[jds375]

What is with some of the responses in this thread! I understand some cases are not so clear, but if you do something as blatant as punch a flight attendant in the face I think that’s grounds to be put on such a list. There should be a policy so that after a period (or going through some program) you could then be removed from the list though..

It actually blew my mind when I heard that you could assault someone on a plane and not be instantly banned

[DeusExMachina]

What I don't get, instead, are the people who, like you, find a no fly-list acceptable.

If you punch a person on the street, you get charged. Same if you punch a flight attendant on a plane.

You might even go to jail in both cases. But what you don't get in the first case is to be put on a blacklist that prevents you from using some services. If you punch a person in a supermarket, you are not banned from supermarkets.

What you advocate for reminds of proscription lists in ancient Rome or the social credit system of the CCP.

[Aeolun]

> If you punch a person in a supermarket, you are not banned from supermarkets.

Uh, I dunno. We definitely banned disruptive people from our supermarket. And we’d happily let other supermarkets nearby know that Mr. X was an asshole that should be treated with extreme caution (and vice versa).

I don’t see why the government needs to get involved with this though. Airlines are perfectly capable of making and sharing such a list themselves.

[rPlayer6554]

But you can't ban them from all supermarkets in the country forever. That's what the no-fly list does.

[mpweiher]

If the supermarkets share such a list: why not?

[rPlayer6554]

There is a reason not all sentences are life sentences. Sometimes people do things wrong and if they are willing to change their ways we as a society should forgive them if it's safely possible. Just because someone does something wrong once doesn't mean they are that person forever.

[totony]

Essential business. So now that person needs to rely on other people for groceries?

[slater]

Actions have consequences, you say?

[Aeolun]

Why would it ban them forever? That’s something you can choose to do, or not.

[cromka]

> If you punch a person in a supermarket, you are not banned from supermarkets.

If you punch a person in a supermarket, authorities can be summoned to take you away. If you do that on a plane, that can't be done. Planes are safe because things are heavily regulated and expected to go according to an extremely strict plan. Any aberration increases the risk of a catastrophic event.

[DeusExMachina]

Your comparison does not work. You can be taken away from a supermarket in that instance. You can legally come back to the same supermarket in the future. And even if the owner decides you are not welcome in his store, you can go to any other store.

Banning a person from ever flying again is not the same thing at all.

[Cederfjard]

I’m not taking a position here, but you didn’t counter their argument. They also explicitly stated that it’s not the same thing, but that it’s reasonable it gets treated differently because of the security ramifications. You didn’t engage with that line of thinking, you just reiterated that the context is different, which you both already seem to agree on.

[cromka]

Yes, they basically repeated the same argument to which I responded.

[bayouborne]

"You can legally come back to the same supermarket in the future." Incorrect, you can be trespassed and thus legally prevented from coming back to the same supermarket in the future.

[gregd]

Ok, let's use drunk driving as an example.

If you drive drunk and are caught, you can lose your license, which technically, means you can never drive yourself again.

[everforward]

> which technically, means you can never drive yourself again.

I haven't audited all 50 states, but at least in all the states I've lived in, there is no way to permanently lose your license from any number of DUIs. The license suspensions (and jail time) go up for each DUI someone gets, but they're always able to get their license back at some point.

[tremon]

Here in NL, a driver's license can be forfeited by judicial order. Usually in such cases, the driver has to re-take the driving test and can regain their driver's license that way, but it takes time and is quite costly around here.

[FabHK]

Which is why it might make sense to get the government involved, instead of having a purely private-sector no-fly-list sharing among airlines, which would effectively ground someone without supervision or recourse.

(Though I can imagine some libertarians reply "well, just take your own plane..." :-)

[cromka]

Yes, absolutely agree. Having such list is as important to flight safety as all the other FAA regulations.

[lkxijlewlf]

You should be banned from that particular supermarket. But that's up to the owner.

[he0001]

AFAIK the pilots decides who are eligible to get on a flight or not. So I guess they can say that they don’t want to have people with a prior history on their plane. The pilots are responsible for the flights safety.

[throwaway9870]

Most professional sports teams in the US ban fans that fight in the stadiums. In regards to banning people in supermarkets - yes, the store is entirely within its right to ban the customer: https://axislc.com/public/can-a-business-ban-a-customer/

Clearly the system has not been abused too much if you are not even aware this is how it already works.

