Back to Squawk list
  • 25

Airlines Reveal How Many People Are On Their No-Fly Lists

Enviado há
 
Since March 2020, airlines have banned over 2,700 people from flying on their aircraft due to noncompliance with mask mandates, and the insurrection at the Capitol has barred dozens more. In an attempt to keep flying calm and orderly, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is checking “hundreds of names” that may be prohibited from boarding aircraft, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is cracking down on unruly passengers. (airlinegeeks.com) Mais...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


jericsg
Eric Johnson 7
How do airlines know the person with a common name is a "no fly" list person and not somebody else?
tongo
Dan Grelinger 3
They have date of birth. And they probably have a credit card number and phone number. But without a social security number or driver's license number, it does appear to open it up to some mistaken identities in the future. I guess I am glad I am not John Smith.
ki6tl
Andrew Goldstein 3
I would guess that with credit card and driver license cross reference that wouldn't be a problem. Hopefully John Smith has a middle name.
ROBERTMILLSJR
ROBERT MILLS JR 2
John Smith's full name is:
John Jacobs Gingle Heimer Smith, and, the name is my name too.
Whenever we went out, the people would always shout,
"There goes John Jacobs Gingle Heimer Smith!"
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 0
Well if they didn't it would be easy enough to continue flying after being put on the list, wouldn't it?
andstrauss
ANDRE LUIZ BOSSE 3
How long do these people stay on the list? I guess it is not forever, otherwise the list would be a lot longer.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 3
I thought that Delta's announcement was that it would be forever (or until the no-fly passenger dies, whichever comes first.)
popsbob
Bob Alexander 7
Insurrection, my &^%$#*
SmittySmithsonite
SmittySmithsonite 6
Hear hear, Bob. They call that an "insurrection", but BLM and ANTIFA rioting, burning, looting, commandeering state and federal buildings, & shooting at police was just a "peaceful protest". What a world we live in!
skylab72
skylab72 7
The United States of America is consistently ANTI-FASCIST. You might want to familiarize yourself with the history of World War Two and decide with whom you want to ally. BTW we won that war.
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 6
Have you paid attention to Antifa? They are the modern fascists.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 2
ANTI-FASCIST
ANTI-FA
ANTIFA

That's kind of weird.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
It is! Because of what the ANTIFA movement is, it is very hard to pin down. When you consider all the information available, it seems to be a loose group of those who don't like things they way they are. Some may be actually anti-fascist, but in that regard, I would strongly suggest that they are misguided, at best. Perusing accepted definitions for the word, the U.S. is about as far from being fascist as they come. ANTIFA's strategy seems to be somewhat common, mislabeling their perceived enemy in order to arouse anger.

It appears that many are anarchists, and although you could somewhat sensibly describe anarchists as anti-fascists, it really is not a good label. Anarchists are against all forms of government, not just autocratic dictatorships.

There is an element within ANTIFA that I believe it would be accurate to describe as fascists, and those are the ones who openly advocate for socialism. Socialism (government ownership of everything and the 'right' to determine who gets what, enforced by threat of violent force and silencing of objectors) cannot exist without a fascist, or nearly fascist government.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
If fascists are advocating socialism, I'm very confused and Mussolini is very disappointed.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 0
In practice, all socialists are fascists. Not all fascists are socialists.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 2
Isn't that like saying everyone on the far left is on the far right, but not everyone on the far right is on the far left?
tongo
Dan Grelinger 2
Not at all. It appears we have a definitional issue. If you define fascists as synonymous with "right-wing", then I can see your issue with my statement.

I am using the definition from the online Marriam-Webster dictionary, the first one that came up when I searched the term.

"Definition of fascism
1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
early instances of army fascism and brutality"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism

These are very much traits of the hardest core socialistic governments.

'Exalting nation over the individual' In socialism, the party is paramount.
'Centralized autocratic government' Socialism, in actual practice.
'headed by a dictatorial leader' In socialistic societies, their may be a governing body that holds full power, but it is made of up dictators that have not been freely elected and in reality are controlled by a single powerful individual.
'severe economic and social regimentation' = socialism
'forcible suppression of opposition' = socialism (as well as other tyrannies)

