In January 2021, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) introduced a new zero-tolerance policy for passengers misbehaving on planes. With this, bad behavior while traveling could lead to jail time and/or fines of up to $35,000.
Continue reading: New Record: FAA Fines Abusive Passenger $52,500
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
Why just fines and not bans?! I mean they clearly are a flight risk with the behaviour they exhibit, so ban them for like a year.
I fully support this and would back larger fines and jail time. Even if we don't discount the massive safety issue, disruptive and abusive passengers can cost the airlines and passengers far larger amounts. I think they should be billed for the re-route costs, missed connections of all passengers involved, possible hotel stays and meals, and perhaps even the passenger's time. My time is worth something, as is every one of the 300 +- people on board the plane this person made late. If you cost 300 people, 3 hours of their life with your childish behavior, there should be consequences. 300 X 3 = 900 hours of lost time. The average hourly wage in the U.S. is $30, so that's $27,000 worth of people's time.
Finally!!! May I please have some more?
Time to make these entitled a-holes grow up. Zero-tolerance, real consequences, I love it. A breath of fresh air.
It's almost as if the federal government had competent professionals running it.
Yeah, Mike O is right. All of the above, then add a lifetime "no-fly list" membership across all airlines to the mix. Now you're taking!
The government and airline industry are finding out what good parents knew all along - you reinforce the behavior you want and provide disincentives against what you don't want.
Returning civility to the skies and airports is needed.
The Delta case cited above was not just non-compliance with mask mandates or crew instructions but involved a threat to the aircraft's safety.
Hefty fines and banning offenders from the skies will certainly help restore order.
Since you can't get to Hawaii any other reasonable way but by flying, that person should be vacationing a little closer to home for a good while.
Fines are all well and fine (no pun intended) but I think we need to do some studies to find out why there's been such a spike in disruptive behavior on aircraft. I also believe the FAs should be given greater authority (especially where the safety of the aircraft comes into play) to deal with these disruptive passengers. I bet if the individual who repeatedly tried to get access to the flight deck had been say tazered it wouldn't have taken 2 people to unsuccessfully detain them.
Monetary penalties are not enough since most rich entitled jags will just see this an attitude tax they're more than equipped to pay. In addition to fines, they should be put on a no-fly list for a duration proportionate to their offense.
Fines should not be the primary remedy. 30 to 90 days of jail time plus being put on the no-fly list for 5 years should be the main penalties. This isn't/wasn't a matter of rude behavior, it was multiple instances of assault that could easily have affected the safety of the flight and crewmembers.
A couple of corrections or clarifications would probably be helpful.
First, the fine is $35,000 per incident. I suspect they are treating the first incident separately for the second assault that occurred when he freed himself and attacked a second time.
As for the retroactivity issue, it misunderstands the effect of the zero-tolerance policy. The crime always existed, so his conduct was criminal at the time it happened. What changed on January 1 was the policy that restricts the options for the prosecutors when they receive the complaint. Agency officials have broad prosecutorial discretion when to charge and what to propose for remedies. As a matter of policy, the director decided to eliminate discretion and require prosecution (which the investigator always could have done anyway). When the agency received the complaint (likely after January 1), their discretion how to proceed was likely limited, but that is not the same as saying a new law was retroactively applied to his conduct. I can't imagine they would have proceeded differently without the new policy.
He likely won’t pay anywhere’s near the whole amount. FAA proposed fines are just that; a proposal. What the guy will ultimately pay after negotiation will be way below that number. It’s just how the FAA works on enforcement actions.
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, the situations described are clearly way out of line and the passengers deserve the increased fines and penalties. On the other hand, the history of zero tolerance policies in other areas have been known to get out of hand, criminalizing even the tiniest deviation of people's behavior from a strict norm.
