Abusive passengers could be blacklisted from all airlines under new proposal
Posted by itsaride@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 77 comments
Posted by itsaride@reddit | aviation | View on Reddit | 77 comments
slvrsfr@reddit
Former Spirit passengers worrying this could come to the USA.
Jackel1994@reddit
And restaurants. And retail stores.
Anywhere in public that you have a karen episode in should be grounds for your removal from the space imo. Its not difficult to not be an asshole.
PropOnTop@reddit
Wait wait isn't this the moral credit system that reddit so loves to hate?
slvrsfr@reddit
Like the "wall of shame" at the local liquor store showing the security cam mugshots of shoplifters etc. Not sharing those photos with other local businesses would be a disservice.
crooks4hire@reddit
Damn near snapped my neck doin a double-take on this shit lmao
cat_prophecy@reddit
You can be easily trespassed from a restaurant and retail store. If the management says if you return, you are trespassing then, you can be arrested for coming back.
It's not that the mechanism doesn't exist. It's that most businesses lack the will to enforce it.
Funkytadualexhaust@reddit
Well, not public, but private businesses normally open to the public you mean, right? Right?
Jackel1994@reddit
This isnt even a want, it already exists.
Being a menace in a truly public space is called disturbing the peace, at least here in the usa. So thats already a thing that will get you in trouble for melting down.
UpdateDesk1112@reddit
The stereotype of a Karen is asking for the manager over their expired coupons so yes, you don’t know what the definition of a Karen is.
Actually, you are kinda being a Karen right now. If the table next to you is being louder than you like do you get to call them assholes and ask for them to be banned for life?
Jackel1994@reddit
Ah yes equating throwing stuff at retails workers to a table socializing loudly ☠️
UpdateDesk1112@reddit
You incorrectly equated Karen activity with throwing things. Throwing things at retail workers is illegal and people can be trespassed.
So this new rule of yours is already covered in the scenario you made up. Where your rule would apply is someone being an “asshole” which is a purely subjective judgement . You know who makes subjective judgements about people and then complain? Thats right! KARENS!!!
Jackel1994@reddit
Okay karen settle down
UpdateDesk1112@reddit
Projection is a hell of a drug. Are you going to ban me?
Jackel1994@reddit
Didnt you just call me a karen 😂? I know what town you mustve just blown in from pal
UpdateDesk1112@reddit
I did. Then you called me a Karen. Which is you projecting your Karenness onto others. Try and keep up.
Jackel1994@reddit
Do you feel heard now karen? I promise its gona be okay
UpdateDesk1112@reddit
Still have nothing new to add, just going to stay in the “I know you are but what am I”? How sad.
Jackel1994@reddit
You must be higher than giraffe pussy because idk what the hell youre going on about at this point.
ThnkGdImNotAReditMod@reddit
In this context, public generally refers to the level of access of an area. A waiting room at a clinic or a grocery store is public, but the doctors off at the clinic or the break room at the grocery store is private.
Conscious_Raisin_436@reddit
Can't make being a dick illegal. The government imposing something against you for something you said is a violation of the first amendment.
Private organizations are a different matter though.
JazznBlues_lover@reddit
Completely ridiculous. The article is talking about abusive passengers. How in the hell are you extrapolating "first amendment rights" into this conversation?
Jackel1994@reddit
When did i say make being a dick illegal? Restaurants and retail space is private property and private organizations. They should be able to kick you out and not allow you back if youre a dick.
prndls@reddit
Yes please thank you.
njsullyalex@reddit
I mean, good.
Airplanes are a public space. You are required to respect the rest of the passengers and crew on the flight with you as they should treat you with equal respect. If you can’t handle that you don’t get to fly.
ScottOld@reddit
All theTenerife flights going to be quiet soon then
Former_Farm_3618@reddit
“Oh no. The consequences of my own actions.”
I think society needs rules to be followed.. if you don’t, then you shouldn’t be allowed to harm others.
justinholmes_music@reddit
Seems fine until "abusive" becomes de-facto defined as "insisting on required compensation for delays and/or undelivered service".
GrafZeppelin127@reddit
You could simply narrow the definition to behavior while at the airport and on the plane. Getting fresh with customer service is something you can do on your own time, but when you’re past airport security you’re in God’s hands, now.
justinholmes_music@reddit
Many of the most intense matters do need to be handled at the airport though.
Last year, we flew Icelandair, and the final (US leg) was a Southwest codeshare.