[NovemberWhiskey]

An airline is a business - why would a business want to transport a passenger who has a history of criminal misconduct onboard their aircraft? The airlines have a duty to protect their employees, and a duty of care towards other passengers. They also have a rightful interest in running their services on-time and without disruption.

In the US, airlines are common carriers - which involves certain obligations like published pricing and non-discrimination - but that still allows them the right to refuse carriage on reasonable grounds. You can argue what "reasonable grounds" means, but "criminal history of violent or disruptive behavior onboard an aircraft" seems like it's probably going to suffice.

[nickkell]

You can be banned from driving though if you risk endangering others.

[fn-mote]

Very instructive comparison... and considering the current laws on DUI (driving under the influence of alcohol, a clear endangerment to others imo) is instructive.

In my area:

* First offense (failed sobriety test): 6 month ban

* Second offense: 12 month ban

Convictions are different: they draw bans of 1, 5, and 10 years. You need 4 convictions for a lifetime ban.

Most counts reset after N years.

Now compare this to the suggestions for an airline no-fly list. The permissiveness with which alcohol + driving is treated in the US boggles the mind, but I think it's clear from this a similar proposal for airlines would be very lenient.

[tluyben2]

I'm not sure I am in favour of a no-fly list, however, flying (unlike other examples in this thread; walking across the street, going to a supermarket etc) is not a basic human need. You (and many others do) do not need to ever fly in your life to live a happy and fulfilled life, without any pressure (you could never visit a supermarket but that's actually much harder; most people will never fly in their lives automatically anyway). For most people it is a minor inconvenience if they could never fly again and a minority will have to find another job. A list like it would have little or no impact on anything basically for by far most people on earth. So the question is, is having the list so beneficial for enough people (who are in these planes where repeat offenders kick up a stink) to go through the trouble of creating one?

[samatman]

Well, if we're doing strict utilitarianism, I don't like you much after this comment, maybe I can find five friends to vote you off airplanes?

That would probably give us more pleasure than you derive utility from your privilege to fly, depriving other people is always satisfying.

Oh your computer? Not a basic need either. Hand it over comrade, there are more socially useful purposes than posting on Hacker News!

[low_tech_love]

For each person who punched a flight attendant I bet there are 5 on the list who didn’t come even close to that. The list itself can be used as a threat.

[tremon]

Around here (NL), notorious shoplifters are banned from certain shopping centres. The shopkeepers keep a list with photo's and share it among them. This is established practice (though I'm not sure how widespread) and isn't even considered a GDPR violation as long as the list isn't made public, since protecting yourself from fraud is a legitimate business interest.

Yes, in an ideal world this wouldn't be needed because you could trust the police to handle such cases adequately, but they don't. Hence, where justice fails, you see alternative systems prop up (also see #metoo, cancel culture).

[that_guy_iain]

So you punch someone in the street, should you be banned from walking on any street anywhere in the country?

Why are aircrafts so special that they need such special rules about banning people who commit a minor crime one time? Remember these crimes are minor crimes. Yet people are honestly thinking the correct level of response for an assualt is the inability to use an entire industry.

Of course Airlines want the power to banish people from the industry and give their hosts and hostesses power that people will be afraid of them and just comply with everything and anything. These people already have a lot of power in the fact not complying is a crime.

But to be fair, this is coming from a country where there freedoms are so limited it's a crime to cross the street in the wrong area.

[gregd]

First of all, assault is not a "minor" crime.

Secondly, you're sealed into a tube with 100 other passengers, over the Atlantic ocean on a 14 hour flight. One passenger who cannot control themselves, decides they're going to punch a flight attendant. Now what? You can't just call the police (like you can on the street).

So now, people who are not the police, have to "detain" this individual to keep them from hurting others. The plane has to divert to land so that the person can be handled by law enforcement. The 14 hour flight is now potentially 24-48 hours total, people have missed connecting flights, holidays, work meetings, etc.

So how and why people continue to compare punching someone on the street with punching someone on an airplane, is beyond me. While they're both technically assault, that's where the comparison ends.

[that_guy_iain]

> First of all, assault is not a "minor" crime.

Standard assault such getting punched is a minor crime. That is why people don't get jailed for it. It may not be enjoyable but it is a minor crime. Stating otherwise is simple a falsehood.

> So now, people who are not the police, have to "detain" this individual to keep them from hurting others.

This is some overly dramatic bullshit. Just because I punched Johnny because he was being a dick doesn't mean I'm punching anyone else. Simply people very rarely go on assault rampages. The fact you think they would shows out of touch you are.

