Airlines Want to Ban Disruptive Passengers - Republicans Say No

[Ray From Cleveland]

The entire premise of the thread is Senators speaking against this idea that was proposed by the industry and only would affect those convicted of onboard incidents.

You’re talking about nothing relevant to that.

One could be convicted of not wearing a mask. Should those people be grounded for life? What about an incident where an autistic child would become irate at being forced to wear a mask and the parent is simply trying to do what's best for the child and everybody on board?

Senators should speak out against such pettiness. This has zero to do with the safety of passengers and crew. This is politics where the Communists are trying to get even with what they feel are conservative flyers.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Wrong.
There is a big difference between convicted of ANY onboard incident and one involving harm, violence, assault, etc,

The reality is that most onboard incidents I read about, the airline was at fault.
They always win in court because they have the big bucks lawyers, but they are almost always abusing rights, making up law, dictating power they are not supposed to have, etc.

Anyone siding with the airline industry seems problematic to me, because they are the ones doing so many things wrong.
For example, if not for airlines, there would not even have ever been a covid epidemic in the US.
It is the single most useless, wasteful, and harmful industry on the entire planet.
People should just be using Zoom meetings instead of flying around.

The reality is that the whole TSA likely is illegal and should be disbanded.
Airport security should be local, and rules for airlines customers should be set by the FAA and convictions should be tracked by the FBI.
The TSA appears to be totally corrupt and in bed with the airlines.

You’re making a distinction with no difference.
Can someone be convicted of not wearing a mask?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

BTW - Here is the Delta Airlines CEO's letter to Garland -->> DocumentCloud

For a federal no fly list for non-terrorist's activities (i.e. unruly passengers convicted of a crime though assault or conveying a threat of death or serious bodily injury to flight crew or passengers)? Yes.

For airlines as a private company being able to maintain their own internal no fly list without conviction and the ability to share those lists with other airlines who can then choose to honor or not those lists? Yes

WW

I’ve read it and posted from it. You responded to it.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

One could be convicted of not wearing a mask. Should those people be grounded for life? What about an incident where an autistic child would become irate at being forced to wear a mask and the parent is simply trying to do what's best for the child and everybody on board?

Senators should speak out against such pettiness. This has zero to do with the safety of passengers and crew. This is politics where the Communists are trying to get even with what they feel are conservative flyers.

One could be convicted of not wearing a mask.

Just stop. How many people have been indicted for such?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just stop. How many people have been indicted for such?

That isn't being reported. What is being reported is that they want to put people with mask violations on a do not fly list for life which is ridiculous. What is being reported is that most of these violations are from people not wanting to wear a mask. This isn't a call for the federal government to step in.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You’re making a distinction with no difference.
Can someone be convicted of not wearing a mask?

“Refusal to wear a mask onboard Delta aircraft and throughout the travel ribbon may result in denial of boarding, removal from the aircraft, and even civil penalties under federal law,” said David Garrison, S.V.P. - Corporate Safety, Security & Compliance. “This new mask mandate is a welcome directive from the CDC and will provide much needed back-up to Delta’s own mask wearing policy that has been in place since May of last year.”

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

 

[Rigby5]

BTW - Here is the Delta Airlines CEO's letter to Garland -->> DocumentCloud

For a federal no fly list for non-terrorist's activities (i.e. unruly passengers convicted of a crime though assault or conveying a threat of death or serious bodily injury to flight crew or passengers)? Yes.

For airlines as a private company being able to maintain their own internal no fly list without conviction and the ability to share those lists with other airlines who can then choose to honor or not those lists? Yes

WW

A government list allows for accountability, challenges, accuracy, etc.
Private lists are authoritarian, corrupt, and lead to evil.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I cant beleive that the right is making this a political issue. noboy wants to be on a plane with some drunken thug. It is more likely to cause behaviour to improve than anything else. You lose your rights when you misbehave.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I’ve read it and posted from it. You responded to it.

Yes. So?

This is a discussion board, people respond to posts.

WW

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I cant beleive that the right is making this a political issue. noboy wants to be on a plane with some drunken thug. It is more likely to cause behaviour to improve than anything else. You lose your rights when you misbehave.

Obviously you didn't read our posts, you just responded to the OP.

 

[toobfreak]

Airlines Want to Ban Disruptive Passengers - Republicans Say No​

Let's put two disruptive passengers on a plane, one with a Let's Go Brandon face mask and the other with a BLM face mask.

