Passenger Misconduct

Palmpilot said:
…The policy is in place until Sept. 14, and the FAA plans to enforce its zero-tolerance policyfor passenger disturbances as long as the mandate remains.
Click to expand...

So when the mandate is lifted, then the FAA will tolerate unruly pax? That’s kind of f’d up.

Honestly, the airlines did this to themselves…race to the bottom for fares and you end up with bottom dwellers buying the fares.
 
Last edited:
No, they're just not extending the zero-tolerance policy. The tolerance while not zero, is pretty low as it is.
 
Palmpilot said:
I thought it was "the invisible hand of the market" that was doing it, iow, consumers choosing low fares over everything else.
Click to expand...
Demand side says "we want it cheap" and supply side says "ok, we'll sell it cheap". Neither exists without the other. The more seats the demand side adds, the more they need to fill them and that generally means cheaper fares. Neither exists without the other.

All that said, from my observations over the years, it's not just the cheap passengers that cause problems. Some frequent flyers are familiar with the term "DYKWIA" - "don't you know who I am" as it refers to entitled passengers.
 
wsuffa said:
All that said, from my observations over the years, it's not just the cheap passengers that cause problems. Some frequent flyers are familiar with the term "DYKWIA" - "don't you know who I am" as it refers to entitled passengers.
Click to expand...

I love the story about one of these entitled passengers yelling DYKWIA at the gate agent and the gate agent calmly picking up the mic and asking the rest of the people at the gate (something like): "Can anyone help this person? He doesn't know who he is"
 
wsuffa said:
Demand side says "we want it cheap" and supply side says "ok, we'll sell it cheap". Neither exists without the other. The more seats the demand side adds, the more they need to fill them and that generally means cheaper fares. Neither exists without the other....
Click to expand...

That's what "the invisible hand of the market" refers to: both supply AND demand. The supply side would provide additional space if the demand side were willing to pay enough for it to result in higher profit than the alternative.
 
TCABM said:
So when the mandate is lifted, then the FAA will tolerate unruly pax? That’s kind of f’d up.

Honestly, the airlines did this to themselves…race to the bottom for fares and you end up with bottom dwellers buying the fares.
Click to expand...
Not at all. The VAST majority of unruly passenger complaints are related to the mask mandate. And the zero-tolerance policy was the stick to enforce that mandate.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/06/dis...s-unruly-passenger-complaints-on-planes-.html

This was a problem created almost entirely by the desire to enforce a silly, unnecessary, feel-good policy that itself was created only to give the appearance of "doing something."
 
Well, I think in terms of the pertinent issues for this thread, one can ignore the issue of whether cloth masks are effective or not in preventing the spread of Covid-19. It is probably sufficient to note that what @Lindberg says about the cause of unruly passengers is true. The majority of the complaints are related to the mask mandate. And secondly to note that a substantial fraction of the population does not believe the masks really work (whether that is true or not).

Thus it is an attempt at strict enforcement of an FAA policy which is rather unpopular. That is the sort of situation which is likely to lead to unruly behavior.

I also tend to agree that packing people in on commercial flights is a contributing factor to unruly behavior as well. Puts most people in a bad mood to start with. It is not a pleasant experience. I frankly preferred it when the middle seats were all left open, but that is obviously not economically sustainable at those low prices.
 
Last edited:
flyingron said:
…The tolerance while not zero, is pretty low as it is.
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head. The FAA believes there is an acceptable level of pax misconduct.
 
TCABM said:
You hit the nail on the head. The FAA believes there is an acceptable level of pax misconduct.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't this really be up to the carriers and the pilots implementing their companies' policies?
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Shouldn't this really be up to the carriers and the pilots implementing their companies' policies?
Click to expand...

Should each carrier have the ability to determine whether or not a case should be referred for federal civil money penalty action?
 
TCABM said:
Should each carrier have the ability to determine whether or not a case should be referred for federal civil money penalty action?
Click to expand...

Don't they presently? Sometimes they will ignore it and other times refer, right?

Hypothetically, my preference would be that the carriers have even more discretion and simply can write into their contracts what they want. You smoke on their flight, you agree you will pay them $20,000, whatever they like. There is no inherent reason this needs to be a one size fits all situation.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm just floored by the number of people who think they have a right to ignore crew-member instructions when they ride in someone else's aircraft.
Click to expand...

I think at least a large part of this attitude arises from the extremely regulated and non-competitive environment the airlines are operating in. There is a real blurring for the average passenger of what is an airline rule and what is an FAA rule and what is a TSA rule. It seems like just one big "system" to them and they lose sight of the private property rights involved.