I think that makes a pretty solid case that those advocating socialism are also advocating fascism.
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 1
If one goes to the Rose City Antifa (Portland, OR) website, you will expressly see it posted that they will use any means necessary to push their view. On Inaguration Day, they were out protesting against Biden and smashed windows of shops, government buildings as well as the Democrat Party office. The Nazis used any means necessary to get their message out and pressure the citizens to vote Nazis into office.
skylab72
skylab72 1
You make me wonder if you would recognize a fascist if he were giving you a speech.
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 1
You do realize that facists used all means available to silence those who did not share their poitical views. The SA were great at attacking all political enties. Antifa has stated that they will use any means necessary to restrict the freedoms of others. I don't care what side of the aisle you reside, but when you attack others for their political beliefs, you are the fascist. The Proud Boys may be racist, but they are not out there attacking others until they are attacked. Also notice that the attackers do everything they can to hide their identity, except in the south where anti-mask laws are upheld, where Antifa rarely, if ever, "protests" other entities.

I also do not have to agree with other's speech to know that they have the right to speak it without a mob attacking them over it.
skylab72
skylab72 -1
Yes, I realize that fascists use all means available to silence those who did not share their political views. The Fascism is strong with you. Your pitiful assertion, "You do realize that fascists used all means available to silence those who did not share their political views.", demonstrates the very mob approach you complain about. A book I once read, called "Mein Kampf" covered your tactic in chapter 6. For example. the obvious lie about the proudbois you attempt to pass as reasonable. It is under the heading "Claim your enemy's virtues and relentlessly accuse them of your own worst deeds."

Your statement about the proudbois is in fact a lie. Several of their members are actually convictable murderers with law enforcement working their cases. I personally have observed more than one proudboi attacking someone who posed them zero threat! Take your sociopathic BS elsewhere.
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 4
Unlike you, I don't care what others say and am a firm believer of them being allowed to say such. That is the antithesis of fascist. Germany and England have laws limiting speech and actively arrest those for doing such. I am agaist that as well and you should be too.
skylab72
skylab72 -1
This is hardly worth unpacking, but this is fun.

“Unlike you, I don't care what others say and am a firm believer of them being allowed to say such. That is the antithesis of fascist.”
Teaser> All generalizations are false, including this one. <If you do not care what I say, why do you bother to rebut?
So I care about the truth, so what? I care about freedom of speech as well, and if you were attempting to defend it, you failed. Then you added the “That is the antithesis of fascist.”
Your 'not caring' what I say is the antithesis? (Forgiving that the statement is a double negative, which reduces it to a semantic null anyway) The statement is not even about politics, it is more about psychology (i.e. what you care about).
So what is the antithesis of Fascism? Simple, it is The United States of America. That is true because The USA is a Constitutionally defined Republic, whose structure is a Democracy defined by Law.
Fascism on the other hand is rather more amorphous due to a failure to appreciate the Rule of Law as opposed to rule-by-men, basically, its authoritarian core.

You said, “Germany and England have laws limiting speech and actively arrest those for doing such.“
Straw Man argument. Has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Although does provide an ironic link, in that, the reason Germany’s laws constraining speech are a bit more confining than those in the USA and do have some teeth, is that they have had to deal with the aftermath of having a real fascist in charge a bit less than 90 years ago. You may have heard of a fellow named Adolf Hitler. I understand his latter-day followers, “‘fascists’, use all means available to silence those who do not share their political views.” But you likely know more about that than I do.

Then there is England. That other country you attempt to use to fork my position by pushing me to either condemn their law (supposedly to defend free speech) or side with someone who is ‘against free speech’. I will do neither. English Law is English Law and it suits the English people. Their government is their concern, they are a democracy. They are also a Constitutional Monarchy, (one of the last few Monarchies on Earth), and the great irony here is that the higher you go in the English power structure the MORE constrained your speech becomes. Commoners speed as freely as Americans, Lords must weigh their words carefully, and Royalty rarely speaks in public with a script.

So understand, there are constraints on the speech of all civilized humans. You cannot yell “FIRE” in a crowded public space when there is no fire. Yes, it is against the law. Not always in those words, but in all fifty states. You would also be unwise to take out an ad proclaiming, “Coca-Cola tastes like pond-scum!”, unless you could walk into a convince store buy a Coke, and demonstrate that it in fact tastes like pond-scum. Yes, I understand there are lots of fuzzy boundaries in this, but there is a consistent central thread, the appreciation of truth, coded into Law.

