SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Unruly passenger incidents rising again, FAA data shows:
FAA figures released Tuesday show more disruptions on commercial flights in the past week than any week in the past two and a half months.
The FAA says there were 128 new incidents reported by flight crews, bringing this year's total to 4,626 incidents. The new number is the highest weekly figure since the FAA started releasing weekly data on July 20.
About 72% of issues in the past week were over the federal transportation mask mandate, figures show.
[...] The agency has proposed more than $1 million in fines against unruly airline passengers this year.
One $45,000 fine announced in August was against a passenger accused of throwing his luggage at another passenger and, while lying on the aisle floor, "grabbing a flight attendant by the ankles and putting his head up her skirt."
Another passenger would not wear his face mask, the FAA, said, and "acted as though his hand was a gun and made a 'pew, pew' noise as if he was shooting a fellow passenger."
[...] Pekoske said 110 TSA officers have been assaulted this year.
Lots Of Talk About A Crackdown On America’s Air Rage Epidemic—But Not Enough Action:
Among the most egregious incidents: Last December, a Delta Air Lines passenger tried to open the cockpit door mid-flight and struck a flight attendant in the face before being restrained by crew members and a fellow passenger. On an Alaska Airlines flight in March, a Colorado man who refused to wear a face mask swatted at a flight attendant, then stood up and urinated in his seat area. In May, a Southwest Airlines passenger punched out a flight attendant’s teeth after being told to keep her seat belt fastened.
[...] The threat of four- and five-figure fines has not tamped down unruly behavior on planes. “Civil penalties alone are failing to deter criminal activity by airline passengers,” [...]
[...] The airline industry, meanwhile, says this is a job for the Department of Justice. “We believe that the United States Government is well equipped to prosecute unruly and disruptive onboard behavior,” [...]
What, if anything, should be done, or could improve the situation?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by weilawei on Thursday October 07 2021, @11:07PM (46 children)
For starters, what's the historical data look like? Is this new? Have we always done this? Did we do this in the 70s? 80s? 90s? 00s? 10s?
I don't necessarily know (yet) if it's a situation that actually demands changing. What percentage of person-flights is 4626 per year? Is that a small or a large problem? I suspect it's rather smaller of a problem than the out-of-context number makes it out to be.
In short, in the words of the Cosmic AC, "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07 2021, @11:10PM (23 children)
(Score: 5, Interesting) by HiThere on Friday October 08 2021, @12:32AM (12 children)
It's not clear that would work, though it should be tried. The problem is that quick retribution is more effective at changing behavior than severe retribution which is delayed.
So...stop the plane at the next available airport and remove them from the plane, with a fine and banning from flights as the immediate follow on (not delayed). Some of that could be done by the airline without waiting for court action. Just how long the ban should last I'm not sure, I lean towards at least 2 years, but the fact of the ban, and it's quick imposition is more important than the duration. (Of course, this invites abuse on the part of the airlines, so photographic evidence should be required and audio highly desirable. Inside an airplane that shouldn't be difficult.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday October 08 2021, @02:18AM
If you s/stop the plane at the next available airport and//; then you can also s/with a fine and banning .*//; . Probably wouldn't even need to worry with maintaining a ban list.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 08 2021, @03:51AM (10 children)
That sounds like an excellent plan if alienating huge swathes of your customer base and going out of business is your goal.
Travel volumes have collapsed thanks to the coronavirus. Airlines are hurting badly. As if that's not enough, mismanaging their remaining flights is killing off more business; I have multiple reports of peoples' flights being delayed, rescheduled, or cancelled, for days. So declaring war on those silly enough to continue to fly is guaranteed to destroy what remains.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday October 08 2021, @01:32PM
True, there's more than one component to the situation.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08 2021, @02:32PM (2 children)
As someone who still has to fly, people like this are currently alienating most other passengers who just want to get from A to B. Getting these s**ts off the plane will make life much better for most of us who still have to fly.
