always beneficial for long-term solutions.

Agreed, it's good to know the ones that actually need to know are already on it.

MIflyer12 wrote:

DaCubbyBearBar wrote:

Does SWA have a No Fly list? If yes, how about a lifetime ban? Just inches away from the mouth are your eyes.... thankfully they were damaged

I don't understand the popularity of flight bans in this forum. Airlines aren't law enforcement agencies. Carriers aren't offering due process rights. The industry does receive a lot of financial support from city and federal government, even before covid, and so can reasonably be considered common carriers - they need to carry anyone who buys a ticket.

I'm hoping the perp gets eighteen months for assault, not a flight ban.

Well many state universities and colleges are funded by govt. money, does that mean anyone who applied needs to be accepted? It's the same logic as airlines should carry anyone who purchase a ticket.

Yea say that to UCLA "I failed in HS and punched my teacher, because you are run in govt. money so you need to accept me".. good luck on that.

IMHO it’s a big symptom of how much this pandemic has affected people way beyond the physical effects of this ghastly pandemic. I do believe there is something to this “rage virus” mentioned in the first couple of posts. to excuse the actions of these reprehensible people that have caused so much trouble of course.

it's not just the pandemic. Behavior has been going south in a bad way for the last four years.

Banning is popular because the rest of us have no use for unruly passenger in a close metal tube. Now can ban be permanent from all carriers? What if this person need to fly to a hospital for surgery, or take care of his sick mother?

Anywhoo, I get the sense that the FAA bestow responsibility and power to the fly crew since there is no higher authority while airborne. Is similar to a cop giving you an order.

Fryers are coming back in droves, can't wait to leave the cells, high lodging$, high car rental$, no thanks, I will stick to my local free parks.

TWA302 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

DaCubbyBearBar wrote:

Does SWA have a No Fly list? If yes, how about a lifetime ban? Just inches away from the mouth are your eyes.... thankfully they were damaged

I don't understand the popularity of flight bans in this forum. Airlines aren't law enforcement agencies. Carriers aren't offering due process rights. The industry does receive a lot of financial support from city and federal government, even before covid, and so can reasonably be considered common carriers - they need to carry anyone who buys a ticket.

I'm hoping the perp gets eighteen months for assault, not a flight ban.

You have got to be kidding me. An employee of the airline (a business) was brutally assaulted by a customer. There should be no option for attacker to fly ever again. No different from any other business having a no-trespass against someone. Should get a fine, jail time, and the ban.

Alternatively fix an electric chair in each plane where customers with a history of misbehaviour are fixated. Of course there can't be extrajudicial killings. Just low voltage reminders when such people raise their voice. That should also motivate others to behave themselves.

bigb wrote:

You have a lot of folks flying who have never fly flying today....

I'm pretty sure all of us had a first flight when they could finally afford to fly. I don't think any of us assaulted the FA

I'm not sure it has gotten worse. It could also be that more cases get documented (mobile phone cameras) and reported.
In 2004 I witnessed an old guy pawing the behind of a FA (notably with his wife sitting next to him). All consequences he had to endure was the co-pilot giving him a lecture on good behaviour and his wife being more embarassed than himself. He walked off the plane without getting arrested.

av8tiongeek wrote:

BAINY3 wrote:

Maybe this is a dumb question, but how does it work on an airline with open seating to identify an unruly passenger? How would Southwest know which name on the manifest is causing issues? Would they have to basically involve airport police upon arrival? I imagine this is an easier task on airlines with seat assignments.

A question that should have been resolved post 9/11. Technology is most likely the reason they haven't assigned seats. Let's hope that changes soon.

While I personally wish WN had assigned seating there is no question that boarding is faster with their open seating. I tend to fly a mix of AA and WN and it is very noticeable.

stl07 wrote:

bigb wrote:

You have a lot of folks flying who have never fly flying today....

I'm pretty sure all of us had a first flight when they could finally afford to fly. I don't think any of us assaulted the FA

All these years I thought I missed out on the rite of passage of assaulting an FA on my first flight!

I really hope that flight attendant files a civil suit and takes Quinonez to the cleaners.

MartijnNL wrote:

In the meantime in Europe I can't even fly 100 miles without the obligation of a negative covid test plus many days in quarantine. Why would you physically attack a crew member? Why don't you appreciate the fact that you can still travel through the air?

So she could get free quarantine?

