Adipocere wrote:

Why not deputize FA’s to full Federal Law Enforcement Officers? Railroads have their own LE officers, why not airlines?

Railroad's LE officers, are LE officers, nothing else. They are not conductors or engineers. They have the similar training as a municipal cop. They are not worried about making a Bloody Mary for the passenger 3C. A big difference.

trent768 wrote:

That sounds super weird. As if the cops asked us "a'ight, what do you guys wants us to do to the robbers? Come on now, don't be shy!".

I'm not an American so I don't really know how the system works. But for me it looks like that the government asked the big business to set up rules that will be eventually turned in to law. Which is weird and usually not a very good idea.

Isn't that kind of what happened with the 737MAX? The government (FAA) allowed Boeing to run the certification process?

The airlines and the Government shoulder a large part of the blame for why passenger incidents have skyrocketed in the past year and a half. This is coming from someone who works in the industry.

To blame alcohol doesn't make much sense considering that the majority of airport outlets that serve alcohol were closed last year (and even until this day).

jetmatt777 wrote:

floridaflyboy wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

Did you even read my post? I said a one-time authority issued to the FA by the airline in consultation with the airline and captain. Please do not put words in my mouth. A one-time authority issued by the company and captain to write a citation is a long ways from having a citation pad and unlimited authority to use it.

I.e. this guy in 12B is throwing a fit. Text the company, include a video if able. Company agrees behavior warrants a citation. FA is given authorization to write the ticket. Or company does not see a citation is necessary, and the authority is not granted.

Get off your high horse. Yeah, I read your post. Yeah, I disagree with it. Yeah, FAs tend to attract a number of people on a power trip who would abuse such a system. Yeah, it would create more problems than it would solve. Nough said. Thanks for the great dialogue. /sarcasm.

I think these scumbags deserve far more than they're getting. But I don't think that putting it in the hands of someone at the company is the right approach. Sorry if you do.

So what is your solution? I offered my suggestion which clearly you take great offense to.

Offense? Hardly. It would take a lot more than a suggestion as to handle degenerates to offend me.

In my professional opinion, it has to be handled by existing law enforcement. Deputizing airline employees won't do a thing except breed continued animosity toward airline employees.

Perhaps there needs to be a kumbaya moment between airlines and police forces around the country to make sure everyone is on the same page and that situations will be handled consistently regardless of state, airport, airline, etc.

Not sure that there's anything in particular that the airlines can do to satisfy the FAA's desire to know what they can "do to help."

kalvado wrote:

seratonin77 wrote:

trent768 wrote:

That sounds super weird. As if the cops asked us "a'ight, what do you guys wants us to do to the robbers? Come on now, don't be shy!".

I'm not an American so I don't really know how the system works. But for me it looks like that the government asked the big business to set up rules that will be eventually turned in to law. Which is weird and usually not a very good idea.

Isn't that kind of what happened with the 737MAX? The government (FAA) allowed Boeing to run the certification process?

Significantly different case.
Any industry has a lot of details which are not obvious for an outsider perspective - so input from inside is important in establishing workable regulations. There needs to be a balance between allowing industry to set the rules and enforcing realistic rules industry doesn't like.
In case of MAX, though, Boeing didn't establish bad rules - they just played outside of the rule field

Boeing worked together with the people that create the rules so that they can be re-written in their favor.

First, the airlines should offer at least 32 inches of leg room (like Southwest) so we are not crammed in like sardines. Second, there should be a universal dress code that includes shoes and socks, long pants, and shirts and blouses that cover up the torso. Maybe if people dress like they are going to visit their mother they won't act like morons. Third, fines posted at gate area for not following the instructions of the crew onboard an aircraft. And finally, no future passenger can watch the Jerry Springer show within 30 days of flying.

OzarkD9S wrote:

Universal no-fly lists and hefty fines. Get the riff raff out of the sky.

The first part is fine. But on the second, How would ULCC's stay in business?

capejet wrote:

First, the airlines should offer at least 32 inches of leg room (like Southwest) so we are not crammed in like sardines. Second, there should be a universal dress code that includes shoes and socks, long pants, and shirts and blouses that cover up the torso. Maybe if people dress like they are going to visit their mother they won't act like morons. Third, fines posted at gate area for not following the instructions of the crew onboard an aircraft. And finally, no future passenger can watch the Jerry Springer show within 30 days of flying.

Southwest seats seem a little higher off the floor giving more legroom. The seats on the MAX are the best.