Ban them on the spot, and let them figure out a different way to get whereever they are going when they get dropped off at the next airport. They can rent a car and drive, and then the poor babies (boo-hoo-hoo) won't have to wear a mask. Make these whining, entitled "victims" pay for all the crap they put everyone else through. Press criminal charges.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 08 2021, @06:13PM (1 child)
I just love how the masks=the devil people are the same people who will freak the fuck out if their precious eyes are ever exposed to 50% of human nipples.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 08 2021, @06:16PM
Banning a woman from feeding her baby in public: FREEDOM!!
Requiring people to not endanger their fellow travelers: SLAVERY!!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nuke on Friday October 08 2021, @04:23PM (2 children)
Kicking louts off the plane would alienate "huge swathes" of passengers?? The only people alienated would be the louts.
I would say that not kicking them off is alienating the majority. From what I hear I prefer not to fly, and I'd be inclined to get off at the next airport myself if one of those louts is allowed to remain on board.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 08 2021, @06:45PM (1 child)
Except, you are only one delay from being a lout yourself.
People are losing it for a reason.
Maybe the answer is to have flights take off on time, and to treat passengers with dignity. I know, crazy talk, right?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08 2021, @06:55PM
_-*Translation as follows*-_
"People are annoyed by the shittiness of airlines, please excuse their assaults upon employees and the endangerment of other passengers because we must care about their hurt little feelings. Please agree that white people are entitled to be criminal pricks in pursuit of their creature comforts."
*** end translation ***
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Friday October 08 2021, @08:56PM (2 children)
I don't fly already because of the TSA and the naked-porno-scanners becoming more forced. It certainly doesn't help that the odds of coming across some selfish ignorant anti-mask fucker is pretty good. Waiting until you hit ground only allows them to breathe pathogens into the common air for how long? These people need to understand they need to wear the mask 100% of the time, and if they don't follow instructions put them on the no-fly list until COVID is complete over.
Now if I knew the planes wouldn't even lift off without compliance, and that being caught without a mask meant being on the no-fly list, I just might actually feel comfortable flying.
That's why travel volumes have collapsed. Not because flight crews are mistreating people, but because it is DANGEROUS. I have clients/family/friends that have asked multiple times for me to come out and help them, even offering to pay for the flights, and my answer is an absolutely firm no.
It's not just planes either. It's anywhere people normally congregated. Who's responsible for this? The venue operators? Employees? NO. It's the people that refuse to wear a piece of cloth on their faces to help fight a pandemic that is killing people and causing rationing of care in hospitals.
I would rather have what remains destroyed, then get COVID on a flight because of some anti-masking mother fuckers. Fuck them. Fuck them with a saguaro cactus sideways. They are the reason I can't fly and won't see my family for at least another few years.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 09 2021, @03:59AM (1 child)
You are willingly getting into a metal tube packed like sardines with your fellow humans and you think the little piece of loose-fitting paper is going to protect you from breathing in the virus. No, you are relying on either your natural immune system or else a vaccination. The little paper is not doing shit. But, you can't be a man and accept that you badly want to travel and are willing to risk getting sick, so you tell yourself it's not really a risk if everyone wears the little paper. WISHFUL THINKING. Be honest with yourself and stop being a coward about it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Saturday October 09 2021, @10:08PM
Ahh, yes the testosterone filled idiots speak. It's always about being a man right? That's some ignorant bravado bullshit completely bereft of any sophisticated intelligence and reason.
It's not a little paper, and scientifically it makes a big fucking difference. Instead of your be-a-man argument, I'm going to respond with six layers of N99.9 (not N99.5) material with an active exhaust system using Ultraviolet-C light. Science mother fucker!
You lack any sophisticated understanding and rely on your "balls" and false courage. It's LESS or a risk of everyone is wearing the "piece of paper". That's just science and reason. If all of exhales from everybody passes through at least a N99.5 filter, then the number of pathogens put into the common area is vastly lower then without it. If that common area has vastly lower pathogens in it, then again, the odds of inhaling a pathogen through the same said material is vastly lower. Being overly simplistic it's like having a 1/5 chance of winning something versus the chances found in any common state lottery. It's probably orders or magnitude less risk.