Sokes wrote:

Alternatively fix an electric chair in each plane where customers with a history of misbehaviour are fixated. Of course there can't be extrajudicial killings. Just low voltage reminders when such people raise their voice. That should also motivate others to behave themselves.

i guess you think you're clever? so burden airlines with vetting every passenger on the manifest... and then empower them to administer punishment.....

everyone thinks stuff like this is a cute joke, until someone thinks its a good idea.

when I was young...in the 70s... we had Ollie Hoots (a cartoon owl) telling us in large cities throughout the US to give a hoot and don't pollute... it stuck... it was a concerted effort to try to encourage us to behave better.... i think our generation (GenXers) is sensitive about littering....

i see no national focus of trying curb bad behavior... or to encourage good behavior... we glorifiy it through television shows... we make excuses for it (oh it's isolation from the pandemic)... we insist on abdicating parental authority/responsibility to teachers...



I get that young people are angry.... but this has to be curtailed... this kind of behavior is embarrising and shaming entire communities.... Harsh Rules Yes.... But if we can start to think in terms of prevention instead of punishment.... perhaps I'm just to nieve and hopeful.

this stuff is just heartbreaking.

KCaviator wrote:

Would love a demographic break down of these incidents.

Such a breakdown would include no surprises. None at all.

MIflyer12 wrote:

DaCubbyBearBar wrote:

Does SWA have a No Fly list? If yes, how about a lifetime ban? Just inches away from the mouth are your eyes.... thankfully they were damaged

I don't understand the popularity of flight bans in this forum. Airlines aren't law enforcement agencies. Carriers aren't offering due process rights. The industry does receive a lot of financial support from city and federal government, even before covid, and so can reasonably be considered common carriers - they need to carry anyone who buys a ticket.

I'm hoping the perp gets eighteen months for assault, not a flight ban.

Remember that Southwest is a private company, so the assault happened on private ground: any private company can (and should) refuse entry to an individual that committed a crime on their property.
If the company does not do that, the assaulted employee can claim the company is not doing what it needs to do to protect said employee physical integrity and could be held liable if the assailant commits a crime again.

kalvado wrote:

Polot wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Bans imposed after a passenger was convicted in common court may be defensible. Without that... good luck.
It will boil down to "common carrier" status, "reasonable" ban - and by the time ACLU brings the case to SCOTUS airline would have enough negative publicity to just collapse under its own weight.

As stated, as long as it’s not for legally discriminatory reasons (eg against a protected class) it’s allowed.

The ACLU wouldn’t take up the case, and I’m not sure why you think the court of public opinion would take the side of someone accused (and probably convicted by time of trial) of punching a FA on board an aircraft. If it was a grandma banned because they were calling the airline with questions too much and the airline got annoyed maybe. But nobody cares if someone who assaulted someone else on board a plane is banned.

I am specifically saying that court conviction is changing things big time. Accused and not prosecuted is a way weaker position. Cleared in court is even weaker.
In this particular case, we're talking about felony charges already filed.

Can you show us the law that says that a private company has an obligation to provide service to everyone? Remember the signs "we have the right to refuse service", "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and the like?

KCaviator wrote:

bpat777 wrote:

KCaviator wrote:

Would love a demographic break down of these incidents.

Care to share why and what difference it would make?

Because statistics are always beneficial for long-term solutions.

No, that's because you have a (most likely racial) bias and you want to prove a point; just express that point loudly, be proud of your convictions.

kalvado wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

kalvado wrote:

I am specifically saying that court conviction is changing things big time. Accused and not prosecuted is a way weaker position. Cleared in court is even weaker.
In this particular case, we're talking about felony charges already filed.

Can you show us the law that says that a private company has an obligation to provide service to everyone? Remember the signs "we have the right to refuse service", "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and the like?

Are we talking about "no shirt" or ban by person? Airlines are common carriers, that sets them to a group different from restaurants.
Common carrier has a duty of acceptance - and may refuse service in a few situations, most applicable is the case of danger to crew or vessel. Claiming danger is accusing someone of a crime to be committed in future... Good luck holding to that statement in court.

Certainly there have been other passengers banned from flying by airlines for this sort of behavior, no? I don't recall hearing about any court cases challenging the airlines right to ban. Does anyone have any information?

mileduets wrote:

I'm not sure it has gotten worse. It could also be that more cases get documented (mobile phone cameras) and reported.
In 2004 I witnessed an old guy pawing the behind of a FA (notably with his wife sitting next to him). All consequences he had to endure was the co-pilot giving him a lecture on good behaviour and his wife being more embarassed than himself. He walked off the plane without getting arrested.

