Stricter Punishments For Passengers Behaving Badly

[tropicsgoddess]

The U.S. Government and FAA are imposing stricter punishments for passengers who behave badly on airline flights. In addition to federal charges, there's jail time, increased fines and unruly passengers that are prosecuted may be held liable for diverting flights to unscheduled airports which can run into tens of thousands of dollars. Depending on the offense, the passenger could even be permanently banned from the airline.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/09/18...nes/index.html

[lordlundar]

'bout damn time. Unfortunately my favorite option isn't there:

Develop an airlock system on the plane and someone gets unruly enough gets to leave the plane at 20'000 feet.

[Flyndaran]

Unruly? Absolutely not! Being obnoxious should not be a jailable offense. Free speech is not negotiable.

Only if they become truly dangerously disruptive should they be fine for the diversion of the plane.

Why should making an ass of youself get more punishment than habitual drunk drivers? I am downright offended by the concept.

[Rageaholic]

Though long jail sentences for this is an overkill, I think in the examples provided, it's warranted. Harrasment, assault, exposure, these are pretty bad things that go beyond just being obnoxious. I think those things should warrent some jail time, ESPECIALLY on a flight after 9/11.

On the other hand, if the passengers are just being rude SCs, than this would be an overkill. The way I see it, assault, battery, and extreme harassment on a flight is worthy of this kind of punishment, but being just being a loud, obnoxious asshole (which could be seen as unruly) should be dealt with by the flight attendants, not by law.

[Rapscallion]

Is this going to work?

As a civil organisation, an airline can already ban a person from their services. Most incidences are very likely down to airlines allowing passengers to drink alcohol in an effort to subdue them by chemical means. The only reason to announce an increase in punitive measures is to dissuade people, and drunk people don't usually think about the consequences.

Increasing penalties doesn't often deter people. Sure, a penalty for theft conviction is going to result in a few months in jail, but for some people that's an acceptable risk, and hey they get housed and fed and protected. Increase that punishment to having your genitals sawn off with a dull spoon and nailed to your forehead and it may - just may - have an effect.

To deter people, the people have to be aware of the consequences of their actions, and unruly passengers such as in this article are often unable to control themselves due to drink. I'm not against passengers drinking as long as their drunk self isn't a belligerent arsehole.

Rapscallion

[Nyoibo]

Free speech is not negotiable.

Yes it is, you have no right to free speech on this board, it's a privately owned board and the owner has the right to silence you or kick you off of it, a plane is private property, the owners and their employees have the right to kick you off of it, your "right" to free speech does not extend to private property.

[Dreamstalker]

*nodnod* Somewhere in the contract of carriage (at least the airlines I've flown), there is a clause similar to "we reserve the right to refuse service/carriage".

Not all serious disruptions are due to passengers drinking. I'm all for penalties increasing to include the costs of diversions.

[Nyoibo]

Just don't go taking my alcohol away on international flights, how else am I supposed to sleep?

Did you know that alcohol on a flight has double the effect it does on the ground, or at least the high altitude has that effect, that's why people get so drunk on flights, they have the smae as they would on the ground and it hits them twice as hard.

[Flyndaran]

Yes it is, you have no right to free speech on this board, it's a privately owned board and the owner has the right to silence you or kick you off of it, a plane is private property, the owners and their employees have the right to kick you off of it, your "right" to free speech does not extend to private property.

Yes, they have the right to kick you off. But the government does not have the right to jail you for saying something offensive on that private plane. Or at least it shouldn't.

To clarify, I think this might be overkill for the majority of disruptive jerks. To many act as if any movement out of the ordinary on a plane is terrorist activity and must be squashed with massive overkill.

[radiocerk]

In my mind, it depends on the behavior. Assault, harassment, inciting a panic, lewd actions, these things are all illegal on the ground, and can get you arrested in a privately owned bar, why should they get an automatic pass just because you're in the air?

[Dreamstalker]

In my mind, it depends on the behavior.

Yup, it all depends on the behavior (and context). I've seen kids run up to the cockpit door; usually all that happens is an attendant will gently grab them and try to find mom/dad. They aren't a danger. Adults can also get a tad weird on planes, but the benign ones are easily distinguishable.

Anything that's illegal on the ground should be illegal in the air (possibly with harsher penalties due to the fact that it is an airplane and people can't just "walk away" or grab the nearest cop).