For example, what about someone who's upset about having to wait too long for his drink from the flight attendant and makes a snide remark? I'm not saying that's an acceptable thing to do, but based on the zero tolerance policy, should the flight be diverted and he be escorted off the plane? Even worse, the mere presence of zero tolerance policies gives authority figures the upper hand in intimidating people to not speak up when they have a genuine grievance. If the zero tolerance policy had been in place during the Dr. Dao incident on United Airlines, not only would Dr. Dao have a bloody nose, he'd be facing a 5-figure fine from the FAA for causing a disturbance.
Zero tolerance policies make for a nice soundbite. But they've lead to kids being expelled from school for very minor infractions, people being jailed for things even the judge doesn't agree with (zero tolerance leaves no room for interpretation and nuance), and general sense of intimidation and fear from the people who have to live under their policies. IOW, zero tolerance is just as bad an extreme as full tolerance of any behavior. The more difficult task is finding the proper middle ground.
@Ken,
Thanks for adding more details. It makes me like the policy even less. It seems that it doesn't add any additional tools to the prosecutors' belt, it merely strips them of the ability to use softer tools when they feel it's appropriate. Just like pretty much every other zero tolerance policy that allows politicians to bluster about how they're "tough on crime".
Maybe next up will be the airlines' version of 3 strikes and you're out: 3 infractions (no matter how minor), and you're no longer allowed to fly for the rest of your life. I mean, it worked so well in the drug war, didn't it?
Fines are ridiculous. Criminal charges if applicable. Airlines can ban if they want. FAA should ban if it’s a security threat. That’s it.
Also, everyone knows to just drink your BYO minis in the lav. Amateur.
I agree. It is performance art. There can't be a one-size-fits-all approach when you are dealing with so many different variables and some conduct is more boorish than threatening. Agencies view "threat" as a valuable tool, but the "and we really mean it" approach doesn't deter this type of passenger anyway.
He will be banned on Delta however other airlines can’t as it wasn’t on their flights nor overseas carriers. Not sure whether the DHS can do
An alleged role model for the entire country was hailed by tens of millions of people for petulant behavior and refusal to ever admit wrongdoing.
We don't need any studies to figure out why this is happening.
I am glad to see enforcement of the rules but I don't like the idea that the FAA can arbitrarily decide on punishments. If passenger behavior is criminal in nature they should be prosecuted and punished according to law. If offending behavior is not criminal then there should be no punishment. Administrative penalties could include publishing the offender's name and a description of the offense or the airline could ban the passenger from future flights. If congress reaches the conclusion that penalties for non-criminal behavior are appropriate new laws should be passed to make the offenses criminal.
@Lune I agree entirely.
BUT
there really is a problem with trash behaviour. When there's no impartial enforcement, perhaps a robust video coverage of the cabin and galleys would be a useful deterrent. There'd need to be a regulatory framework and assurances about the how it was used.
Still, even video wouldn't solve the issue fully. Is it possible me, or is mask compliance a frequent theme in cabin disruption? Add that to alcohol use...
Soon the masks will be gone. Will everyone be calm and sober? Haha
I was unaware $35,000 is a lot of money. Perhaps jail and or community service instead. The embarrassment one receives from having a video all over the internet is a pretty harsh punishment that alone of itself. Family , friends , work , etc
If we can ban suspected terrorists, why can’t we ban proven assholes? Ban them from all carriers.
Everyone casually calling for these people to be thrown in cages at taxpayer expense is a sociopath 🙂
It would be simple to blame this on post-lockdown socialization issues, but I'm beginning to wonder if "long COVID" and the lingering effects on people's lungs and brains is leading to people literally flipping out on airplanes due to altitude sickness. Most cabins are pressurized to 9000 feet but maybe when you've got damaged lungs AND holes in your squash, it's a perfect storm for people to act all Mad Max-like.
