SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Delta Air Lines calls for carriers to share names of unruly passengers:
Delta Air Lines is calling for an industry-wide effort to keep passengers from boarding competitors' flights after being banned for disruptive behavior.
So far this year, Delta says it has submitted the names of more than 600 banned passengers to the Federal Aviation Administration, which has sought to enforce rules against interfering with flight crews. The industry has seen a surge in poor behavior and banned passengers in recent months, with the bulk of incidents related to face mask requirements.
"We've also asked other airlines to share their 'no fly' list to further protect airline employees across the industry," Delta said in a memo this week. "A list of banned customers doesn't work as well if that customer can fly with another airline."
The company did not say whether sharing of passenger lists should be through the federal government or among companies themselves, and declined to elaborate. Delta said it has more than 1,600 people on its internal no-fly list and did not clarify why it submitted fewer than that to the FAA.
[...] The FAA was noncommittal about the idea Friday, saying in a statement the agency "is meeting with airports, airlines, unions, and others to discuss what additional steps the FAA and our industry partners can collectively take to continue driving down the number of unruly passenger incidents."
The agency said its latest data shows a decline in the rate of unruly passenger incidents. It said that as of last week, incidents involving unruly passengers occurred about six times in every 10,000 flights.
"That's an approximately 50 percent drop from early 2021, but it's more than twice as high as the end of 2020," the agency said Thursday.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 27 2021, @05:22PM
Agreed with both. However, I don't think a industry-wide blacklist is needed. This can be a free-market thing.
If Delta locally blacklists a person, then they can fly United. It costs them more (implicit because it is their 2nd choice), but they can still travel. If they still act poorly and United blocks them, then they can fly Alaskan. it costs them even more (implicit because it is their 3rd choice), but they can still travel. If they continue to act poorly, the personal cost of travel in terms of time and money will continue to escalate until they learn or they are entirely banned.
My main concern is that if there is enough demand, a "typhoid airline: you can do whatever you want here" might spring up... which I'm not sure what I'd think about. I guess it keeps people segregated, but it also will increase the spread of disease across society.