It is interesting that I have not seen any video of this. Half of the airplane passengers probably had their phones out.

kalvado wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

kalvado wrote:

I am specifically saying that court conviction is changing things big time. Accused and not prosecuted is a way weaker position. Cleared in court is even weaker.
In this particular case, we're talking about felony charges already filed.

Can you show us the law that says that a private company has an obligation to provide service to everyone? Remember the signs "we have the right to refuse service", "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and the like?

Are we talking about "no shirt" or ban by person? Airlines are common carriers, that sets them to a group different from restaurants.
Common carrier has a duty of acceptance - and may refuse service in a few situations, most applicable is the case of danger to crew or vessel. Claiming danger is accusing someone of a crime to be committed in future... Good luck holding to that statement in court.

A common carrier is a private or public entity that transports goods or people for a fee.[...]
A common carrier, unlike a private carrier, must provide its service to anyone willing to pay its fee, unless it has grounds for refusal.

Assaulting an employee would be ground for refusal.

kalvado wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Are we talking about "no shirt" or ban by person? Airlines are common carriers, that sets them to a group different from restaurants.
Common carrier has a duty of acceptance - and may refuse service in a few situations, most applicable is the case of danger to crew or vessel. Claiming danger is accusing someone of a crime to be committed in future... Good luck holding to that statement in court.

A common carrier is a private or public entity that transports goods or people for a fee.[...]
A common carrier, unlike a private carrier, must provide its service to anyone willing to pay its fee, unless it has grounds for refusal.

Assaulting an employee would be ground for refusal.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I don't think Southwest, as a private company, has any obligation to see if this person is acquitted or convicted. Their employees busted out teeth and facial laserations, along with many eye witnesses are all they need to make their decision about allowing this person to fly on them or not.

The person should be given due process of law. If guilty, then penal sanction. But the lifetime ban should be without question on all airlines. This behavior needs to have consequences.

laser1180 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

DaCubbyBearBar wrote:

Does SWA have a No Fly list? If yes, how about a lifetime ban? Just inches away from the mouth are your eyes.... thankfully they were damaged

I don't understand the popularity of flight bans in this forum. Airlines aren't law enforcement agencies. Carriers aren't offering due process rights. The industry does receive a lot of financial support from city and federal government, even before covid, and so can reasonably be considered common carriers - they need to carry anyone who buys a ticket.

I'm hoping the perp gets eighteen months for assault, not a flight ban.

Well many state universities and colleges are funded by govt. money, does that mean anyone who applied needs to be accepted? It's the same logic as airlines should carry anyone who purchase a ticket.

Yea say that to UCLA "I failed in HS and punched my teacher, because you are run in govt. money so you need to accept me".. good luck on that.

Nobody with an ounce of reasoning ability would make that argument. Not being able to discriminate is not the same as having to accept all.

kalvado wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Are we talking about "no shirt" or ban by person? Airlines are common carriers, that sets them to a group different from restaurants.
Common carrier has a duty of acceptance - and may refuse service in a few situations, most applicable is the case of danger to crew or vessel. Claiming danger is accusing someone of a crime to be committed in future... Good luck holding to that statement in court.

A common carrier is a private or public entity that transports goods or people for a fee.[...]
A common carrier, unlike a private carrier, must provide its service to anyone willing to pay its fee, unless it has grounds for refusal.

Assaulting an employee would be ground for refusal.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

You're conflating two things. There is due process for the law to determine if the incident warrants an assault conviction. As far as Southwest is concerned, they have a passenger conduct policy, and if in their view she violated it, that's it. There is zero connection to the criminal proceeding. Just like I can kick you out of a restaurant if you come without a shirt - provided I have a sign posted that says 'shoes and shirt required for service'.

Here is a video of what happened-
https://www.cbs8.com/mobile/article/new ... 0ea42fe515

I agree, though there's been an enormous spike this year. Thus, I think it's mainly pandemic fatigue, since the majority of the reported incidents thus far this year relate to a refusal to wear masks.[/quote]


Do we have any evidence or proof that there is an increase in law-breaking passengers on airline flights? Or maybe it's just being more widely reported by the main-stream media outlets? I'd like to know. Thanks

USTraveler wrote:

Do we have any evidence or proof that there is an increase in law-breaking passengers on airline flights? Or maybe it's just being more widely reported by the main-stream media outlets? I'd like to know. Thanks

Yes, based on the FAA's tracking, the levels of bad behavior are unprecedented. 1000% increase over a typical year, and then some.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_WEKo4uuTU

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fa ... r-n1266156

The Federal Aviation Administration is warning air travelers about what it describes as a dramatic increase in unruly or dangerous behavior aboard passenger airplanes.