What’s been happening since covid is that airlines dropped prices to nearly nothing. There was an AA flight I saw last summer from Miami to LA for like $45. With business travelers and many others staying home, you have people flying who shouldn’t even be allowed past TSA due to rock bottom prices. Deregulation and a race to the bottom was just a foreshadowing of the future of airlines. Now with extreme low cost airlines, legacy carriers and others are forced to price match for customers. Add in the fact that people are willing to start a physical fight for refusing to wear a simple mask for a 30 minute flight and it’s a recipe for disaster. America still hasn’t learned our lesson from racing to the bottom - we get what we pay for and America has basically said they are fine with this nonsense as long as the price is cheap.
On a transatlantic flight this past week the flight attendants gave one guy written notice warning him that he might face a $27,000 fine if he kept disregarding their instructions. That worked. From then on he wore his mask. So this new FAA policy works not just when people get hit with fines -- but also in terms of behavioral changes during flights.
If they could tack on the removal of their ability to reproduce to those fines, that would be just lovely.
Every one of those passengers deserves what they get, but this is tough. There were a few reports over the last year of the flight crew dictating "appropriate attire" to their own standards rather than the airlines. Would those women be subject to the zero tolerance policy and face enormous fines for something that wasn't actually against policy?
I don't mind zero tolerance policies, but the language needs to be absolutely clear and precise on what constitutes a violation of the policy with no room for interpretation. Otherwise, we face absurd consequences from power hungry over zealous crew members having a bad day and interpreting policies on their own. I can just see the parents of a toddler or developmentally delayed child/person being slapped with a fine because they "couldn't control their kid and they were disruptive".
Also, what is going on in Fort Lauderdale? lol
I mind "zero tolerance" policies. Intolerance is the problem, not the solution.
No problem with the fines. However, it will be interesting to see if they are actually collected. I'm curious, since this is a government entity, if they can withhold income tax refunds, garnish wages and take similar actions like when someone owes child support and doesn't pay. Also, if the fines aren't paid are there prison implications?
Do you have any idea how many of these actually result in fines being paid? Do they get reduced/waived/pled down? I feel like the people involved in these incidents typically don’t have tens of thousands of dollars sitting around. Just trying to get a sense of how much these fines are actually impacting the situation.
I don't think FAA can punish via jail time because that is not the type of thing they can enforce. More than likely the criminal punishments would come from law enforcement of a state (i'm not even sure which state would be responsible) and charges from those assaulted.
Yes they probably won't end up paying $50K especially if they are dirt poor but the expense of lawyers and the headache of going through this whole process which could end up taking years of one's life, that I think is worthwhile punishment.
I think these types of outcome should be publicized on the web, youtube, news, at the boarding gate of your next flight etc. Give pause to Mr./Mrs. I'm the most awesome person on this plane the next time they want to act like a fool.
I would be in favor of mandatory fines and minimum five years on the no fly list. Second offense brings lifetime ban. Mandatory so you know if you screw up you are going to pay. No exceptions. If you can't act like a grown up , you can't do grown up things.
But, I also like the idea of giving a written warning first, sort of like getting a yellow card at the soccer match.
But to mention once again, in several hundred flights I have not heard anyone even raise their voice. Maybe these incidents are actually rare.
Just lifetime ban them all across all US airlines so they can drive or row their boats to their destinations. Life is too short to deal with these type of people.
Holy cow! I now can see how zero tolerance policies get passed so easily in this country...
Look, zero tolerance policies sound great as long as it's zero tolerance against "those people". We all know the businessman in the suit sitting in J class can get as drunk as he wants, hit on flight attendants, and join the mile high club 10 feet away from you, and he'll be fine. Hell, I'm sure plenty of them have snorted coke on flights too. Ask any flight attendant and they'll tell you stories about wayward passengers (in all classes) that would make your head spin. I'm not saying those infractions are the same as starting a fight. But if we are going to have zero tolerance, then the "high class" dude in first class should be fined and given a lifetime ban on flying too, right?
