Airlines Want to Ban Disruptive Passengers - Republicans Say No

[WorldWatcher]

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

This is a discussion board, people respond to posts.

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

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Could you link is to this bill you are asking about?

All I've been able to find is the Delta CEO letter to the DOJ.

Thanks Ray.

WW

 

[Lisa558]

The problem is that there is a difference between a Republican not wearing a mask and someone else violently attacking other passengers, and we have seen how leftists apply punishment differently depending on whether the person is behind liberal causes or conservative causes. (Look at how tolerant they were to BLM savages setting a place on fire, and how vicious they are to truckers in a peaceful protest or to parents objecting at a School Board meeting.)

The other thing is that one of these things - refusing to wear a mask - is only a temporary issue, for as long as the airline demands it. Once the mask mandate is dropped, the passenger should be free to fly again. Otherwise, the federal government is punishing a political dissenter FOREVER, even when the issue that caused the problem no longer exists.

Violent passengers, and I would include the lowlifes who start major brawls out by the gate, have violent and uncivilized natures that can show themselves at any time. I think an airline should be able to ban criminals (assault is a crime) permanently.

But we simply cannot have the Democrats punish FOREVER a peaceful person who didn’t want to wear a mask. Just how much like Trudeau do you leftists want to go?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The problem is that there is a difference between a Republican not wearing a mask and someone else violently attacking other passengers, and we have seen how leftists apply punishment differently depending on whether the person is behind liberal causes or conservative causes. (Look at how tolerant they were to BLM savages setting a place on fire, and how vicious they are to truckers in a peaceful protest or to parents objecting at a School Board meeting.)

The other thing is that one of these things - refusing to wear a mask - is only a temporary issue, for as long as the airline demands it. Once the mask mandate is dropped, the passenger should be free to fly again. Otherwise, the federal government is punishing a political dissenter FOREVER, even when the issue that caused the problem no longer exists.

Violent passengers, and I would include the lowlifes who start major brawls out by the gate, have violent and uncivilized natures that can show themselves at any time. I think an airline should be able to ban criminals (assault is a crime) permanently.

But we simply cannot have the Democrats punish FOREVER a peaceful person who didn’t want to wear a mask. Just how much like Trudeau do you leftists want to go?

The letter the Delta CEO sent to the DOJ wasn't about refusing to wear a mask, it was about someone convicted of a crime for unruly behavior (i.e. assault or conveying a threat).

So take two scenarios:

Scenario #1:
Flyer refuses to wear a mask and refused boarding, or wears a mask then boards and once onboard removes their mask and refuses to put it back on. Ground crew or flight crew inform the individual that masks are required and to please but their mask on. The flyer refuses to do so. Ground or flight crew inform the individual they must exit the aircraft as masks are required. The person exits the area/airplane.

The person WOULD NOT be subjected to the proposed ban.

Scenario #2:
Flyer refuses to wear a mask and refused boarding, or wears a mask then boards and once onboard removes their mask and refuses to put it back on. Ground crew or flight crew inform the individual that masks are required and to please but their mask on. The flyer refuses to do so. Ground or flight crew inform the individual they must exit the aircraft as masks are required. The person refuses. Gets "unruly" and refuses to leave. The crew calls airport security who inform the individual they must exit the aircraft multiple times. The individual gets physical and assaults the crew or police when they are trying to remove the now trespassing passenger. Charges are filed and the individual is convicted in a court of law.

The person WOULD be subjected to the proposed ban.

[DISCLAIMER: I'm against the idea of a permanent ban on a federal no-fly list under #2. But that doesn't mean we have to make stuff up as to what was actually requested.]

WW

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The letter the Delta CEO sent to the DOJ wasn't about refusing to wear a mask, it was about someone convicted of a crime for unruly behavior (i.e. assault or conveying a threat).