Adipocere wrote:

Why not deputize FA’s to full Federal Law Enforcement Officers? Railroads have their own LE officers, why not airlines?

Flight attendants and crew are there to ensure passenger safety, not to be law enforcement officers. "Just put them through training and give them extra responsibilities" cannot be the solution to the problem. With an overall law enforcement problem that stems partially from low pay and poor training, we'd have a situation similar to city streets at 30k feet. This is in no way a slight to law enforcement or air crew, but you get what you pay for. And here in the U.S., we're paying for it.

Arrest on arrival if you violate a federal law. Let TSA take them at the gate. Increase training and pay for a group already granted broad security authority. Not that I feel better about their abilities, but at least they're on the ground. If guilty, fine and six month no-fly. Do it twice, lifetime ban.

capejet wrote:

First, the airlines should offer at least 32 inches of leg room (like Southwest) so we are not crammed in like sardines.

Over 60% of the WN fleet has a seat pitch of 31", not 32". 2012 Evolve on the 737-700s.

Want to point to the peer-reviewed study that shows agressive on-plane behavior is a function of coach seat pitch?

Have the violent and violating passengers scrub the plane's tires - with a toothbrush!

freakyrat wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

Universal no-fly lists and hefty fines. Get the riff raff out of the sky.

The first part is fine. But on the second, How would ULCC's stay in business?

Well they couldn't fly to MIA anymore.

I dont know how exactly jurisdiction works on an aircraft, but it seems like a good option might be for airlines to offer flight attendants the option of getting P.O.S.T.(Peace officer standards and training, i.e. law enforcement training) certified that way there wouldnt be a question of if they are properly trained to deal with unruly passengers and restrain if necessary midair

Flydude1063 wrote:

Allowing flight crews to carry tasers would be a step in the right direction.

As an airline pilot, I would agree and promote the use of it. Sadly, the use of it would bring other type a scrutiny. If my particular airline would back up the crews and stand behind the employees by having the police in the jetway when we arrive, press charges, the problem would be solved. Right now, the airline does not do the 3 things necessary to curb the problem.

Cheers

Since apparently some people pick and choose what they'd like to read, I'll say it again...

Debates about mask requirements do not belong in the aviation forums. They only drag the discussion off topic with politically charged rhetoric. That discussion belongs in Non Av. Warnings and bans will be issued.

✈️ atcsundevil

IFlyVeryLittle wrote:

Shadow ban them. If they refuse to mask up, take note of their seat, their identity and add them to the no fly list with no warning. Immediately. If they have a return flight booked, sorry. They won't be able to check in. Maybe they get a refund, maybe not. They'll learn the hard way. That will de-escalate the onboard problems, and the ne'er do wells get theirs.

I would be in favor of this. Whether or not they want to wear a mask is not relevant. If they chose not to wear a mask, they can chose another mode of transporation.

I see the FAA's point. The airline employees are the ones on the frontline, not the FAA.

I mean, a lot of airlines have suspended all on-board liquor sales which makes them tons of money. That's a big step, I think.

capejet wrote:

First, the airlines should offer at least 32 inches of leg room (like Southwest) so we are not crammed in like sardines. Second, there should be a universal dress code that includes shoes and socks, long pants, and shirts and blouses that cover up the torso. Maybe if people dress like they are going to visit their mother they won't act like morons. Third, fines posted at gate area for not following the instructions of the crew onboard an aircraft. And finally, no future passenger can watch the Jerry Springer show within 30 days of flying.

Airlines are private companies, and only ONE way to get somewhere. If you don't like less than 32 inches of legroom, don't fly airlines with less than 32 inches of legroom. If your mindset is "I want the cheapest ticket possible", then comfort is NOT your concern, sorry. It is price. Well, you can't always have both. Feel free to drive, take a train, charter an uber, rent a car, etc if the airlines in your price range seem miserable to you. Everyone acts like the airlines are one entity, no they aren't, so as long as all safety and contract of carriage parameters are met, they are free to operate as they please. If people really cared, I mean REALLY cared, they'd stop flying them and the ULCC airlines would go out of business. Or, you know, utilize the extra legroom products most of them offer, the upgrade is there if you want it...but seeing as I've bought Spirit tickets on routes like MSP-LAS a few days out on mostly full flights and Big Front Seat was only a $60 upgrade and no one was in that cabin (this is the case often I find on my Spirit flights), then I guess people don't put their money where their mouth is. Having a cheap domestic first class seat just about as spacious as you'd get on a mainline carrier minus the service, and all still for much less than mainline prices for basic economy type fares in most cases, is more than reasonable.