> The plane has to divert to land so that the person can be handled by law enforcement. The 14 hour flight is now potentially 24-48 hours total, people have missed connecting flights, holidays, work meetings, etc.

Yes, and that why air rage is a much more serious crime than punching someone. We have courts and punishments for these things. Banning someone forever from being able to travel is absurd. Banning companies from providing services for someone because they found out their wife was sleeping with their best mate while in a plane is absurd.

[abdulmuhaimin]

> This is some overly dramatic bullshit. Just because I punched Johnny because he was being a dick doesn't mean I'm punching anyone else. Simply people very rarely go on assault rampages. The fact you think they would shows out of touch you are.

And howd you know that? wait for them to punch others too? or wait for Johny's friend to return the deed?

Well doesnt matter to me. Anyone who resorted to violence while on a flight should be detained, even if the assaulter assault that_guy_iain for being a dick

[that_guy_iain]

> And howd you know that?

So you're for tying people up incase they do something? Anyways, having seen people get slapped and punched quite a few times. It's an issue between them.

> or wait for Johny's friend to return the deed?

You tying the attacker up will not prevent Johnny's friend from attacking him, in fact you're making it easier. In fact, you're escalating the situation over all. In many cases, you can tell the attacker to sit down over there and victim to sit over there. If they're attacking flight crew, this has been a situation that has been esclating for a while so they're just gonna tape them up as is their job.

> Well doesnt matter to me. Anyone who resorted to violence while on a flight should be detained, even if the assaulter assault that_guy_iain for being a dick

That's fair enough, but that is not what the topic at hand is. The topic at hand is, whether or not as part of their punishment by the government that they should never be allowed on a flight ever again?

[tsol]

A private plane and a public street are indeed very different. Not that I agree with a shared no fly list between all airlines, but if a single airline wants to ban you after an incident it's not that different than Walgreens banning you because you punched an employee

[that_guy_iain]

True, but since this is about adding them to goverment no-fly list which would mean it was no longer the companies refusing service but the goverment punishing them kinda makes this moot.

[polski-g]

> Why are aircrafts so special that they need such special rules about banning people who commit a minor crime one time?

Because unlike on the street, you can't pull out a gun and defend yourself.

[brazed_blotch]

You can't do that on the streets of Europe either - I don't see a no-walk-on-public-pavements list though.

[oefrha]

As always, title is optimized for outage (left out the crucial detail — “convicted”), and people don’t read beyond the title, so there you have it.

Edit: Wait, the original title does have “convicted” in it. Guess it’s the submitter optimizing for outrage.

[tsol]

Isn't the original title supposed to be used? Hmm

[runamok]

Pretty serious crime: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/interfering-... Being put on a no-fly list is probably the least of your problems.

It think the risk is in transparency. If I piss off an airline employee in some way and they decide to punish me in this way with no recourse it's a problem.

[AlexandrB]

The whole thing exists outside the regular justice system. Even if the airline employee puts you in the list in good faith, the criteria they used to put you there would be somewhat arbitrary (define "unruly") and not weighed against any kind of precedent for similar infractions. Appeal is also difficult.

[jack_squat]

The responses in this thread were unusually crazy/crass/rude before moderation apparently stepped in. I dunno if that was a glimpse of "unmoderated HN" or if this topic in particular draws out emotions.

[ipaddr]

The no fly list was setup for a reason and using it to exclude others reduces the seriousness of the original list to the point where the public will demand it's removal.

[pooper]

> The no fly list was setup for a reason and using it to exclude others reduces the seriousness of the original list to the point where the public will demand it's removal.

I hope so but I wouldn't hold my breath. I remember initially the "enhanced" security pat down was "random" which meant they'd pull aside only brown people. Guess what if it is truly random then grandma on a wheel chair should also be subject to the same "enhanced" pat down. Then they did "enhanced" security pat down on grandmas on wheel chairs but I don't see the public demanding (at least not successfully) the removal.

[AlexandrB]

Good?

The whole thing is an opaque mess and includes many false positives. I certainly don't feel any safer flying with the list in place than I would otherwise. To me it seems like another example of post 9/11 security theatre.

[FabHK]

The problem is the asymmetry of costs of a false negative and a false positive. A false positive means some dude with an unlucky name has to drive instead of flying. A false negative means some terrorist gets on a plane, blows it up, and some politicians get blamed for it.