Wrong again:

"In addition to the welcome increase in enforcement and prosecutions, we are requesting you support our efforts with respect to the much-needed step of putting any person convicted of an on-board disruption on a national, comprehensive, unruly passenger'"no-fly' list that would bar that person from traveling on any commercial air carrier," Bastian wrote to Garland, according to a copy of the letter reviewed by CNN.

"This action will help prevent future incidents and serve as a strong symbol of the consequences of not complying with crew member instructions on commercial aircraft," Bastian said in the letter.

The letter was first reported by Reuters.
Bastian first called for a no-fly list in September in a memo to employees first reported by CNN.
President Joe Biden said in October that he has instructed the Justice Department to address rising violence on airplanes as some passengers resistant to mask requirements have threatened airline staff.

Delta CEO repeats call for a 'no-fly' list for unruly passengers; DOJ responds

Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian on Friday reiterated his call for the Justice Department to prosecute unruly passengers and place them on a "no-fly" list. The DOJ responded this week.

www.cnn.com

 

[Burgermeister]

Delta CEO is a beatch.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Wrong again:

"In addition to the welcome increase in enforcement and prosecutions, we are requesting you support our efforts with respect to the much-needed step of putting any person convicted of an on-board disruption on a national, comprehensive, unruly passenger'"no-fly' list that would bar that person from traveling on any commercial air carrier," Bastian wrote to Garland, according to a copy of the letter reviewed by CNN.

"This action will help prevent future incidents and serve as a strong symbol of the consequences of not complying with crew member instructions on commercial aircraft," Bastian said in the letter.

The letter was first reported by Reuters.
Bastian first called for a no-fly list in September in a memo to employees first reported by CNN.
President Joe Biden said in October that he has instructed the Justice Department to address rising violence on airplanes as some passengers resistant to mask requirements have threatened airline staff.

Delta CEO repeats call for a 'no-fly' list for unruly passengers; DOJ responds

Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian on Friday reiterated his call for the Justice Department to prosecute unruly passengers and place them on a "no-fly" list. The DOJ responded this week.

www.cnn.com

Morn'n Ray,

Thank you for making my point.

Delta CEO: CONVICTED.

Biden: Have threatened airline staff.


Failure/refusal to follow an airlines mask requirements does not get you on the no fly list. The requested from Delta was to add those convicted (i.e. in a court of law) with a crime as part of being "unruly" (i.e. assault, threats of death or serious bodily injury, etc.).

If you refuse to wear a mask and leave when instructed, there are no repercussions under the request.

[DISCLAIMER: I'm against the idea of a permanent ban on a federal no-fly list under #2. But that doesn't mean we have to make stuff up as to what was actually requested.]

WW

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Morn'n Ray,

Thank you for making my point.

Delta CEO: CONVICTED.

Biden: Have threatened airline staff.


Failure/refusal to follow an airlines mask requirements does not get you on the no fly list. The requested from Delta was to add those convicted (i.e. in a court of law) with a crime as part of being "unruly" (i.e. assault, threats of death or serious bodily injury, etc.).

If you refuse to wear a mask and leave when instructed, there are no repercussions under the request.

[DISCLAIMER: I'm against the idea of a permanent ban on a federal no-fly list under #2. But that doesn't mean we have to make stuff up as to what was actually requested.]

WW

If you leave no there isn't. If you get fined then it's the same as a conviction since you were found guilty of breaking a federal law. This is what Republicans are rejecting, not the people who get violent on planes.

 

[FA_Q2]

So now “ those that have been convicted of onboard incidents” now means something other than actually being convicted of crimes? You feel like you can just interpret statements to means what you want?

No.

I made a factual statement. Refusing to obey a flight attendants legal directions is a crime.

Do you dispute that?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

What bill? There is no bill.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

It doesn’t. Gawd you are content to sit in your own filth.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Could you link is to this bill you are asking about?

All I've been able to find is the Delta CEO letter to the DOJ.

Thanks Ray.

