Airlines Want to Ban Disruptive Passengers - Republicans Say No

[Ray From Cleveland]

That is not what is reported at all, dope.
My god I just gave you a quote from the OP’s link that showed it was meant to apply to those who were convicted of onboard incidents. Convicted.
So unless they are indicting those not wearing masks, you’re just crying over your own imagination.

No, not convicted but found guilty of an offense which it apparently is now that the commies are in charge.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Apparently so if they are including it in their bill.

which bill is that?

 

[odanny]

Exactly. Convicted in a court of law. Obviously it’s a reference to any incident for which someone is indicted and convicted. A crime committed onboard an aircraft.
I can’t believe such simple language needs to be explained to this degree.

With this crowd, it's par for the course.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No, not convicted but found guilty of an offense which it apparently is now that the commies are in charge.

Huh? Who says? WTF is wrong with you dopes?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Huh? Who says? WTF is wrong with you dopes?

You would know the answer to that if you read all the posts in the tread, now wouldn't you? Who says????

Face masks now a federal requirement in airports, on planes under new CDC order

Effective Tuesday, Feb. 2, wearing a mask or face covering in airports and on planes will become federal law.

news.delta.com

 

[surada]

Since you provided a paywall link (typical of Democrat topics) so we couldn't read the actual story, I looked to other outlets. According to the FAA, most of the violations are non violent. They are disagreements with passengers not wanting to wear a mask during flight. If they end up in court they were "convicted" for not wearing a mask.

The Communists are not presenting this bill as way of protecting flight crew or passengers, they are presenting this bill to get even with people they feel are likely Republicans. But this is so common of the left. Allow illegals to board planes by showing a warrant for their arrest, but keep Americans off of flights because they didn't want to wear a government mask.

Then you wonder why you are losing so much ground with the American public.

Have they identified violent passengers by political party?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Those convicted in a court of law, idiot.

Convicted of.....WHAT?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

You would know the answer to that if you read all the posts in the tread, now wouldn't you? Who says????

Face masks now a federal requirement in airports, on planes under new CDC order

Effective Tuesday, Feb. 2, wearing a mask or face covering in airports and on planes will become federal law.

news.delta.com

I have read every post. You dopes are all over the place alleging shit that has nothing at all to do with the premise of this thread.

As an aside, why do you believe those who knowingly violate federal law should not face consequences for doing so?

Should those who violate federal weapons laws still be allowed to own guns?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have read every post. You dopes are all over the place alleging shit that has nothing at all to do with the premise of this thread.

As an aside, why do you believe those who knowingly violate federal law should not face consequences for doing so?

Should those who violate federal weapons laws still be allowed to own guns?

We're not discussing whether it's law or not, we are discussing the false accusation that Republicans want to stop a law that bans people from being disruptive. And I also posted links where even the FAA admits most of the violations are because of a passenger refusing or arguing about wearing a stupid face mask.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

We're not discussing whether it's law or not, we are discussing the false accusation that Republicans want to stop a law that bans people from being disruptive. And I also posted links where even the FAA admits most of the violations are because of a passenger refusing or arguing about wearing a stupid face mask.

There is no such law.
The CEO of an airline proposed banning those convicted of onboard crimes to the AG.

You are arguing nonsense that someone fed you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is no such law.
The CEO of an airline proposed banning those convicted of onboard crimes to the AG.

You are arguing nonsense that someone fed you.

Are you mentally retarded or what? That's what this topic is about, the Communists trying to pass law to ban disruptive passengers from flight for life. Yes, there is a law that says it's a federal offense to not wear a mask and I posted a link to that as well.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So what is the point of posting that with no discussion?

This is a discussion board, people respond to posts.

Don't like my post. Feel free to pass it over.

WW

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Are you mentally retarded or what? That's what this topic is about, the Communists trying to pass law to ban disruptive passengers from flight for life. Yes, there is a law that says it's a federal offense to not wear a mask and I posted a link to that as well.

They aren’t. Just stop.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This is a discussion board, people respond to posts.

Don't like my post. Feel free to pass it over.

WW

You posted a letter with no commentary. What is there to discuss?

 

[SmokeALib]

Yep, those convicted in a court of law of endangering the safety of their fellow passengers should be banned from flying on future flights, but 8 conservative Republican Senators, the infamous Cancun Ted one of them, say NO!

Because……… Freedumb.

The senators argued that the Transportation Security Administration “was created in the wake of 9/11 to protect Americans from future horrific attacks, not to regulate human behavior onboard flights.”