I also think the airlines love pushing off unpopular rules as being the responsibility of some Federal agency rather than actually having to answer to their customers about it.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Well, I think in terms of the pertinent issues for this thread, one can ignore the issue of whether cloth masks are effective or not in preventing the spread of Covid-19. It is probably sufficient to note that what @Lindberg says about the cause of unruly passengers is true. The majority of the complaints are related to the mask mandate. And secondly to note that a substantial fraction of the population does not believe the masks really work (whether that is true or not).

Thus it is an attempt at strict enforcement of an FAA policy which is rather unpopular. That is the sort of situation which is likely to lead to unruly behavior.

I also tend to agree that packing people in on commercial flights is a contributing factor to unruly behavior as well. Puts most people in a bad mood to start with. It is not a pleasant experience. I frankly preferred it when the middle seats were all left open, but that is obviously not economically sustainable at those low prices.
Click to expand...

I have to think this^^^, the mask is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Flying before masks was barely tolerable anyway, other than first class. When you’re in a space that has ZERO inches to bend down to get something out of your bag under the seat, or to open a snack, or remove or put on a sweater, when you must literally stick your ass into someone’s face to get past them to go to the bathroom, when you have to share armrest territory with a stranger, when the person in front of you leans their chair back while you have food and drink on your tray, there is NO room to function, at all. It’s inhumane. We’ve come to this by the public’s demand for cheap basement level prices and as palmpilot says, supply and demand. Fine, it means the poorest slob can fly. That doesn’t make the experience any more palatable.

It’s less room than you’ll have in your coffin! This was recognized as contributing to “air rage” long before covid.

Add to that the suffocating sensation of a mask, literally restricting how much air you can breathe and I can see it kicking people past the breaking point.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Don't they presently? Sometimes they will ignore it and other times refer, right?
Click to expand...
What I care about is once it comes to the FAA’s attention, violations of federal law are treated equally. According to the FAA, “Historically, FAA has closed these cases with legal enforcement action (civil penalties), administrative action (warning notices), compliance action (counseling), or no action if there is insufficient evidence of a regulatory violation or violation of federal law. However, under our current zero-tolerance policy toward unruly passengers, we are not addressing cases with warning notices or counseling.”

https://www.faa.gov/data_research/passengers_cargo/unruly_passengers/

So, at one point in the past unruly behavior got a tiered response, then it changed and everybody got the same response, and now it’s going to go back to a tiered response, even though the letter of the law has not changed.

What would have yesterday and will tomorrow result in counseling, results in civil money penalty today. For the exact same behavior.
 
I certainly agree that equal treatment under the law is the ideal. Though often not achieved. And I also agree that providing large civil penalties in a "zero tolerance" policy is a poor idea for this nature of offense compared to trying the other approaches you mention such as warning notices or counseling.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Well, I think in terms of the pertinent issues for this thread, one can ignore the issue of whether cloth masks are effective or not in preventing the spread of Covid-19. It is probably sufficient to note that what @Lindberg says about the cause of unruly passengers is true. The majority of the complaints are related to the mask mandate. And secondly to note that a substantial fraction of the population does not believe the masks really work (whether that is true or not).
Click to expand...
I think most relevant to this discussion (and my original point) is that a substantial fraction of the population believes that the air on commercial airliners is "stale" and "recirculated," while hopefully everyone posting in this thread, at the airlines, and in the FAA, knows this is bollocks and the air in an airliner is likely cleaner than anywhere else you go. Nevertheless, airlines were the first place masks were required.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
Thus it is an attempt at strict enforcement of an FAA policy which is rather unpopular.
Click to expand...
It's not an FAA policy.

The Mask mandate stems from President Biden's January 20 Executive Order requiring masks in airports, on airliners, and other public transportation. To comply with that Executive Order, the TSA, with its authority under 49 U.S.C. 114 and 44903; 49 CFR 1542.303, issued Security Directive SD 1542-21-0lA which is currenetly set to expire on September 13.

Prior to the EO, mask requirements onboard aircraft were issued by the individual airlines who had the discretion to enforce them as they saw fit. The Federal mandate is more restrictive, especially with its "sips and bites" language, and carries the force of Federal regulation. When the TSA SD expires or is terminated, it'll go back to individual airline policy decisions.
 
Steve Costello said:
The disdain that the aviation community has for poor people has been duly noted (numerous times on this forum, actually).
Click to expand...