So your manliness wants me to accept vastly higher risk because you're an asshole? No fuck you! :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Troll) by oldeschool on Friday October 08 2021, @03:35AM (8 children)
arrested for what? definition of mandate: A judicial command, order, or precept, written or oral, from a court -- what court stated masks are to be worn on aircraft?
(Score: 3, Funny) by dry on Friday October 08 2021, @05:44AM (5 children)
For most of them, it sounds like assault would be the preferred charge. Could always order them of the plane and charge them with trespassing if they don't vacate the plane.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08 2021, @09:36AM (4 children)
Only if it happens before take-off. Otherwise, ordering them off the plane would be cruel and unusual punishment.
(Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday October 08 2021, @04:25PM (1 child)
Ordering them off the plane during flight sound good, but planes will need to be fitted with airlocks first.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday October 08 2021, @10:55PM
Just means lowering the planes altitude first and maybe getting the passengers to agree to the open door, which they are likely to do to get rid of the twit.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by dry on Friday October 08 2021, @10:59PM (1 child)
We're talking America, does anything qualify for cruel and unusual punishment? The other year when they were torturing people to death with a weird cocktail of drugs, the Supreme Court ruled it was fine, I beleive the reasoning being that in 1789 it would not be cruel and unusual punishment. As they didn't have airplanes in 1789, it should get a pass.
Here in Canada, things like 3 strike laws and minimum sentences can and have been struck down as cruel and unusual punishment.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 09 2021, @07:37AM
Cruelty is the whole point of the American justice system, if you ignore the slavery.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Friday October 08 2021, @11:25AM
Trespass. Just like any retail store.
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday October 08 2021, @03:39PM
You are required by law to follow the instructions of the flight crew while on an airplane. [aviationpros.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08 2021, @01:42PM
Meh, the government isn't willing to take the PR hit for actually doing that. That's why this is an issue in the first place, they're trying to avoid backlash by pushing the enforcement off on private parties instead of handling it themselves. There's huge penalties to the airlines if they don't enforce the mask mandates, so of course they're going to enforce them. They just don't have law enforcement powers, so they're limited in what they can do, and get more push-back because the people pushing back can't get arrested for it.
This is just another step up in increasing a really fucking dangerous and stupid trend, where the government leans on private companies to do things that the government isn't willing to do directly, because it is either a.) unwilling to do because of PR or b.) unable to do because of Constitutional restrictions.
Oh, and of course, then step in with more laws to fix the problem they created. It's amazing how far along we are into "the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy" territory.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 07 2021, @11:17PM (6 children)
The only reason this is an issue is because it is being tolerated. Unruly people need to be removed without any hesitancy, and put on a 6 month "No-Fly" list on first offence, after that, regular felony disruption of an airline, minimum, and three strikes you're out! Treading lightly sets a horrible example.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08 2021, @12:50AM (4 children)
Give them a parachute and kick them off the plane. Landing beforehand optional.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08 2021, @01:35AM
i came here to say this, of course it would devolve to a disposable single use chute made out of the same stuff they use in the loo, that way the no-fly list does not keep growing, so airlines save on data storage costs too.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08 2021, @02:19AM (1 child)
Forget the parachute. A few of those and even hardcore Trump believing anti-vaxers would start behaving.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday October 08 2021, @08:21PM
Slashdolt Logic: "25 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 09 2021, @12:47AM
Give them a voucher for a parachute, redeemable at the help desk, then kick them off the plane.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ilsa on Friday October 08 2021, @12:46PM
Screw that. Permanent ban. They are adults, not children.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08 2021, @01:39AM (8 children)
How about a short warning notice that comes up just before you pay for the online ticket--
Nose & mouth covering masks are required on this flight, failure to wear a mask (or otherwise fail to follow directions from the flight crew) will result in civil and/or criminal charges, as well as listing on a no-fly list for 6 months minimum. Customers may be video/audio recorded at any point past the gate.