Except it never works that way. Zero tolerance policies is just a name we use to justify unreasonably harsh punishment on people we don't like, while encouraging the authorities to look the other way on behavior from people they do like, with tons of people in the middle essentially playing the lottery on which way things will go when it's their turn. Zero tolerance policies in the drug war mean if you're black and have a joint, you go to jail. But if you're a rich suburbanite with a joint, you get a verbal warning (nothing on record), and sent home. Since there is no discretion to choose something in-between, those are the only two options a cop has and he does his best.
Do you think the airlines will behave any differently? If the two options that United has to discipline a wayward Global Services member is to inform the FAA who will put him on a no-fly list (thus losing $50k in annual ticket revenue from him), or to look the other way and not report it at all, what do you think United will do? On the other hand, if you, a lowly kettle in economy class, piss off a flight attendant and she calls you disruptive, and the FAA puts you on a no-fly list (Zero Tolerance!) and you lose your job as a consultant since you're now worthless if you can't travel, that's a good outcome for flight security. Ain't zero tolerance grand?
All you supporters of zero tolerance, take a step back and consider this: you probably aren't afraid because you see these people who start fights and they're generally black or other minority, low class, poor, and you are not any of those, so you'll be on the proper side if anything were to ever happen. But I assure you, that is not the way that airlines view people. They divide people not on race but on elite status and revenue opportunity. If you sit in economy on a $45 ticket you scored thanks to a tip from Lucky on this site, you're as worthless to them as any "low class" person. IOW, you will not be protected from Zero Tolerance Policies just because you're not black. Dr. Dao was an Asian doctor. His mistake was he was sitting in economy. And that made all the difference.
@Dan:
"you have people flying who shouldn’t even be allowed past TSA due to rock bottom prices."
Why shouldn't they be allowed past TSA? Were they carrying weapons? contraband? more than 3oz of liquid? Because only readers of Lucky's blog should be able to score awesome deals for travel?
Look, I'm not saying a guy who physically assaults a flight attendant and needs to be restrained during a flight is innocent and shouldn't face penalties. I don't even disagree with the penalty the FAA is imposing. But the FAA could impose that penalty without requiring any new authority. Zero Tolerance Policies only mean that the FAA is *forced* to impose that penalty because all discretion is removed.
I don't mean to pick on you, but your statement is exactly why Zero Tolerance Policies are wrong: these people, before they've even done anything wrong, are already under a cloud of suspicion. They're already presumed to be criminals before they even board the flight. It doesn't take much to tip a flight attendant over into reporting them for an infraction. And then, due to Zero Tolerance, he'll get hit with a massive fine and other penalties.
In contrast, a white person in a business suit travelling in business class has a presumption of being a "good person" which means he has much more leeway to behave badly before they pull the trigger on him.
I'm not some raging SJW. I actually find those types really annoying. But that doesn't mean subconscious biases don't ever exist, or that those biases don't affect behavior and can lead to unfair and capricious consequences. And in this case, there's even a selfish reason to reconsider: the biases within an airplane are built differently than the rest of the world: if you sit in economy class, then to the airline, you are the equivalent of a poor black guy on the streets of Miami. Do you always fly business or first class? If not, then do you really want to tell the [airline] cops their only option if they're unhappy with you, is to [do the airline-equivalent of] shoot you square in the face?
Sounds like most of these enforcement actions are well-deserved but I gotta say, the second-to-last one smells fishy to me. Absurd to fine people for bringing their own alcohol when airlines aren't serving in coach because flight attendants are too lazy to do so, and the mask bit lends itself to a range of interpretations, some of which could justify the fine and others of which sound a whole lot like a lazy flight attendant making shit up to shore up an otherwise weak complaint.
Instead of adding innocent people with Muslim-sounding names to the 'No Fly' list, these are the dangerous clowns who should be banned from the skies. That thug in the Delta flight deserves a lifetime ban in US airspace. Hooray, a good start by the FAA. Maybe they are turning the corner after the Boeing debacle.