We were apparently the only people on the Icelandair flight who were set to transfer to that particular Southwest flight. It was already a tight transfer, and the flight was 65 minutes late. There was absolutely no chance we were going to make it.
The Icelandair rep was indignant and refused to do anything for us. We stayed perfectly calm, but the rep started to get really seriously vitriolic, until the lady at the Southwest counter (where this was all taking place) rebuked him. He had several times refused to contact his supervisor, but she was somehow able to look it up, and only then did were we finally given recourse (a hotel voucher).
It was an insane scene, and I was definitely filled with the sense that the agent was attempting to craft a picture of me as an unruly passenger or something. If it weren't for that southwest lady, I'd have been gaslit into oblivion by that dude.
It's stuff like that I'm thinking about.
traiectum10@reddit
Absolutely, you can get the most obnoxious people at Security on power trips and I have encountered cabin crew who toss meals at passengers and treat them like filth. Very much as if they're doing passengers a favour by providing a basic service. This type of freedom to ban can be seriously abused.
This is obviously to be distinguished from passengers who get out of control, disruptive, aggressive, insulting and the like but that's not all instances of conflict that occurs at an airport and multiple parties can be at fault.
Hour_Analyst_7765@reddit
Hot take (perhaps because I'm misinformed): don't let airlines fix this matter themselves. Let courts issue industry wide bans. And only courts.
I know nobody wants to be on flight with a karen, and compliant passengers are required for a safe cabin. An airline is always welcome to ban a passenger from every flying with them again.
But let them also walk through the regular criminal trials for such wide reaching consequences. If someone is worthy of jail time for their dangerous/disruptive behaviour, then that court should also impose a ban, and possibly with an expiration or "recovery" trajectory (maybe someone has an untreated mental health problem that needs to be fixed, a court can monitor this).
I don't think its good where airlines are their own judge to decide who has the "right" of flying. Even though safety/diversions considered.
RevoOps@reddit
I can just feel the lawsuits coming with this one.
Not being able to use any airline is a real restriction on a person and probably create a burden of proof that an airline would need to meet in order to impose it on an individual.
Perhaps it's best when we can just ban a person for life on the right to refuse service basis.
xXCrazyDaneXx@reddit
Why? Flying is not an intrinsic human right, and private businesses can choose who to do business with.
RevoOps@reddit
The issue isn't whether flying itself is a right. The issue is that an industry wide ban effectively restricts a person's ability to travel, which makes it much easier to frame as a freedom of movement issue.
Then when they get to court they can claim that the airline is lying about the cause of the ban and say that it's due to the aircrews personal vendetta or something similar.
Now the airlines have to document everything to a degree where they can prove that they aren't being malicious in their actions of banning the person from All Air Travel
donkeyrocket@reddit
They're still free to travel via car, train, boat, private plane, or bus. You're adding in some random hypothetical as a defense that airlines will abuse this. Airlines can already blacklist people and other than clerical errors with people having similar names I've yet to hear personal vendettas being a major point of contention.
Could it be abused? I guess so but that'd take quite the concerted effort and could rightfully end up in court but that fringe possibility doesn't really rise to negating this entire concept.
Kord537@reddit
If it's set up in a trusting way it might not take that. To imagine a dramatic case, some terror attack from Arztotska happens and one member airline pushes every "Arztotskian sounding" name in their records to the no-sell list in a panic. The list in this scenario does not ask the airlines to vet each other's submissions and is automatic. If this were in the US that would now be discrimination against a protected class.
That said I suspect that if a suit were to break out (and this is based on my layman understanding of US law, so maybe EU civil rights legislation is different) it would be over allegations of systemic bias in when people are put on the list. That is to say, something like Kolechia Air only issuing a warning for behaviors from Kolechian customers that they would instantly ban Arztotskans for.
Shawnj2@reddit
I don't think every airline would just blanket accept additions to the list from any other airline if for no other reason than that they don't want to lose out on business
Kord537@reddit
Probably, I imagine they'll have some kind of review. Though there's always the danger that your review process falls asleep at the wheel and starts rubber stamping things they should challenge.
As I said, that's the dramatic case. If a legal problem emerges it will probably be something more subtle.
xXCrazyDaneXx@reddit
Then it would be up to the state to secure article 13, not private corporations...
Bortron86@reddit
There are other ways to travel. If someone forfeits their right to travel by air then that's their fault, just like if they lose their driver's licence.
classyhornythrowaway@reddit
Yes, I too have no time for assholes, but also there is literally no other way to cross the Atlantic or the Pacific. I don't think there are any ocean liners anymore (except 1). If you think freedom of travel is a human right being banned from all airlines infringes on that.