You said, “I am agaist that as well and you should be too.”.
It is hard to tell whether you are aghast at something or against something but I’m pretty sure the something is a “freedom” you value as related to “speech”, presumably your own since you also assert I should fall in line with your point of view. So, Let me be clear, I fully support and have sworn a non-revocable oath to defend the following ideas pertaining to freedom of speech.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I cannot say exactly what you should or should not be “for” or “against” but IF you cannot support that quoted paragraph, including the last line, whole-heartedly and without reservation, then I would say, “You sir, are no patriot!”.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 2
skylab72: "So I care about the truth, so what?"

For anyone who might be the least bit tempted to believe that, examine his posts on other threads and see how much fake news he's been spreading. Even when spoon fed the clear truth with credible references, he just denies the facts without providing any references of his own and continues to spew fake news.

https://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/y_days/popular/82361/FAA_approves_airport_coronavirus_screenings_paving_way_for_first_program_to_launch_in_Iowa#266806

And when confronted with the real truth so definitively and authoritatively that he can no longer deny it,... Crickets.

skylab72, until you can man up and admit your fake news, I have to advise others...

Move along, nothing intelligent (or at least credible) coming from this troll.
ROBERTMILLSJR
ROBERT MILLS JR 2
AWESOME!
skylab72
skylab72 -1
Mmmm, Yeah. Apologize, again, for my errors. Yup, you know I am man enough for that. Anyway, that is a better place than most to start. I am sorry for leaving off the "hundred" in the Hundred thousand, it was a rather serious bone-headed error. My apologies, sincerely.

I do notice however you do not deflect the conversation away from the ratio we attempted to discuss, >cases per hundred thousand< and in the period of time you were annoyed by the crickets our nation's caseload, per hundred thousand, has climbed past 7840. Still, a leading indicator going in the wrong direction.

But to your point, specifically the above table of entries with high ratios, consider for a moment that half of the list, specifically Andorra, Gibraltar, and San Morino, do not even have total populations over a hundred thousand. Comparing them to a nation that occupies roughly a third of a continent and whose population exceeds three hundred million seriously cripples any statistical significance. If you want to run on down that rabbit-hole, I suggest you do your comparisons between entities nearer that size, perhaps all the counties in each state of the USA. Have a look at Dade in Florida or Harris in Texas. Don’t bother with Denton Texas though, they still struggle to produce usable data much less statistics. I would be happy to slice and dice data with you, but as you can tell from how long it took me to get back to this, that would probably take longer than either of us has patience for.

But given your stated fondness for facts, let me leave you with one. With 4% of the people in the world, the USA has suffered OVER 25% of the world's deaths attributable to Cov19. Twist it anyway you want but if you aspire to leadership of the free world or have a GNP at or near the top of the developed world, THAT SUX!
We CAN do better and SHOULD do better! Time will tell.
ROBERTMILLSJR
ROBERT MILLS JR 3
Reportedly, most Covid-19 (China Virus) deaths in the USA are not actually China Virus deaths, but, other co-morbidity deaths supplemented with $2,000 payouts to be attributed to China Virus deaths.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 2
skylab72, I KNOW I should have fact-checked this, too! You are wrong, AGAIN!

And you provided it by prefacing that it was fact!!!!!!!

The USA has NOT suffered over 25% of the world's deaths attributable to Covid-19. It is less than 20%! 425,670 USA deaths and 2,176,159 deaths. Simple math demonstrates that, according to the World Health Organization, 19.56% of "the USA has suffered UNDER 20% of the world's deaths attributable to Cov19

https://covid19.who.int/table

The exaggeration continues! What is this, the sixth time in just a few days you are spewing fake news?!?!

I will repeat myself, as this has not seemed to be grasped, yet: If you are confident that the facts support the agenda you are attempting to spread, then you will use facts to support said agenda. When you doubt that the facts support your agenda, but you want to spread it anyway, you will create your own fake news to support that agenda.

Your fake news only discredits your agenda to bash this great country. I encourage all future readers of skylab72's posts to fact check everything he says, he cannot be trusted to bring the truth.

Paraphrasing how you ended your post.... "You CAN do better and SHOULD do better! Time will tell."
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
I'll take all that as a very long-winded, "Yes, I was wrong, and you are right. The good old USA is not number one or number two in COVID cases per population as I wrongly said, twice."

Thank you.
skylab72
skylab72 -1
Oh, and most honorable readers, be sure to follow Dan's link above for the context of the above post. ;}
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 2
I fully understand that paragraph you quoted and is why I have no issues with the supposed fascists that the wacky left now lables anyone that does not share their views or opinions and even you accused me of being. I am not out in the streets dressed in all black, wearing gas masks, carrying weapons of all sorts and carrying black and red flags like the supposed anti-fascists do on their way to attack others for their views and opinions.