I was being facetious. The majority of commercial passengers I see don’t look poor at all. But people seem to have the idea they’re entitled to being flown across the country in a giant machine at Walmart prices. They have no clue what it takes. The cut has to come somewhere and it can’t come in safety. So it comes in comfort.
 
Rushie said:
I was being facetious. The majority of commercial passengers I see don’t look poor at all. But people seem to have the idea they’re entitled to being flown across the country in a giant machine at Walmart prices. They have no clue what it takes. The cut has to come somewhere and it can’t come in safety. So it comes in comfort.
Click to expand...
Agree. Even worse when people pay for a base fare on an ultra low cost carrier like Allegiant or Spirit and then complain that they’re not getting the same level of service that’s offered on Delta, Southwest etc.

“You mean I have to pay for a beverage or a snack? Delta gives me that for free…” :rolleyes:

All of those ‘free’ amenities sure are nice! ;)
 
Palmpilot said:
That's what "the invisible hand of the market" refers to: both supply AND demand. The supply side would provide additional space if the demand side were willing to pay enough for it to result in higher profit than the alternative.
Click to expand...
Supply/demand is encompassed within that, but I use the invisible hand a lot more broadly, though.

But that's dancing on the head of a pin for this discussion.
 
RyanB said:
Agree. Even worse when people pay for a base fare on an ultra low cost carrier like Allegiant or Spirit and then complain that they’re not getting the same level of service that’s offered on Delta, Southwest etc.

“You mean I have to pay for a beverage or a snack? Delta gives me that for free…” :rolleyes:

All of those ‘free’ amenities sure are nice! ;)
Click to expand...

There's a reason I never ride those discount airlines. I hate surprises on price. The nice thing about being Premier Gold for life (million mile "flier") on UA is that I don't get hit up with those extra charges. 2 bags free on every flight. E+ at the time of booking at no extra cost. 2 carry-on items at no extra cost. Now, if they would just quit making the seats thinner and thinner...
 
Saw a version of this article in today’s WSJ, with Dickson saying the FAA’s hands are tied with respect to enforcement and asking for airport and LE support to help solve the worsening problem.

I wonder is this is foreshadowing a change to the decision to backaway from the 9/14 relaxation on the zero tolerance towards unruly pax policy.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fa...st-unruly-air-passenger-crackdown-2021-08-05/
 
Rushie said:
Add to that the suffocating sensation of a mask, literally restricting how much air you can breathe and I can see it kicking people past the breaking point.
Click to expand...

Melodrama. I have flown multiple times to and from Australia and New Zealand during this time, a journey that's typically over 24 hours, with a mask mandatory throughout the entire time. It was trivial. Anyone who claims they can't cope with it on a flight of a few hours and is being "suffocated" is simply looking for attention and needs to grow up.

The same people who claim that the mask is so porous it does nothing are the ones who simultaneously claim its so tight and fine that it somehow blocks air. I think we need to stop paying them any attention.
 
Katamarino said:
Melodrama. I have flown multiple times to and from Australia and New Zealand during this time, a journey that's typically over 24 hours, with a mask mandatory throughout the entire time. It was trivial. Anyone who claims they can't cope with it on a flight of a few hours and is being "suffocated" is simply looking for attention and needs to grow up.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the type of mask. The cloth masks are fairly comfortable. OTOH, I find wearing an N95 properly definitely increases the sense of respiratory effort and is tiresome over the course of a few hours.

I don’t think I would generally waste one on a flight itself since the air is so clean. OTOH, the crowds going to and from the plane concern me more.

We tread on thin ice here however.

In any case, it really should be up to the airlines to decide what they think is best. But I am sure the larger carriers prefer a Federal mandate as then they can say “it’s not our fault”.
 
Also what is actually required to meet the Federal mandate? Can one simply wear something with 2 mm holes or a clear plastic face shield?

ETA. Order is available here - https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/pdf/Mask-Order-CDC_GMTF_01-29-21-p.pdf

It says cannot be a shield but must be a “material” that covers the nose and mouth. No specification of pore size. So it seems like some lace material can meet the requirements.
 
Katamarino said:
... Anyone who claims they can't cope with it on a flight of a few hours and is being "suffocated" is simply looking for attention and needs to grow up.
Click to expand...

maybe you need to consider the impact on people with degraded respiratory function. Not everyone has 98+% O2 levels.
 
Bob Noel said:
maybe you need to consider the impact on people with degraded respiratory function. Not everyone has 98+% O2 levels.
Click to expand...

