Republicans attempting to derail airline request for federal 'no-fly' list for disruptive passengers

[turbinetree]

By Tom Boggioni
Published February 19, 2022

?id=29385480&width=800&height=450

Despite a request from Delta Airlines for a federal "no-fly" list aimed at banning disruptive and combative passengers, Business Insider is reporting that the possibility of just such a list is facing headwinds from some Republican lawmakers led by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX).

According to the report, the Atlanta-based airline has appealed to President Joe Biden's administration -- including a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland -- for help against passengers who can't control themselves and have been endangering both their fellow passengers and airline crews alike.

As Delta CEO Ed Bastian said earlier this week: "Actions have consequences."

https://www.rawstory.com/ted-cruz-2656729377/

Ah yes the federalist society member that thinks that when people get on a plane while he flies down to Cancun and they start throwing a tantrum if they don't follow the rules while he is on the flight that would be alright huh dude, well that's another story right dipshit ....and by the way did you read this law.....you don't even know why this law was put in place do you.....you have no clue.....all you are is anarchists taking tax payer dollars to be one right along with the other 8 that have no business being in the government......

I think they should be charged and go to court and face the twenty years and the fine.....

49 U.S.C. § 46504
https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-49-transportation/subtitle-vii-aviation-programs/part-a-air-commerce-and-safety/subpart-iv-enforcement-and-penalties/chapter-465-special-aircraft-jurisdiction-of-the-united-states/section-46504-interference-with-flight-crew-members-and-attendants

[Irish_Dem]

1. Who benefits from allowing disruptive passengers on airplanes?

Who benefits from blocking a no-fly list?

[leftieNanner]

4. They are protecting their MAGA maskholes

Because, for the most part, that is who is disrupting flights these days.

[Irish_Dem]

6. Yes and also those who want continued internal conflict and disruption.

[Ocelot II]

3. That's because only foreign terrorists who attack flight attendants,

try to enter the flight deck or open the aircraft doors should be on a no-fly list. White Americans who attack flight attendants, try to enter the flight deck or open the aircraft doors because they don't want to wear masks are only engaging in legitimate political discourse.

[KentuckyWoman]

5. "Disruptive"

We need to be a little careful with this. It's one thing to no fly passengers who genuinely cause a problem. It's quite another to ban someone who turned out to be the victim of a flight attendant who starts it.

I'll be devilled if I can find it now but ACLU had something on their website just recent that detailed 3 or 4 cases where the passenger was the victim and the agent was the one off the hook. They sited about 40% of cases being dropped after the fact when people are pulled from a plane, and in about 20% of those, the passenger sues the airline.

Getting off the no fly once on it is difficult.

[keithbvadu2]

7. Because then repubs would have to drive to their convention.

Because then repubs would have to drive to their convention.

[flying_wahini]

8. Believe me; as a former flight attendant, I could tell you stories.....

As the article says the flight attendant “could” mistake rude people for ‘real’ troublemakers.

It doesn’t take long to figure out who is a real troublemaker and who is just an ordinary asshole.

Also, MOST of the the pilots are ex Military and they have enough to worry about just getting their job done without having to deal with some crazy passenger who wants exceptions
to the rules that are made for EVERYBODY's sake.

[turbinetree]

10. As former line aircraft mechanic, most people just do not realize .....

and you know what, I still love aviation, because of the responsibilities that I had to make sure that everyone on that plane had a enjoyable safe flight, because as you know if there was a issue during pre-flight or on the walk around or in the cabin, safety is and was the main priority ......so that everyone on that plane could get to where they could go to have memories to share....I have no pity for people who break the rules.....none, zilch ......

I could go to jail if I was found to have been negligent in my duties....

[captain queeg]

9. The rethugs are all about "Do as I say, not as I do"

They want rules to be used against those they don’t like (liberal, people of color, Dems, etc.). But for themselves rules don’t apply.

[Hekate]

11. These are private businesses. I don't understand why they need Uncle Sam to make this list...

Such a policy would not violate any federal laws that I know of, as it would be based on individual behavior, and not based on a characteristic like race, gender, or handicap.

Get on it, airline executives. You already have free rein to make our flying lives miserable with narrow seats and narrower restrooms. You already have federal regs aimed at brown terrorists. Either use what you already have, or realize you have a duty to actually keep your crew safe — and passengers as well — and share information that would lead to a no-fly list.

[localroger]

12. They are heavily regulated

You can't just hang up a shingle, call yourself an airline, and start flying planes you build in your back yard. It's all interconnected.

[Hekate]

13. Of course they are, and of course it is. Now let the CEOs & legal departments get to work.

[BlueIdaho]

14. When was the last time the RNCult

Did anything to help the American people?

[Wicked Blue]

15. Gee, I thought the repukes loved big corporations

Makes you wonder just whose side they're actually on