Me, personally, I will not fly on Frontier, Allegiant or Spirit coach (Big Front Seat is fine) on flights over 2 hours unless I absolutely have to. That's a choice. I don't think it should be illegal for them to do 6+ hour flights to South America just because I wouldn't do it.

floridaflyboy wrote:

In my professional opinion, it has to be handled by existing law enforcement. Deputizing airline employees won't do a thing except breed continued animosity toward airline employees.

Perhaps there needs to be a kumbaya moment between airlines and police forces around the country to make sure everyone is on the same page and that situations will be handled consistently regardless of state, airport, airline, etc.

This is very sensible, get the FAs out of the confrontations and bring in people trained for a high conflict environment.

A consistent, safer approach should be discussed.

Lightsaber

Late edit, the shadow ban isn't a bad idea. Word will get around.

Chasensfo wrote:

I mean, a lot of airlines have suspended all on-board liquor sales which makes them tons of money. That's a big step, I think.

PURELY IMO a big misstep, since I've not seen, at least, any evidence it curbed anything - and ignores that a lot of people who get tipsy probably get their boozing in before flight, OR sneak in their liquor to serve themselves illegally.

travelsonic wrote:

Chasensfo wrote:

I mean, a lot of airlines have suspended all on-board liquor sales which makes them tons of money. That's a big step, I think.

PURELY IMO a big misstep, since I've not seen, at least, any evidence it curbed anything - and ignores that a lot of people who get tipsy probably get their boozing in before flight, OR sneak in their liquor to serve themselves illegally.

I agree with your logic, but I think that what you said is the whole point. People already are boarding in no shape to fly, the airlines don't want to make it worse.

I agree that alcohol served in the airport is likely far more to blame than booze served on the flight. To that end, one must wonder when alcohol sales in the terminal will come under scrutiny. I know that the airlines have already pressured airport authorities to roll back pandemic-era exceptions where people were allowed to do carry out drinks (this happened at CVG among other places).

Banning alcohol sales in the airport completely is a non-starter. Way too much revenue at stake and the airlines don’t have that much leverage, and I can’t see the FAA going there.

Perhaps a compromise, such as capping drinks sold at two per person, could work. The vast majority of pax wouldn’t have an issue with that and likely aren’t the ones having in-flight meltdowns.

IFlyVeryLittle wrote:

Shadow ban them. If they refuse to mask up, take note of their seat, their identity and add them to the no fly list with no warning. Immediately. If they have a return flight booked, sorry. They won't be able to check in. Maybe they get a refund, maybe not. They'll learn the hard way. That will de-escalate the onboard problems, and the ne'er do wells get theirs.

Uhm, whats the point in that? If they don't know what they did, they're just going to rage against the airline for no reason.

There is some point to just removing the confrontation from a situation where they would be receiving the message in person from an airline employee. In that case an email/text message/automated phone call sent four hours after their flight lands would meet the requirement.

Unfortunately, this isn’t an airline issue. It’s a societal issue. I’ve now personally observed a fight in the parking lot of target, and at an NFL game last weekend. We’ve become a society so divided that I honestly do not know what the answers are anymore. I just keep thinking of the statement “United we stand, divided we fall.”

Delays, diversions, small seats were around prior to COVID, and we didn’t have this level of violence. The airlines cannot fix societal issues.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Corrections invited, but it seems there are some broken jurisdiction problems. I suspect local law enforcement really does not want to spend money dealing with violent passengers who will be flying off to another state or country three days later. Airline law enforcement likely needs to be federalized, with enforcement and courts specifically dealing only with aviation related issues. A 'no fly' order should be able to applied to all airlines.

The biggest issue is that most local law enforcement simply doesn't want to deal with it so they play the "not my jurisdiction" game if it happened on board the aircraft. If a passenger consumes their own alcohol on board and fails to follow FA instructions - that is a federal violation and most local law enforcement agents will not arrest as they claim they have no jurisdiction. Even times where suspects are led away in cuffs, they end up being released landside and never charged which does nothing to stop the behavior.

Airlines have stepped up their no-fly lists but at some point that becomes a non-deterrent to passengers as they view it as a "so what" since there are multiple large network airlines.

IFlyVeryLittle wrote:

Shadow ban them. If they refuse to mask up, take note of their seat, their identity and add them to the no fly list with no warning. Immediately. If they have a return flight booked, sorry. They won't be able to check in. Maybe they get a refund, maybe not. They'll learn the hard way. That will de-escalate the onboard problems, and the ne'er do wells get theirs.