The eight Republicans signing the letter are Sens. Cynthia M. Lummis (Wyo.), Mike Lee (Utah), James Lankford (Okla.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Kevin Cramer (N.D.), Ted Cruz (Tex.), John Hoeven (N.D.) and Rick Scott (Fla.).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/15/eight-republican-senators-say-they-oppose-no-fly-list-disruptive-passengers-because-it-would-equate-mask-opponents-terrorists/

Not quite fool. Nobody is against airlines imposing their own no fly lists. They are privately owned companies. What Republicans are against is more government intrusion to legislate who can or cannot fly in an airplane because of these stupid ass mask mandates.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not quite fool. Nobody is against airlines imposing their own no fly lists. They are privately owned companies. What Republicans are against is more government intrusion to legislate who can or cannot fly in an airplane because of these stupid ass mask mandates.

Mask mandates have nothing to do with animals who assault flight attendants and delay flights costing millions. They are criminals who need to be handled accordingly.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Mask mandates have nothing to do with animals who assault flight attendants and delay flights costing millions. They are criminals who need to be handled accordingly.

And where in the bill does it say that? It says disruptive passengers which anti-mask people are according to them.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You can NEVER lose rights.
That is because rights are inherent and not granted by government, so government never has any authority to grant or remove rights.
You can infringe on rights, but only temporarily and as necessary, when needed, in order to protect the rights of someone else.
What people want is not necessarily what anyone can demand.
And a person who does something once when drunk, may other wise and at all other times, be no problem.

When rights are restricted in any way, that requires a judge and courtroom.

I disagree. Airlines can set their own rules and we keep to them or get the train.I also dont see drunkenness being a reason to forgive. In fact I would like to see airlines be more stringent at the booking in stage. Weed out the trash.
And all rights are granted and protected by governent. It is fanciful to pretend otherwise.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Yep, those convicted in a court of law of endangering the safety of their fellow passengers should be banned from flying on future flights, but 8 conservative Republican Senators, the infamous Cancun Ted one of them, say NO!

Because……… Freedumb.

The senators argued that the Transportation Security Administration “was created in the wake of 9/11 to protect Americans from future horrific attacks, not to regulate human behavior onboard flights.”

The eight Republicans signing the letter are Sens. Cynthia M. Lummis (Wyo.), Mike Lee (Utah), James Lankford (Okla.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Kevin Cramer (N.D.), Ted Cruz (Tex.), John Hoeven (N.D.) and Rick Scott (Fla.).

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/15/eight-republican-senators-say-they-oppose-no-fly-list-disruptive-passengers-because-it-would-equate-mask-opponents-terrorists/

The only ones that should be placed on the "No-Fly-List" are those that get drunk and cause a disturbance or physically assault the flight crew or other passengers. The drunks on a "No-Fly-List" should be on it temporarily, with the stipulation that, in the future, if they wish to board, they must take a breathalyzer test and not be allowed alcohol while in flight. Those passengers that are not drunk but physically assault others onboard, should be on the list permanently.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They aren’t. Just stop.

WTF do you think Republicans are fighting against? They are against this measure because it does include people who don't or can't wear masks on flight. Republicans don't have problems with truly unruly passengers. This thing they're trying to pass includes people with mask issues:

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) joined Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and six Republican colleagues in sending a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland urging him to reject Delta Airlines’ call for the creation of a federal no-fly list for disruptive passengers. In the letter, the Senators noted that such a list would effectively equate unruly passengers with potential terrorists already listed on the current no-fly list.

While airlines are currently free to deny service to any individual over past transgressions on their flights, the federal government’s role in denying access to the commercial aviation network has been limited to ensuring that suspected terrorists remain off of domestic flights. According to data from the Federal Aviation Administration, the majority of recent infractions on airplanes have been in relation to the mask mandate from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). While we strongly condemn any violence toward airline workers, there is significant uncertainty around the efficacy of this mandate, as highlighted by the CEO of Southwest Airlines during a recent Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing. Creating a federal ‘no-fly’ list for unruly passengers who are skeptical of this mandate would seemingly equate them to terrorists who seek to actively take the lives of Americans and perpetrate attacks on the homeland. The TSA was created in the wake of 9/11 to protect Americans from future horrific attacks, not to regulate human behavior onboard flights.

Rubio, Lummis, Colleagues To DOJ: We Don’t Need A Federal No-Fly List For Unruly Passengers

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) joined Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and six Republican colleagues in sending a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland urging him to reject

www.rubio.senate.gov