Your tirade here makes me think you agree with them verses that amendment that you quoted.
skylab72
skylab72 -1
I see. From your tirade, I must question your appreciation of the quoted paragraph because you question my devotion to it. Thanks, this was fun.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
What "they" say depends on who "they" are, doesn't it?

Not that it's anything more than whataboutism anyway.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
Bob, if you must bring your ass into the conversation please ask it to define the word insurrection.

It's the only way I can think of your ass to add any value to the discussion.
TiredTom
Tom Bruce 5
get 'em!!
mooney6862u
Dave Stamp 3
Why do you think used aircraft prices are so high right now? Especially serious cross country aircraft.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 0
What are you talking about? They can't grind up the scrapped wide bodies fast enough.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 2
I think you misunderstand. Dave was referring to GA aircraft.
pwahle2012
Patrick Wahle -4
Next you’ll be asked to have a lie-detector 72 hours before boarding and a confession certificate for your sins delivered by your parish.
My concern is that your are guilty before being convicted and sentenced. Nobody seems to care about our constitutional freedom.
alancurtis2
alan curtis 17
While I can see the worry of the slippery slope, my read of the article leads me to believe that the bans were based on actual behavior on flights, not any behavior at other times.

I don't have a problem with banning folks "protesting" on a flight. There is a time and place for protests, chants, etc. It'd certainly NOT appropriate on a flight.

So IMHO, this is not the start of that slope....

Follow the rules of the airline and flight crew, or don't fly with us...
wowens1157
William Owens 4
AGREE.. Some "passengers" just can't keep their personal feelings in their luggage. However, I bet if the pax were BLM, they would have no problem voicing opinions and rhetoric...
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 2
Therein lies the problem...this is all subjective and does not allow an appeal.
Remember a few years back when the Doctor was rendered unconcience and dragged off a flight? Now he would be facing a life time ban from flying because he refused to give up a seat he had paid for that the airline had overbooked. That is were this will lead, you have a bad experience but you cannot speak up about it because you will be persecuted.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 1
But the doctor sued and won.
haunter4032002
C B -1
Hear, Hear
angusperkins
angus perkins 12
None of the things being addressed are Constitutional freedoms.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 0
Hopefully!
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 2
It appears that the people in charge have no concerns with little things like a fair trial (or even a hearing) or civil rights. some people deserve to be on that list but without due process many innocent people can end up on there with them.
azuresc
Lanny Word 1
Dud, this is a private business you are talking about. Due process doesn’t apply here. Remember when the SCOTUS ruled that the baker had the right to refuse to make a cake for a gay couple? Same difference.
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 2
You may want to relook at that case. The only decision SCOTUS made was that the state civil rights commission failed to give the baker a fair hearing.

{quote}
“Phillips was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case,” Justice Kennedy wrote. Instead, he said, several members of the commission made remarks “implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.”

At one hearing, a commissioner said Mr. Phillips should be “able to compromise” if he expected to do business in the state. At another, a commissioner said that “religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history,” including slavery and the Holocaust.

Justice Kennedy cited such comments as evidence of “hostility to religion,” along with the commission’s refusal to sanction three other bakers who declined to produce cakes with messages attacking same-sex marriage.

“Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack’s religious beliefs about marriage,” said Kristen Waggoner, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious advocacy group, who argued Mr. Phillips’s case.

Still, Justice Kennedy’s opinion didn’t suggest that respectful treatment of believers’ claims must translate into granting them exemptions from civil-rights laws.{/quote}

Nowhere did SCOTUS say that he did not have to bake a cake.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 2
Thank you. More evidence that Lanny is the one 'lacking the facts', and misrepresenting his "basic knowledge of the law."
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 2
This is the source for the quote: https://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-sidesteps-a-decision-on-whether-merchants-can-deny-services-to-gay-customers-on-religious-grounds-1528123172
tongo
Dan Grelinger 0
Oh, gosh, your previous reply suggested that you were a lawyer, or were at least knowledgeable about the law. This post more strongly suggests otherwise.
rdtruitt
Raleigh Truitt 3
He seems on point to me. It ws a 1st amdt case, but the outcome is nevertheless predicted.
tongo
Dan Grelinger -1
So, due process does not apply between private parties, and first amendment rights are the same as due process rights?