This would just cause more violence at the gate and ticket counter when they go to check-in. I would say 60-70% of the serious/violent confrontations between passengers and staff have actually occurred at the gate, not onboard the aircraft so you're going to end up "solving" the small issue and making the bigger issue worse.

In this age of instant YouTube combined with the firestorm-like spreading in this nation of both the actors and the viewers proudly wearing their false victimhood and lack of personal accountability on their sleeves as they down the "oppressors" in the court of public opinion, the time for any serious enforcement of laws on both the aircraft and on the ground is largely in the past.

More than anything I think it's the sense of entitlement, and nowhere on this planet have I ever encountered more people feeling more entitled than in the US. Which correlates perfectly with the fact the vast, nee, overwhelming majority of air rage incidents take place in the US.

So the solution is to teach everyone that they're not special, that they can't do and become whatever they want, that the collective good far outweighs the desires of the individual and that the only thing they're entitled to is to be good, polite and productive citizens.

Good luck with that!

Chasensfo wrote:

I mean, a lot of airlines have suspended all on-board liquor sales which makes them tons of money. That's a big step, I think.

capejet wrote:

First, the airlines should offer at least 32 inches of leg room (like Southwest) so we are not crammed in like sardines. Second, there should be a universal dress code that includes shoes and socks, long pants, and shirts and blouses that cover up the torso. Maybe if people dress like they are going to visit their mother they won't act like morons. Third, fines posted at gate area for not following the instructions of the crew onboard an aircraft. And finally, no future passenger can watch the Jerry Springer show within 30 days of flying.

Airlines are private companies, and only ONE way to get somewhere. If you don't like less than 32 inches of legroom, don't fly airlines with less than 32 inches of legroom. If your mindset is "I want the cheapest ticket possible", then comfort is NOT your concern, sorry. It is price. Well, you can't always have both. Feel free to drive, take a train, charter an uber, rent a car, etc if the airlines in your price range seem miserable to you. Everyone acts like the airlines are one entity, no they aren't, so as long as all safety and contract of carriage parameters are met, they are free to operate as they please. If people really cared, I mean REALLY cared, they'd stop flying them and the ULCC airlines would go out of business. Or, you know, utilize the extra legroom products most of them offer, the upgrade is there if you want it...but seeing as I've bought Spirit tickets on routes like MSP-LAS a few days out on mostly full flights and Big Front Seat was only a $60 upgrade and no one was in that cabin (this is the case often I find on my Spirit flights), then I guess people don't put their money where their mouth is. Having a cheap domestic first class seat just about as spacious as you'd get on a mainline carrier minus the service, and all still for much less than mainline prices for basic economy type fares in most cases, is more than reasonable.

Me, personally, I will not fly on Frontier, Allegiant or Spirit coach (Big Front Seat is fine) on flights over 2 hours unless I absolutely have to. That's a choice. I don't think it should be illegal for them to do 6+ hour flights to South America just because I wouldn't do it.

I believe one of the root causes for the violence is the fact that airlines keep taking things away from passengers.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

There has been an unprecedented surge in violent and disorderly passenger reports this year, fueled largely – but not entirely – by mask violations as frustrations mount over continued regulations aimed at curbing COVID-19 on commercial flights.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/fa ... -incidents

I really don't understand why people are dancing around the issue by blaming seat pitch (unchanged since 2019), alcohol sales (less available than in 2019), or crowds (fewer people flying than in 2019).

The glaringly obvious change in the flying experience which has accompanied the rise in violent/disorderly passenger conduct has been the imposition of mask requirements that are deeply unpopular with some passengers -- and expecting airline employees to take on an additional role as the mask police. This is a problem which has been created by government policy and the government needs to solve it.

ScottB wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

There has been an unprecedented surge in violent and disorderly passenger reports this year, fueled largely – but not entirely – by mask violations as frustrations mount over continued regulations aimed at curbing COVID-19 on commercial flights.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/fa ... -incidents

I really don't understand why people are dancing around the issue by blaming seat pitch (unchanged since 2019), alcohol sales (less available than in 2019), or crowds (fewer people flying than in 2019).

The glaringly obvious change in the flying experience which has accompanied the rise in violent/disorderly passenger conduct has been the imposition of mask requirements that are deeply unpopular with some passengers -- and expecting airline employees to take on an additional role as the mask police. This is a problem which has been created by government policy and the government needs to solve it.