In a typical year, the transportation agency sees 100 to 150 formal cases of bad passenger behavior. But since the start of this year, the agency said, the number of reported cases has jumped to 1,300, an even more remarkable number since the number of passengers remains below pre-pandemic levels.

cynlb wrote:

Here is a video of what happened-
https://www.cbs8.com/mobile/article/new ... 0ea42fe515

Interesting video. It takes the discussion in a whole different direction.

Absolutely disgusted it escalated to this point. Was recently on a flight where a drugged out idiot got up during the taxi to the runway to use the bathroom. They had to stop the plane until he came back to his seat. The flight attendants warned him several times after we took off about his mask. He was belligerent and gave the finger to the FA. Before landing I went back and talked to them and offered assistance if they needed it. I wanted them to know they weren't in this alone, and that I wouldn't hesitate to get physical if he attempted to assault one of them. They were grateful and asked me to keep an eye on him (I was unfortunately sitting behind him.) Anyways, we land and as we were leaving the runway, this jerk unbuckles, opens the overhead bin, and attempts to grab his bag! I did tell him sternly to sit down and put his seatbelt on, and he complied. When we parked at the gate, he jumped up, grabbed his bag and sprinted to the front of the plane, pushing people to the side so he could be the first off.

Police did meet the plane and he was cuffed. Not sure if they had anything to arrest him for, but I am sure they did search him and hopefully found whatever drug he was on.

I fly alot lately, and it saddens me to see what these flight crews are dealing with. So many disrespectful passengers. It really is a $hit show at 35,000 feet these days. Kudos to the men and women that do that job!

Aaron747 wrote:

USTraveler wrote:

I agree, though there's been an enormous spike this year. Thus, I think it's mainly pandemic fatigue, since the majority of the reported incidents thus far this year relate to a refusal to wear masks.

Do we have any evidence or proof that there is an increase in law-breaking passengers on airline flights? Or maybe it's just being more widely reported by the main-stream media outlets? I'd like to know. Thanks

Yes, based on the FAA's tracking, the levels of bad behavior are unprecedented. 1000% increase over a typical year, and then some.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_WEKo4uuTU

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fa ... r-n1266156

The Federal Aviation Administration is warning air travelers about what it describes as a dramatic increase in unruly or dangerous behavior aboard passenger airplanes.

In a typical year, the transportation agency sees 100 to 150 formal cases of bad passenger behavior. But since the start of this year, the agency said, the number of reported cases has jumped to 1,300, an even more remarkable number since the number of passengers remains below pre-pandemic levels.[/quote]


Thanks for your response; it's amazing that this has become a pandemic in itself in the airline world...

WayexTDI wrote:

kalvado wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

Can you show us the law that says that a private company has an obligation to provide service to everyone? Remember the signs "we have the right to refuse service", "no shirt, no shoes, no service" and the like?

Are we talking about "no shirt" or ban by person? Airlines are common carriers, that sets them to a group different from restaurants.
Common carrier has a duty of acceptance - and may refuse service in a few situations, most applicable is the case of danger to crew or vessel. Claiming danger is accusing someone of a crime to be committed in future... Good luck holding to that statement in court.

A common carrier is a private or public entity that transports goods or people for a fee.[...]
A common carrier, unlike a private carrier, must provide its service to anyone willing to pay its fee, unless it has grounds for refusal.

Assaulting an employee would be ground for refusal.

At that time, mobile phones were required to be turned off. I don't think that flight modes were built in yet, probably not. Filming on board is quite a recent thing and I'm quite sure this also lead to an increase of such reported incidents.

The new video does bring a new angle to this. Still, I'm reminded of the old adage of "two wrongs don't make a right". Punching a FA is obviously an absolute no-no and I'm glad the passenger has been charged with a felony.

kalvado wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Are we talking about "no shirt" or ban by person? Airlines are common carriers, that sets them to a group different from restaurants.
Common carrier has a duty of acceptance - and may refuse service in a few situations, most applicable is the case of danger to crew or vessel. Claiming danger is accusing someone of a crime to be committed in future... Good luck holding to that statement in court.

A common carrier is a private or public entity that transports goods or people for a fee.[...]
A common carrier, unlike a private carrier, must provide its service to anyone willing to pay its fee, unless it has grounds for refusal.

Assaulting an employee would be ground for refusal.

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

And if that same passenger assault another FA, then Southwest can be on the hook for not ensuring a safe work place for their employees. So, err on the side of caution and ban the perp until cleared by court of law.