Hooray! I think I found my new lawyer!
rdtruitt
Raleigh Truitt 2
Even if the gravamen may be a little off, Lanny corectly intuits the outcome.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 0
Yes! Facts and reality don't matter, only intuition!

Where were you when I was taking Psychology?
azuresc
Lanny Word 1
You seem to be the one lacking facts. Oh, and by the way, I actually do have a psychology degree but ethically, I couldn’t diagnose your neurosis from or on a public forum. But it’s safe to say that you derive an unhealthy pleasure from your comments, and reactions to them, on here. So glad I could offer you some pleasure in you time of need.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 0
The only facts I have stated in this thread are the ones that you and Raleigh have provided. I have only parroted what you have provided, I haven't provided any of my own. If you now recognize and admit that what you have said as not true, then perhaps my job here is done.
rdtruitt
Raleigh Truitt 1
Why don't you psychoanalyze yourself and tell us what you came up with??
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
Great idea! But, set a good example for me and do you first.
azuresc
Lanny Word 0
I’m sorry if my basic knowledge of the law was mistaken by you as an actual law degree. You do know you can actually take other courses in college, right?
TimDyck
Tim Dyck -2
So now airlines are above the law?
LarryBass
Larry Bassett 1
Totally agree... Consider the amount of disruption to a citizens life if an attendant is in a bad mood on the day that you fly with them. The video attached makes one wonder, if this was enough to receive a lifetime ban, and now that the airlines are sharing their no-fly lists... he will never fly again, for what despicable act? Was this because he was black? Was it because he was a Trump supporter? Was it because of what exactly? So what they are saying is that you have no rights anymore and every attendant is now a judge, jury, and executioner? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGZRbwjy-pA
skylab72
skylab72 1
This is NOT about hearings or trials it is about FLIGHT SAFETY. You risk my life on a flight and you will never fly with me again. Simple, if adjudication is needed it happens on the ground.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
Some times, perhaps most of the time, it IS about flight safety. And I am a big fan of flight safety. However, nowadays 'displaying basic civility' has been added to the list. (See another thread on this site: "Delta CEO says airline will permanently ban passengers 'who refuse to display basic civility'". That is NOT about flight safety. So, you're partially right, but the original comment seemed to be about when you're not, i.e., it is NOT about flight safety.
skylab72
skylab72 0
Give up on "basic civility" and you are a threat to flight safety.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
Is a crying baby being civil? I would say not, but they are a baby, they don't know what civil behavior is! Are they a threat to flight safety? Obviously not.

Making the claim that you did seems to be an effort at control of things you don't like under the guise of it being for 'flight safety'.
skylab72
skylab72 -1
Let me make my syntax explicit.
IF >you< give up on basic civility (while you are a pax on a scheduled carrier flight) THEN >you< are a threat to flight safety.

In more general terms, when one abandons civil problem-solving behavior, one becomes part of the problem.
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 0
What constitutional freedom are you talking about?
ssobol
Stefan Sobol 1
The airlines are a private company and when you are on a commercial plane you are on private property. They can make the rules they want (with some exceptions).

It's sort of the same as if someone shows up in your back yard and starts doing something you don't like. You get to tell them to leave (with some exceptions). If they don't leave you can call the cops and have them removed. For the most part they have no right to be there if you object.

Works pretty much the same for airlines and airplanes.
olyallens
Nancy Allen 1
tongo
Dan Grelinger 0
There are HUGE differences in your two analogical situations that you ignore that ruin your logic. A business that advertises their services to others has substantially more responsibility to potential customers than a property owner dealing with someone who 'just showed up.' When you advertise services, you become subject to very extensive trade law. When you just own property property that exists for your use only, your legal responsibilities are substantially less.

You're conclusions could be correct, but your analogy does nothing to support them.
ssobol
Stefan Sobol 7
Ok, change "your backyard" to "your bookshop". Rest is the same.
tongo
Dan Grelinger -2
That is a better analogy as they are both commercial enterprises. And in both cases (inside the bookstore and inside an airplane) parties do have very significant civil rights. Saying that "for the most part they have no right to be there if you object" is incorrect, and the body of law supports that they have substantial government protected rights inside an open commercial enterprise versus 'private property'.