Airline's policy is no political messages on masks.

Which one do you want to bet gets the boot, and which one do you want to bet you will support and NOT support getting booted off?

 

[Rigby5]

You’re making a distinction with no difference.
Can someone be convicted of not wearing a mask?

That is the difference I am talking about.
Not wearing a mask is nonviolent and should not be sufficient to ban a person from flying.
The reality is that even if an airline wants to insist on masks during the peak of an epidemic, that normally only lasts a month or 2.

 

[Rigby5]

I cant beleive that the right is making this a political issue. noboy wants to be on a plane with some drunken thug. It is more likely to cause behaviour to improve than anything else. You lose your rights when you misbehave.

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.

 

[Rigby5]

Let's put two disruptive passengers on a plane, one with a Let's Go Brandon face mask and the other with a BLM face mask.

Airline's policy is no political messages on masks.

Which one do you want to bet gets the boot, and which one do you want to bet you will support and NOT support getting booted off?

I do not see how a "no political messages" policy could ever be legal?

 

[odanny]

Let's put two disruptive passengers on a plane, one with a Let's Go Brandon face mask and the other with a BLM face mask.

Airline's policy is no political messages on masks.

Which one do you want to bet gets the boot, and which one do you want to bet you will support and NOT support getting booted off?

Let's Go Brandon is a profane slur, and to my knowledge, BLM stands for Black Lives Matter, and is only considered a slur to rightwing extremists.

 

[Lisa558]

Let's Go Brandon is a profane slur, and to my knowledge, BLM stands for Black Lives Matter, and is only considered a slur to rightwing extremists.

Nothing profane about that phrase. It’s just words.

BLM, on the other hand, Is a racist hate group founded by anti-American Marxists that incited massive violence and destruction and assaults and murders in dozens of cities for months on end.

 

[FA_Q2]

You’re making a distinction with no difference.
Can someone be convicted of not wearing a mask?

AFAIK, they can.

The charge would not be not waring a mask, it would be no following the legal instructions from a flight attendant. I have no idea if this is prevalent enough to be worth noting though.

The link brought up earlier does not mention convictions in court afaik.

I do not see how a "no political messages" policy could ever be legal?

Why not?

You can have dress code on private property, which a plane is. I am not sure why it would be illegal to point out political messaging specifically. Wrong? Absolutely. Illegal, no.

 

[Rigby5]

Let's Go Brandon is a profane slur, and to my knowledge, BLM stands for Black Lives Matter, and is only considered a slur to rightwing extremists.

No difference at all.
Both are an equal attempt to drum up political support for candidates and platforms.
The actual catch phrases or slogans are irrelevant.

 

[Rigby5]

AFAIK, they can.

The charge would not be not waring a mask, it would be no following the legal instructions from a flight attendant. I have no idea if this is prevalent enough to be worth noting though.

The link brought up earlier does not mention convictions in court afaik.


Why not?

You can have dress code on private property, which a plane is. I am not sure why it would be illegal to point out political messaging specifically. Wrong? Absolutely. Illegal, no.

Because political expression is not just a guaranteed right, but likely the single most important one.
That is because without the right of political expression, then it becomes trivial to violate any other right, because you do not have the collective means of resisting any sort of abuse imaginable.

Dress codes have to do with things like the traditions of not seeing bare legs or armpits while eating.
They do not have any sort of relationship to political expression.
No one would expect such suppression, nor should it be tolerated, since political expression is not harmful to anyone.

And by the way it is not really legal for a flight attendant to order anyone to wear a mask.
The reality is that once the strategy is not full quarantine, then the only valid strategy left is herd immunity, and mask not only prevent that, but instead make it more likely the epidemic gets time to become endemic, which will kill an infinitely greater number of people.
Flight attendants know neither law nor medicine.

 

[Rigby5]

Nothing profane about that phrase. It’s just words.

BLM, on the other hand, Is a racist hate group founded by anti-American Marxists that incited massive violence and destruction and assaults and murders in dozens of cities for months on end.

I agree political expression is protected, but I disagree with what BLM means.
To me it means that police have become far to fascist and had to stop murdering innocent Blacks.
Which I totally agree with.
You have no idea what Marxism means, so that is not relevant.
The violence associated with BLM is justified retaliation that is still insigificant compared to the even more Blacks who have been murdered after BLM, by police.