Good point. Especially not an 8500’ cabin altitude. I see plenty of people mildly out of breath around Jackson Hole and that is 6500’.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Against my wishes, my wife booked me on a flight December 23 for a Christmas vacation to some place in the north called Vermont. I wanted to fly myself to the Bahamas but no. Somebody wanted snow.
Pray for me.
Click to expand...
Holiday Inn (the movie...)
 
Katamarino said:
Melodrama. I have flown multiple times to and from Australia and New Zealand during this time, a journey that's typically over 24 hours, with a mask mandatory throughout the entire time. It was trivial. Anyone who claims they can't cope with it on a flight of a few hours and is being "suffocated" is simply looking for attention and needs to grow up.

The same people who claim that the mask is so porous it does nothing are the ones who simultaneously claim its so tight and fine that it somehow blocks air. I think we need to stop paying them any attention.
Click to expand...

Anyone who can’t grasp that not all people respond to masks exactly like them is either too young yet to have figured out that people are different, or is a narcissist lacking empathy.
 
Katamarino said:
Melodrama. I have flown multiple times to and from Australia and New Zealand during this time, a journey that's typically over 24 hours, with a mask mandatory throughout the entire time. It was trivial. Anyone who claims they can't cope with it on a flight of a few hours and is being "suffocated" is simply looking for attention and needs to grow up.

The same people who claim that the mask is so porous it does nothing are the ones who simultaneously claim its so tight and fine that it somehow blocks air. I think we need to stop paying them any attention.
Click to expand...
You win the rude post of the day award.
Glad it’s not me today. I’ll send the trophy cup to you. Don’t get to excited though I’m sure someone will step up and take it from you soon enough.
 
Delta Just Made a Request That Could Improve Air Travel for Everyone--Including Its Competitors
It would make a big difference to flight attendants.

https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/delta-no-fly-list-air-rage-hearings.html

Excerpt:

Delta has asked other airlines--its competitors--to share their "no-fly" lists of passengers who have been banned from the airline because of disruptive behavior and/or mistreatment of airline employees. That would allow all airlines to consider banning these passengers.

The airline says it has more than 1,600 people on its no-fly list, and United says it has over 1,000 people on its list. Many other airlines, including American, Southwest, JetBlue, Frontier, Spirit, and Alaska have their own no-fly lists as well.

Delta announced it had made the request in a memo to its flight attendants right before the start of congressional hearings on air rage this week. The memo was signed by Kristen Manion Taylor, the airline's senior vice president of in-flight services and viewed by several news outlets. "A list of banned customers doesn't work as well if that customer can fly with another airline," she wrote.

Delta wants the lists from multiple airlines to be combined into one national no-fly list that all airlines could use to protect their passengers and employees. (This would be separate from the FBI's no-fly list of suspected terrorists.) So far, no other airlines have responded publicly to the idea....​
 
Bob Noel said:
maybe you need to consider the impact on people with degraded respiratory function. Not everyone has 98+% O2 levels.
Click to expand...
And yet we still need to wear shirts and pants on airplanes and in public. I will assert boldly, and with no less (and probably no more) scientific certainty as this statement, that the risk of hyperthermia from having to wear a shirt and pants exceeds the risk of hypoxia or hypercapnia from wearing a cloth or N95 mask. We should be lamenting the dangerous need to wear shirts and pants - not a mask.

As my 3-star boss used to say in the Air Force: “Get over it - get on with it”
 
Palmpilot said:
Delta Just Made a Request That Could Improve Air Travel for Everyone--Including Its Competitors
It would make a big difference to flight attendants.

https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/delta-no-fly-list-air-rage-hearings.html

Excerpt:

Delta has asked other airlines--its competitors--to share their "no-fly" lists of passengers who have been banned from the airline because of disruptive behavior and/or mistreatment of airline employees. That would allow all airlines to consider banning these passengers.

The airline says it has more than 1,600 people on its no-fly list, and United says it has over 1,000 people on its list. Many other airlines, including American, Southwest, JetBlue, Frontier, Spirit, and Alaska have their own no-fly lists as well.

Delta announced it had made the request in a memo to its flight attendants right before the start of congressional hearings on air rage this week. The memo was signed by Kristen Manion Taylor, the airline's senior vice president of in-flight services and viewed by several news outlets. "A list of banned customers doesn't work as well if that customer can fly with another airline," she wrote.

Delta wants the lists from multiple airlines to be combined into one national no-fly list that all airlines could use to protect their passengers and employees. (This would be separate from the FBI's no-fly list of suspected terrorists.) So far, no other airlines have responded publicly to the idea....​
Click to expand...


Good. We need to make sure that two year old who wouldn’t wear a mask never gets on an airplane again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top