This would've been a reasonable thing for passengers to complain about in April and May 2020. However, this has been a known requirement, and has been communicated as such since it was implemented. Does it suck? Yes. Is it helpful to prevent the spread of covid? Yes. Safety is done in layers, thats the same if the safety is how to keep planes from impacting other objects as it is how to prevent the transmission of a virus.

USAirKid wrote:

This would've been a reasonable thing for passengers to complain about in April and May 2020. However, this has been a known requirement, and has been communicated as such since it was implemented. Does it suck? Yes. Is it helpful to prevent the spread of covid? Yes. Safety is done in layers, thats the same if the safety is how to keep planes from impacting other objects as it is how to prevent the transmission of a virus.

It wasn't government policy in April or May of 2020, and airlines weren't requiring masks for passengers in April, 2020. Also, you may recall that very few were traveling in April or May of 2020.

It is government policy now. It is the government's role to manage the effects of the policies it promulgates.

fanofjets wrote:

Have the violent and violating passengers scrub the plane's tires - with a toothbrush!

In flight.

ScottB wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

This would've been a reasonable thing for passengers to complain about in April and May 2020. However, this has been a known requirement, and has been communicated as such since it was implemented. Does it suck? Yes. Is it helpful to prevent the spread of covid? Yes. Safety is done in layers, thats the same if the safety is how to keep planes from impacting other objects as it is how to prevent the transmission of a virus.

It wasn't government policy in April or May of 2020, and airlines weren't requiring masks for passengers in April, 2020. Also, you may recall that very few were traveling in April or May of 2020.

It is government policy now. It is the government's role to manage the effects of the policies it promulgates.

I like some good pedantry, so I'll rephrase: This would've been a reasonable thing for passengers to complain about in the first months after its requirement, since they likely bought their tickets before the requirement was implemented. However, this has been a known requirement, and has been communicated as such since it was implemented, and anyone flying today was made aware of the requirement when the tickets were purchased.

Also, the government promulgates many policies that others have to deal with, such as the requirements for pilot training and airplane maintenance. Sure, the exact details are upto the airline to implement, but they have to follow the governmentally promulgated policy. Is the fact that the government passed an airworthiness directive the government's role to manage that it might ground some airplanes for a while? Should the government have stepped in and provided Army and Air Force airlift to make up for the airline's inability to fly their 737MAXes? Since it was legally their actions that caused the airlines to not be able to use the 737MAXes? (Sure it was Boeing's screw up, but they were just catering to Southwest...). See part of living in society is dealing the actions and policies of others.

I also love a good reductio ad absurdum, especially when I'm starting with an absurd starting point.

The airlines could make this more the federal government's role by calling federal law enforcement more frequently.

Hassle factor may be an underlying cause. I quit most of my flying years ago when Y became a hassle, and several flights in a row which were bad. Didn't complain, upset no one else. Just bought a better road car and started seeing parts of the country where I had always wanted to do major road trips. TSA requirements, mostly for show, are the biggest cause of hassle. The manner in which it is paid for and administered guarantees it is a bad experience, both for the workers and for the passengers. While simple solutions to difficult problems are usually wrong there is one. Masks, no food service, no drinks, 6 foot distancing now and again, other problems with Y are all hassle invoking.

A suggestion: To make the cases solid the cabin crew should be wearing a voice recorder from start of boarding to end of deboarding. Only to be reviewed with Cabin Crew representatives and unrelated info deleted for specific instances (similar protections that the pilots have).

The select recording would be used to prosecute any charges.

That would solidify most of the cases (and also clean up the few bad cases of cabin crew issues).

It would be a hassel to set up. But, ends the "They said - no they said" arguments over what was actually said. That would make enforcement much more easy.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Inform all passengers that offenders will serve a minimum mandatory time in a federal jail, far away from their loved ones.

+1. The FAA's civil penalty authority is not enough. Fines have not deterred unruly behavior.

This is not incumbent upon airlines to solve.

Congress needs to act and empower FAA with criminal as well as civil penalty authority. Immediately.

Passage of the act would send a powerful and well publicized message in and of itself.

As soon as FAA sends a few unruly passengers to the Big House for 30 or 60 day sentences this nonsense will stop.

TigerFlyer wrote:

DIRECTFLT wrote:

Inform all passengers that offenders will serve a minimum mandatory time in a federal jail, far away from their loved ones.

+1. The FAA's civil penalty authority is not enough. Fines have not deterred unruly behavior.

This is not incumbent upon airlines to solve.