WW

There is no bill. He’s a moron.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wrong again:

"In addition to the welcome increase in enforcement and prosecutions, we are requesting you support our efforts with respect to the much-needed step of putting any person convicted of an on-board disruption on a national, comprehensive, unruly passenger'"no-fly' list that would bar that person from traveling on any commercial air carrier," Bastian wrote to Garland, according to a copy of the letter reviewed by CNN.

"This action will help prevent future incidents and serve as a strong symbol of the consequences of not complying with crew member instructions on commercial aircraft," Bastian said in the letter.

The letter was first reported by Reuters.
Bastian first called for a no-fly list in September in a memo to employees first reported by CNN.
President Joe Biden said in October that he has instructed the Justice Department to address rising violence on airplanes as some passengers resistant to mask requirements have threatened airline staff.

Delta CEO repeats call for a 'no-fly' list for unruly passengers; DOJ responds

Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian on Friday reiterated his call for the Justice Department to prosecute unruly passengers and place them on a "no-fly" list. The DOJ responded this week.

www.cnn.com

The violence is the crime, dope. Not the mask.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The violence is the crime, dope. Not the mask.

The incidents he's complaining about stem from mask wearing. Notice how he said threat and not actual violence?

As Rubio points out, we can't have two no fly lists, there can only be one and it's reserved for terrorist threats, not non-compliance of mask wearing.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The incidents he's complaining about stem from mask wearing. Notice how he said threat and not actual violence?

As Rubio points out, we can't have two no fly lists, there can only be one and it's reserved for terrorist threats, not non-compliance of mask wearing.

Criminal acts of violence aren’t excused because childish adults can’t control their behavior. The problem they seek to address is violence against air crews.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Criminal acts of violence aren’t excused because childish adults can’t control their behavior. The problem they seek to address is violence against air crews.

Not wearing masks is not violence against anybody.

 

[Colin norris]

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/

Apparently the other passengers don't have freedom to fly with safety, not annoyed by a drunk drug filled republican arsehole.
Interesting concept.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Not wearing masks is not violence against anybody.

Correct, and that wouldn't put you on the federal (if adopted) no fly list.

If you refuse to follow the rules, and leave when asked to leave - you have refused to wear a mask and are not put on the list.

If you refuse to follow the rules, refuse to leave when instructed by flight or ground crew, and then threaten or use physical force to prevent law enforcement from removing you from the airplane - that is consider violence and if convicted in a court of law could result in being added to a no fly list.

Glad to help explain the difference.

WW

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct, and that wouldn't put you on the federal (if adopted) no fly list.

If you refuse to follow the rules, and leave when asked to leave - you have refused to wear a mask and are not put on the list.

If you refuse to follow the rules, refuse to leave when instructed by flight or ground crew, and then threaten or use physical force to prevent law enforcement from removing you from the airplane - that is consider violence and if convicted in a court of law could result in being added to a no fly list.

Glad to help explain the difference.

WW

I understand that but it sounds to me like they want all mask non-compliant people on that list. After all, this is what these handful of Republicans are concerned about. The OP posted a paywall site so we can't see WTF he's talking about, but that's what other sources are saying. I read the letter from the CEO and he made no mention about not including such people and we don't know what he discussed with members of Congress.

Remember too that our leadership in Congress are Democrats; Democrats who wanted to force everybody to wear a mask in places that employ 100 people or more; Democrats who closed down small businesses because of covid; Democrats who got permission by the courts to force a mask mandate at healthcare facilities.

These people are not to be trusted when it comes to any matter covid related. Covid gave them all kinds of power to control people.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I read the letter from the CEO and he made no mention about not including such people and we don't know what he discussed with members of Congress.

The CEO's letter was not to members of Congress, it was to the AG.

And yes, the letter did address it.

You (not you specifically of course) aren't "convicted" for not wearing a mask, one is "convicted" in a court of law for illegal behavior such as threatening violence and assault when you refuse to either wear a mask (as required) or refuse to leave the area/airplane) which is trespassing.

W