[X] Agree (goes on to payment screen)
[ ] Disagree (screen will not advance, only reverse)
[ ] Special exemption request to be processed before the day of departure (goes to input form)
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 08 2021, @03:54AM (7 children)
You are right. Nobody should fly. Drive instead and see the country.
Vote with your feet and your dollars. If a mode of travel or a system demands obedience, don't support it by going along with it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Mykl on Friday October 08 2021, @05:09AM
Sounds like a win-win
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08 2021, @05:27AM
If only all the trash took itself out.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday October 08 2021, @05:47AM (4 children)
Err, driving requires way more obedience then a mask mandate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08 2021, @11:19AM (3 children)
You mean you can't bring your own beverages with you in your car?
You must pass through an X-Ray scatter machine before entering your car?
You're not allowed to open the windows in your car?
You must check-in at your parking space 2 hours before your planned departure, then wait 1.5 hours before entering the vehicle?
Your car will only let you drive from city center to city center, then you must transfer to another mode of transportation to get to your destination?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08 2021, @01:19PM
Strawman. Driving has tons of requirements, laws, restrictions, etc
You have to pass a test and posses a valid drivers license
You have to have a registered (and often tested) vehicle
You have to have valid, paid for insurance on that vehicle
You have to obey speed limits
You have to wear a seat belt
You have to follow traffic rules
You cannot drink alcohol (maybe in ND/SD, but otherwise ;-)
etc, etc, etc
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday October 08 2021, @11:05PM (1 child)
You can be thrown in jail here for bringing your own alcoholic beverages in your car here. Non-alcoholic beverages are simply a big fine and points (higher insurance) with perhaps your vehicle impounded. Distracted driving is the charge, mostly aimed at having your cell phone handy but covering a lot of stuff from eating and drinking while driving to fiddling with the radio.
Your other examples are stupid considering the other laws covering driving.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 09 2021, @04:03AM
I don't live in your Nazi province, so those driving rules are not my problem.
I think I'll have an ice cold drink while I enjoy the drive, sold to me straight from the DRIVE THRU WINDOW.
(Score: 2) by Beryllium Sphere (r) on Friday October 08 2021, @02:46AM (1 child)
>in the words of the Cosmic AC, "THERE IS AS YET INSUFFICIENT DATA FOR A MEANINGFUL ANSWER."
All the other ACs said that. The Cosmic AC had something different.
(Score: 2) by weilawei on Friday October 08 2021, @03:35AM
(Score: 5, Informative) by Immerman on Friday October 08 2021, @02:57AM (3 children)
Don't just ask questions - google the data to answer them. We live in an unprecedented era where you have much of the collected knowledge of humanity at your fingertips - there's no longer any excuse for ignorance.
Here they say that the the FAA ATO provides service to 45,000 flights and 2.9 million passengers PER DAY: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/ [faa.gov]
So 4626 instances per year translates to about... 0.00044% of passengers causing a problem. Or alternately having a problem on 0.028% of flights (1 in 3550, assuming no more than one problem passenger per flight) Pretty small fraction by the numbers.
On the other hand it's *huge* by historical context: https://www.faa.gov/data_research/passengers_cargo/unruly_passengers/ [faa.gov]
Says that since 1995 unruly passenger wandered between about 150 to 300 investigations per year, with the last 15 years being near 150 before suddenly skyrocketing in the last year or so. So unless they suddenly changed either their rules or reporting, that would suggest there is a *substantial* problem
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08 2021, @05:37AM (1 child)
You are drastically underestimating general aviation, aerial work, rotorcraft, and cargo. That cuts quite a bit into your numbers of the number of flights affected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08 2021, @10:39PM
How is that a troll? ATC provides service to a lot more than just passenger CAT flights. For example, even a cursory glance at that page shows that 1/3 of the flights are cargo only and I'm pretty sure people aren't reported for any freakouts that occur on their corporate-owned jets, police helicopters, air ambulances, personal light aircraft, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 08 2021, @04:43PM