The flight from Chicago to Connecticut isn’t long, but it must have seemed like forever for the flight attendants stuck on board with a passenger who got belligerent when told no alcohol was available.
Even after they allowed him to inspect the beverage cart for confirmation, he continued to remove his face mask and berate the crew. In November, the Federal Aviation Administration fined this man $9,000 for his disruptive behavior. United could decide to ban him from ever flying on the airline again.
Case closed? Not if the government takes the bait being dangled by some airline executives and employees who want a new national “no-fly list” for travelers guilty of crossing them in the skies.
Led by Delta Air Lines Chief Executive Ed Bastian, a lobbying effort is underway for a “comprehensive list” of individuals whom the U.S. would ban from air travel, potentially forever.
On the surface, canceling passengers who disrupt flights has an undeniable allure. Who wouldn’t enjoy seeing that loudmouth on the United flight banned from ever setting foot in an airport again?
Consider, though, the potential for unintended consequences. For nearly two decades, the federal government has maintained an official no-fly list aimed at grounding terrorists. Seemed reasonable, in the aftermath of 9/11.
In practice, the list uses vague and undisclosed criteria, and several years ago a federal judge declared its process for redress unconstitutional. The list reportedly is packed with Muslims of Arab, Middle Eastern and South Asian heritage, because, as everyone knows, especially after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, terrorists couldn’t possibly be white and Christian.
Some allege abuses by law enforcement. A recent lawsuit accused the FBI of using the list to pressure a U.S. citizen of Lebanese descent into becoming an informant. For more than two years, Ahmad Chebli, a Michigan auto engineer, could not travel by air for his work, to see family and friends, or to fulfill his religious pilgrimage obligation. The feds took off his name shortly after the lawsuit was filed.
A new no-fly list would give the airlines a powerful tool for the same kind of overreach, racial profiling and violations of due process — reminding us of the Chicago Police Department’s shamefully bloated and inaccurate database of alleged gang members.
These are the same airlines, remember, that periodically melt down, canceling flights while blaming the weather, air traffic control and illnesses among their crews, as opposed to taking responsibility for mechanical problems and unofficial work stoppages. They rely on byzantine “conditions of carriage” contracts to avoid giving nonelite customers richly deserved refunds and compensation, or rebooking stranded passengers onto rival airlines.
As for dealing with those who fail to comply with instructions from airline employees, the record is problematic. Dr. David Dao was booked and seated on a United flight at Chicago O’Hare International Airport when he was ordered off the plane to make room for an airline employee. The airline called in security officers who broke his nose and teeth while dragging him away.
Fortunately for the Kentucky physician, viral video of the 2017 incident made it obvious that United had blown it. The airline apologized, promised to change its ways and settled the lawsuit Dao filed. Not everyone who gets on the wrong side of a customer service agent or flight attendant receives such satisfaction.
At the same time, those front-line workers deserve our sympathy and support for the abuse heaped on them, which got worse during the pandemic. Thousands of incidents were reported to the FAA last year, as arguments with anti-mask hard-liners became depressingly routine. The same decline in civility that is showing up in many public settings has flown into the air as well.
We believe strong action is warranted, but that should not mean another federal no-fly list. Airlines already maintain lists of passengers they have decided to ban, which is their right as private businesses.
Delta’s Bastian observes that, in some cases, those same passengers can evade a ban by flying on other carriers. Leave it to an airline CEO to overlook how passengers often have few options for getting to their destinations. The airline bans are powerful deterrents on their own, and the FAA can impose fines on top of them.
Further, the law already provides tough penalties for those convicted of serious crimes at airports and aboard aircraft. To the extent stronger enforcement is needed, the Justice Department is best equipped to bring cases while ensuring due process for the accused.
Here’s another idea: restrict the booze. As almost every frequent flyer knows, some people can’t resist celebrating the wonders of flight by drinking to excess and making everyone around them miserable.
Flight attendants can cut off drunk passengers any time, and they should. For those determined to tank up at airport bars, which should not be serving alcohol at breakfast time, check their boarding passes and make sure they are sober before they head down the jetway. Such simple steps could go a long way toward heading off trouble at the gate and on board, with no Big Brother list required.
———
