Delta to Permanently Ban “Unruly” Passengers
01-18-2021, 10:10 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 107
Delta to Permanently Ban “Unruly” Passengers
https://onemileatatime.com/delta-ban-rude-passengers/
I understand and agree that something must be done to address the growing problem of unruly passengers (and crew for that matter) on aircraft, but will there be an objective standard for what constitutes “respect” and “civility”? Without a standard established in the policy I can see this creating chaos and leading to a lot of ridiculous litigation. Thoughts?
I understand and agree that something must be done to address the growing problem of unruly passengers (and crew for that matter) on aircraft, but will there be an objective standard for what constitutes “respect” and “civility”? Without a standard established in the policy I can see this creating chaos and leading to a lot of ridiculous litigation. Thoughts?
01-18-2021, 10:52 AM
#2
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,490
I agree. For all the claim that the airlines are private entities that can do anything they want, that really has never been the case. While no longer QUITE regulated like public utilities, they aren’t going to be able to get away without a process of some kind where those ‘unruly’ passengers can challenge the result, especially if it involves anyone who claims a special status, like 2% Cherokee on my mother’s side...
01-18-2021, 11:43 AM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,170
Don't be an a-hole and behave like a normal human being? It isn't that hard.
Sure, there's room for subjectivity but with phones and plenty of witnesses there should be plenty of available evidence if airlines want to get serious about in flight safety.
Sure, there's room for subjectivity but with phones and plenty of witnesses there should be plenty of available evidence if airlines want to get serious about in flight safety.
01-18-2021, 12:26 PM
#4
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,251
Non-issue.
Businesses can chose not to serve anyone, as long as it's not BECAUSE they are a protected class. You can choose not to serve a protected class, it just has to be for some other reason.
The recourse is a civil suit, but that won't succeed unless there are legal grounds, and the pax would have to prove the airline banned them for being gay, or brown or something legally protected. The airline actually doesn't have to "prove" they had sufficient cause, they can chose not serve you for almost any reason they like.
And they have to do something about it, if they let pax get away with it it will just encourage more of the same and if the crews feel like the airlines don't have their back it's going to be diversion city at the first hint of trouble $$$$.
Businesses can chose not to serve anyone, as long as it's not BECAUSE they are a protected class. You can choose not to serve a protected class, it just has to be for some other reason.
The recourse is a civil suit, but that won't succeed unless there are legal grounds, and the pax would have to prove the airline banned them for being gay, or brown or something legally protected. The airline actually doesn't have to "prove" they had sufficient cause, they can chose not serve you for almost any reason they like.
And they have to do something about it, if they let pax get away with it it will just encourage more of the same and if the crews feel like the airlines don't have their back it's going to be diversion city at the first hint of trouble $$$$.
01-18-2021, 03:04 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: May 2018
Posts: 107
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Non-issue.
Businesses can chose not to serve anyone, as long as it's not BECAUSE they are a protected class. You can choose not to serve a protected class, it just has to be for some other reason.
The recourse is a civil suit, but that won't succeed unless there are legal grounds, and the pax would have to prove the airline banned them for being gay, or brown or something legally protected. The airline actually doesn't have to "prove" they had sufficient cause, they can chose not serve you for almost any reason they like.
And they have to do something about it, if they let pax get away with it it will just encourage more of the same and if the crews feel like the airlines don't have their back it's going to be diversion city at the first hint of trouble $$$$.
Businesses can chose not to serve anyone, as long as it's not BECAUSE they are a protected class. You can choose not to serve a protected class, it just has to be for some other reason.
The recourse is a civil suit, but that won't succeed unless there are legal grounds, and the pax would have to prove the airline banned them for being gay, or brown or something legally protected. The airline actually doesn't have to "prove" they had sufficient cause, they can chose not serve you for almost any reason they like.
And they have to do something about it, if they let pax get away with it it will just encourage more of the same and if the crews feel like the airlines don't have their back it's going to be diversion city at the first hint of trouble $$$$.
01-18-2021, 05:38 PM
#7
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Mooney driver
Posts: 48
Odd how fast they are to ban certain travellers but not others (emergency exit escapees, drunken ragers, etc). Maybe in lieu of a ban they could put a passenger on probation etc.
In response to the poster who mentioned being part Cherokee Indian, what bearing would that have in regards to one being banned for unruly behaviour?
In response to the poster who mentioned being part Cherokee Indian, what bearing would that have in regards to one being banned for unruly behaviour?
01-19-2021, 07:26 PM
#8
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,251
Delta's not the only one...
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/no...sengers-banned
In fairness, I spent a couple months last year hauling BLM protestors/rioters between DC and the west coast. It was obvious who they were by their dress code and age and the fact that they were going to DC in large groups during the height of covid, but they behaved impeccably. Never had a hint of trouble.
https://www.foxnews.com/lifestyle/no...sengers-banned
In fairness, I spent a couple months last year hauling BLM protestors/rioters between DC and the west coast. It was obvious who they were by their dress code and age and the fact that they were going to DC in large groups during the height of covid, but they behaved impeccably. Never had a hint of trouble.
01-28-2021, 10:10 AM
#9
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Position: Mooney driver
Posts: 48
In all fairness, I think we all could agree that 99% of travellers supporting all political microcosms act in a civil manner when travelling. Banning a few thousand idiots from the 1.8M who fly commercially per day is a drop in the bucket. I doubt such hitlist will last forever though due to litigation.
01-28-2021, 11:02 AM
#10
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,251
Originally Posted by Chipjumper
In all fairness, I think we all could agree that 99% of travellers supporting all political microcosms act in a civil manner when travelling. Banning a few thousand idiots from the 1.8M who fly commercially per day is a drop in the bucket. I doubt such hitlist will last forever though due to litigation.
Again, very difficult to sue and prevail on this. Airlines have the tight to refuse to serve, the plaintiff would have to show that they violated some federal law on protected classes. "It's not fair" is insufficient in this case.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