Bortron86@reddit
They'd still have freedom to travel. It's just that the airlines would, as private companies, also have the freedom not to have them aboard their aircraft. They'd just have to get used to the idea of holidaying in the UK or mainland Europe.
LanceLynxx@reddit
You aren't entitled or have the right to be on a plane piloted by someone else.
SerowiWantsToInvest@reddit
Seems like a bad idea
clyde636@reddit
Why?
Taxus_Calyx@reddit
Just making a guess about OP's comment here, but maybe they feel that, if abused, this policy could create a situation where bad service is excused.
biglinuxfan@reddit
It's possible to be abused, but unlikely imo.
Notable that bad service is never an excuse for poor behaviour.. full stop.
I believe that if it was abused - we all have cameras, witnesses on the plane etc if this was abused it would create significant negative press for the airline and the employee would be in big trouble for abusing the system.
So, while possible I think it's an unlikely scenario.
Think of it like dealing with police, you fight in the courtroom, not in the street.. or on board a flight.
Taxus_Calyx@reddit
Yeah, I would agree.
polarisdelta@reddit
Individual airlines already have local We Don't Sell This Customer Ticket lists. Why is a global "bad behavior" list needed.
DFA_Wildcat@reddit
It would depend on how it was implemented. If there was a trial, person found guilty, I might be on board with it. If it's just one airline that gets to arbitrary decide then no, definitely not. A stewardess could be having a bad day and some passenger just rubs them the wrong way. Airline would back the stewardess and pax would end up not being able to fly ever again.
streetlegalb17@reddit
It seems pretty common sense and decent, but in all honesty I would not trust the UK government to enforce it lol
gypsysniper9@reddit
About time.
Striking_Computer834@reddit
How would such a system be protected from abuse?
FirstSurvivor@reddit
Or just error. Seems like strong guardrails/ways to appeal should be implemented.
Striking_Computer834@reddit
I think it would be at least somewhat robust if passengers couldn't be placed on the list until they had been convicted in a court of law.
li_shi@reddit
Isn’t already done?
agha0013@reddit
an airline could ban specific passengers from flying with them, but this could expand that to a national no-fly list kind of ban.
hence "all airlines" in the title.
currently federal no fly lists are typically more focused on terrorism ties more than anything else.
EtwasSonderbar@reddit
Obviously not.
Tee1upToday@reddit
I agree. How is this not already a thing?
ShutupBird69@reddit
Haha love how the article begins with “The scheme would allow airlines”
LucidNonsense211@reddit
Why, the word Scheme? I’m always surprised how negative this word sounds to people. I’ve worked enough jobs where it’s used neutrally or as jargon that I just read it as a synonym for plan or layout.
Qel_Hoth@reddit
British English difference, "scheme" does not necessarily carry the negative connotations there that it does in American English.
slutty_muppet@reddit
Except when you're talking about the schemey weans
alexifua@reddit
1984
Chase-Boltz@reddit
LOL. Dude, in case you hadn't noticed, we're already there!
azmtber@reddit
Could be? Should be.
JimTheJerseyGuy@reddit
I’ve got zero problem with this. Too many self entitled pricks out there who treat airline staff like slaves and the aircraft as if it were their living room.
donkeyrocket@reddit
I feel like I've regularly seen articles like this since post-COVID travel chaos but nothing has been adopted.
fufa_fafu@reddit
Following in China and Russia's footsteps then?;
hereandthere_nowhere@reddit
This is the move that makes you believe that? Lol, you aren’t a serious person.
Economy_Link4609@reddit
As it should be.
Take it global.
Dr---Beeper@reddit
Bot spam repost
Block them, and never see their stolen spam posts again.
flying_wrenches@reddit
Why do you think they’re a bot?
Their posts and comments look like someone who is from the UK…
Dr---Beeper@reddit
[ Removed by Reddit ]
MiniatureLucifer@reddit
I dont think OP is a bot, their other posts they comment and reply to specific things
itsaride@reddit (OP)
..hopefully.
post-explainer@reddit
Please provide a source by replying to the message that was sent to you. Failure to respond to that message will result in the automatic removal of this post. Please feel free to reach out to the mod team through modmail if you have any questions or concerns.
r/Aviation is trialing new measures to prevent karma farming. Please feel free to provide feedback through modmail. Thank you for participating in the community!