Congress needs to act and empower FAA with criminal as well as civil penalty authority. Immediately.

Passage of the act would send a powerful and well publicized message in and of itself.

As soon as FAA sends a few unruly passengers to the Big House for 30 or 60 day sentences this nonsense will stop.

As much as I hate the idea, it now starts to make sense why some countries have instituted “social credit” scores. Continually acting like a fool will push you further into a corner where no will want to do any business with you and be generally unwelcome in public.

jetmatt777 wrote:

Continually acting like a fool will push you further into a corner where no will want to do any business with you and be generally unwelcome in public.

Another measure that can and should be implemented is that the FAA, rather than individual airlines, should maintain a "no fly" list for unruly behavior. An egregious unruly incident on one airline should ban you from all airlines. We don't limit terrorists on the "no fly" list from only boarding certain carriers.

A balanced measure but with teeth would be say a three year ban on flights within the United States, across all airlines.

This is the final warning before this thread is shut down. Please stop taking the thread off topic by discussing politics or the mask mandate, which invariably leads to politics. Both of these issues may be discussed in Non Aviation.

I've always felt that gate agents contribute to the problem of unruly passengers. Most incidents involve excessive use of alcohol, or drugs. I believe there is a US federal regulation against boarding an intoxicated passenger. Gate agents are known for doing it all the time in spite of the regulation, if they deny boarding that creates an enormous of worms. Perhaps the FAA is trying to get the airline gate agents to stop boarding intoxicated passengers?

I would also offer that, imho, it not an airline or a government problem. It's a societal problem, because it's a drug and alcohol problem.

SteelChair wrote:

I've always felt that gate agents contribute to the problem of unruly passengers. Most incidents involve excessive use of alcohol, or drugs. I believe there is a US federal regulation against boarding an intoxicated passenger. Gate agents are known for doing it all the time in spite of the regulation, if they deny boarding that creates an enormous of worms. Perhaps the FAA is trying to get the airline gate agents to stop boarding intoxicated passengers?

I would also offer that, imho, it not an airline or a government problem. It's a societal problem, because it's a drug and alcohol problem.

FAA rule... no more alcohol sales in Airports, including the VIP / "Gold Pass" Lounges.

Or... require anyone leaving a lounge to take a breathalyzer test.

Do we want profitability or do we want safety??

How many airport related businesses bottom lines DEPEND on alcohol sales??

The procedures of rule and lawmaking in the USA include comments from all parties, including here airlines. You don't want a rule that is costly, difficult or un-enforcable, by the airlines. The airlines need help as these confrontations are costing them financially in legal and paperwork costs, injuries to staff, from delays and cancellation of flights as well as assuring safety. One suggestion several have made here and Delta Air Lines officials are supporting is all airlines exchanging their 'no-fly' lists of unruly passengers with each other. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/24/delta-w ... gers-.html

Sadly larger social and political issues, our difficulty in dealing with alcohol, drug abuse and mental health, all have escalated the numbers of confrontations and more of them are known due to social media. Changing behaviors is very difficult but making sure those that disobey laws get firmly and consistantly penalized would help.

Flydude1063 wrote:

Allowing flight crews to carry tasers would be a step in the right direction.

Personally, I'm a fan of cattle prods.

I would be in favor of a ban on flying all airlines, but such a system would require some sort of administrative judge - independent both of the airline and of the passenger. Otherwise the 'snots' will rule be they passenger or crew. An advantage of having such a system is that a passenger could be advised that their behavior seemed to warrant a referral, but likewise the passenger could say they expect to win some sort of redress when they were both in front of the judge (perhaps via zoom). This could de-escalate a large number of the cases.

frmrCapCadet wrote:

I would be in favor of a ban on flying all airlines, but such a system would require some sort of administrative judge - independent both of the airline and of the passenger. Otherwise the 'snots' will rule be they passenger or crew. An advantage of having such a system is that a passenger could be advised that their behavior seemed to warrant a referral, but likewise the passenger could say they expect to win some sort of redress when they were both in front of the judge (perhaps via zoom). This could de-escalate a large number of the cases.

Eh not really. It’s essentially a consumer report. Delta for instance could report that they’ve banned Joe Smith with the date of birth January 1, 1970, on August 25, 2021 for physically attacking a flight attendant. The other airlines would just pull that report, then make their own decision.

You’d have a right to get the report, put a statement on the report, and challenge any inaccurate entries, but all Delta is saying is we banned Joe for attacking a flight attendant onboard.