My disagreement may only be in degree, as you leave the door open to 'some exceptions.' My suggestion is that what you refer to are not exceptions, but the very rule of law.
rdtruitt
Raleigh Truitt 6
You're picking nits. The airlines have the right, and you have no redress, so you better shape up!
tongo
Dan Grelinger -5
Yes, Master!
LarryBass
Larry Bassett 0
So the one bookstore can band with every other book store and ban the perpetrator for life from every bookstore, without an appeal process or legal basis? Sounds like a RICO act violation, talk about the threat of extortion!
azuresc
Lanny Word 5
Let me solve you legal questions on the subject. Read your contract of carriage you sign every time you buy a ticket. It’s all in there and you agreed to their right to remove you from their aircraft.
tongo
Dan Grelinger -4
Thank you for agreeing to be my lawyer. But, I do have a few more questions. 1. I have not signed anything for decades (not even a credit card receipt) when buying an airline ticket. If I don't sign as you say, does the contract of carriage apply. 2. "Right to remove" seems different than "refusal to sell to". Are they legally identical, as you suggest? If so, what other legal rights are included in 'right to remove' that are not explicitly stated? 3. Is the right to remove arbitrary? Like when they are just having a bad day and want to take it out on someone. 4. What are the redress opportunities?

Man, I really like having a lawyer to answer all of my questions. Especially one who knows it all. Thank you very much!
tothedude
The Dude 0
Clearly too many.
Such lists are questionable. There's no appeal process and no way to get off the list. This seems completely arbitrary.
wowens1157
William Owens 3
CCP Playbook
rdtruitt
Raleigh Truitt 1
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
Spoken by someone who cares!
keywestjj
John A. Johnson 1
Maybe the airlines have 2,700 individuals on their lists - well deserved I don't doubt - but how many millions of people are on their own "no fly" list?? I would never fly on a commercial airline for any reason, whatsoever, ever again. When I want to travel between my homes in CA, MT, MI and FL I just drive. Sooooo much easier and enjoyable and relaxing. I just won't tolerate the abuse by the airlines with their never ending changed schedules and cancelled flights, shrinking seats, FEES for everything and surly, disrespectful employees. Really a sad situation .... but exactly the same thing I witnessed in the 1960's and '70's when US railroads lost the concept of customer service.
skylab72
skylab72 -1
Not to mention aircraft with inadequately and/or improperly tested flight control systems and an FAA charged with two contradictory and somewhat antithetical missions. No, it will require some systemic reform before I utilize any a Pt195 carrier again.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 1
Inquiring minds want to know... What is a Pt195 carrier?
skylab72
skylab72 1
Embarrassment Maxed out. I shall look up FARs before I quote them in the future.

FAR Pt 121

is Scheduled Air Carrier.
tongo
Dan Grelinger 2
OK, thanks for the correction. Back to your original post... The FAA (and NTSB, and airlines) have delivered to the American flying public a stellar safety record. Even after factoring in the 737 MAX accidents.

Your comment about not flying commercial airlines sounds like an irrational response to the real data. If drive a car, you are accepting mortal risk that is orders of magnitude higher than commercial carriers, and if you fly GA, it is even worse. I'm not even sure you can get out of bed in the morning and stay safer than you are on a commercial airliner.
WhiteKnight77
WhiteKnight77 3
Driving to the airport is immensly more dangerous and likely to end your life verses dying in a plane crash.
skylab72
skylab72 1
Scheduled Commercial Air Transport
skylab72
skylab72 0
Dang, now I have research to do Pt 195 is HazMat 135 is Non-Scheduled and looking for the one I meant to ref... Sorry!
BenShockley
Ben Shockley 1
Is there any way that passengers can nominate another passenger for the no fly list? There seems to always be one passenger that confuses the hotel tab and the airline tab when booking a flight. They bring everything that one can think of to sleep on the plane thinking that there is a real chance of quality sleep on a 2 hour flight... It is a plane ride-not a hotel room! Be careful which tab you select!

Entrar

Não tem uma conta? Registre-se agora (gratuito) para funcionalidades personalizáveis, alertas de vôo e mais!
Esse site utiliza cookies. Ao usá-lo e continuar a navegar, você concorda com isso.
Ignorar
Você sabia que o rastreamento de voos da FlightAware é patrocinado por anúncios?
Você pode nos ajudar a manter o FlightAware gratuito, permitindo anúncios de FlightAware.com. Trabalhamos muito para manter nossa publicidade relevante e discreta para criar uma ótima experiência. É rápido e fácil permitir anúncios no FlightAware ou, caso prefira, considere nossas contas premium.
Ignorar