Though, yeah, it feels like a bit of security theatre. A more transparent process would probably help. Maybe the thinking is that it would jeopardise sources?

[henriquez]

What was so serious about the original no-fly list?

[tintor]

9/11

[conductr]

There’s a lot of gray areas too. I recall a flight where the guy across the aisle from me simply could not sit in his seat. Before we even took off they had multiple conversations with him trying to get him in his seat. In the air, he would repeatedly get up and try to lay down to sleep in the aisle. Their talks with him and me being the nearest seat, had me on edge the whole time expecting I was going to have to break up a fight or dodge a rouge fist. I firmly believe this guy needed a probationary period on air travel.

Also Let’s not forget stadiums ban people for heckling, booing, or other extreme conduct. You’ll get kicked out of a movie theater for disruptive behavior, etc. The punitive actions shouldn’t be too foreign.

[anonymouswacker]

Exactly!

Also, take away a person's license for life if they assault someone while driving!

If they're rude in a restaurant/grocery store/etc., just ban them from society forever!

Make one mistake, and you're fucked for life!

[nonethewiser]

You can be banned from flying. You dont have a right to fly... it's a contract between airlines and passengers. Airlines ban passengers as they see fit. They dont need the government to ban passengers. They "need" (want) the government to act in the best interests of the airlines.

[fareesh]

Are all violent criminals on the No-Fly List?

[AlexandrB]

Do you mean people who abuse their spouse regularly or people who committed a robbery 30 years ago?

[low_tech_love]

Because it’s literally too good to be true. Anyone would love to believe such a list will work, but measures like these will invariably become more problem than they’re worth. I bet that guy who got dragged out of the airplane some time ago would be on that list very quick. It’s a great list until you find yourself in it because you lost your patience with an attendant for being double booked. “Please calm down sir”.

[justsomehnguy]

> I think that’s grounds to be put on such a list

Especially considering nobody has the same first and last name as some other person and government, security and low wage slaves at airlines are never ever make mistakes.

To the glorious days of flying without disturbances!

[Aeolun]

If you identify people by their first and last name you’ve already committed a huge mistake.

How about identifying people by their citizenship ID? I’m fairly certain it was made exactly to avoid naming issues.

[justsomehnguy]

>citizenship ID

In the US?

Ha.

Ha.

Ha.

[throwawaylinux]

Perhaps all convicted violent criminals should be placed on the no-fly list automatically.

[marco_yolo]

I don't think people are saying an airline shouldn't ban but questioning whether they should be put on a federal list managed by the US government. That's a slippery slope.

[austincheney]

Not for violent offenders.

[chmod600]

If they aren't actually convicted, then yes.

[xyzzyz]

If you assault someone on the street, should you be banned from being on all streets, indefinitely and on the whim of the owner of one of the streets, without any legal recourse?

[bitcharmer]

Reductio ad absurdum. This analogy couldn't be worse. People on the street have multiple ways to deal with your shitty behaviour, including distancing or removing themselves from the situation.

Not so much on the plane. Also, you do realise that streets can't crash and kill everyone who was walking on them?

[tigershark]

It’s a slippery slope. If you risk the life of all the passengers with your behaviour because you can’t be bothered of following the basic rules of civility you should definitely be in a no-flight list. Following your nonsensical slippery slope, we already put behind bars people that are a danger to the fellow citizens, and in some cases, yes, you are banned indefinitely from all the streets. It’s called “death penalty” and Americans should know one or two things about it. If you ask me, putting someone on a no-fight list makes definitely more sense than killing someone.

[xyzzyz]

Yes, if you do something deserving death penalty, it makes sense to also be banned for life from flying. However, if you are alleged to risk life of people on the street because "you can't be bothered [to follow] the basic rules of civility", there is a complex and prolonged process to put you off the street, you have plenty of opportunity for recourse, and you'll unlikely to be taken off the street for life. On the other hand, when it comes to no-fly list, there is no due process and zero recourse.

I find it commendable that you are trying to protect me from unruly passengers on a flight. Do you also want to protect me from unruly people on the street, by locking those who can't be bothered to follow basic rules of civility out of public space for life, or are planes somehow special? I mean, if you just willy-nilly shoot a gun on the street, you'll be banned from the street for shorter than you'd be banned from flying for refusing to wear a mask on the plane. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

[ziml77]

And if you look at the actual article instead of the HN headline, you can see that this is about putting people who have been convicted for their behavior on the no-fly list. So you have a proper trial before you get put onto that list.