Look, I understand that we're a fairly affluent set here as air travelers, and frequent flyers even more so, but the upper range of these fines dramatically exceed the U.S. individual median yearly income, and D3Kingg's assertion is laughable at best. It is a lot of money, a crippling loss for all but the richest among us. Yet the government feels it appropriate to apply the same standard of proof and review as for a traffic ticket. It's just wrong--if the government wants to levy these kinds of fines, it should do so in a criminal court, where defendants have rights commensurate with the degree of penalty assessed. Surely we can all agree that an indigent defendant has, for example, the right to representation when disputing a fine which almost certainly exceeds their yearly income. Surely we can all agree that any defendant has a right to request that the government prove its case before a jury when economic survival might be at stake. It is daylight robbery, and we cannot call ourselves a nation that respects the rule of law, when we allow the government to so flagrantly erode the rights of the accused.
Good luck in collecting $52K in fines. No way the average person can pay that. That is enough to bankrupt someone.
What doesn’t have room for interpretation is a Federal mandate (law!) to follow crew member instructions, and to wear the face mask over both your nose and mouth the entire time during your entry into your departing airport and while on the aircraft until you depart your arrival airport, no questions asked or all this so-called entitled air rage!
@B
The absolution you seek is in the Conditions of Carriage no one takes the time to read, or airline policy clearly stated on their websites.
If you have a behavioral challenged love one...maybe 30,000 feet isn’t your best choice of travel!
“these people who start fights”, “low class”, “poor”. “If you sit in economy on a $45 ticket you scored” ...it does not matter what socio-economic class you come from. If you are fortunate to arrange travel. No shoes, No shirt, No service...sit down, shut up, follow policies, then get off and go about your merry way!
As mature adults who willingly spent whatever their ticket cost. Along with the knowledge of wanting to go from point A to point B for whatever occasion, comes the responsibility of knowing how to behave as an adult to avoid finding themselves in a position to need legal representation.
Won't work. No-fly lists are outrageously unconstitutional anyway and if they do that there will be severe consequences for our democracy. The lawyers will sue on all sorts of grounds.
Please explain how no-fly lists are unconstitutional. You have no constitutional 'right' to fly anywhere. Unless you're claiming that their outbursts are constitutionally protected speech, in which case I would just laugh.
I agree. After landing they should be taken off the aircraft, placed on the ramp and shot in the head. Much cheaper that way. (and I suspect the number of inflight disruptions would drop dramatically.)
The problem with these fines is the same as red light cameras and laws in general: People know that others expect them to follow The Golden Rule, yet continue to act in an uncivil manner (e.g., violent recidivists, road ragers, mass shooters, terrorists, et al.). And, such hefty fines, ultimately, get reduced or dropped, altogether, via arbitration by the Dept. of Transportation, and, failing that, the US Court of Appeals, never mind that most such violators would have the attitude, "Come and get it" (i.e., we know about the initial handing down of fines, but, not of their collection; posting such publicly would, simply, tell sociopaths that they can do similar to get their fifteen minutes of fame). Look at the trivial penalties handed down to convicted Jan 6, 2021, insurrectionists: Adjudicated as misdemeanors with, seemingly, no regard to their treasonous deeds and intent, thus sending the signal that anyone can do the crime and, virtually, get away with it. People have been locked-up for years for mere "thought" crimes (i.e., having been overheard or evidence of planning a crime, but, not having committed it), but serve ridiculously short jail/prison sentences for extreme violence or murder, thanks to plea deals. We are a sad and confused nation.
P.S. I hope that, in the case of physically abused airline/airport staff and civilians, that part, if not all, of the final civil penalties go to them (n.b., I searched the web, but, couldn't find anything on that particular point).
Airlines should agree amongst themselves that disruptive behavior, such as verbal abuse, physical assault or repeated non-compliance of crew result in a lifetime ban from that airline in addition to any criminal charges or F.A.A. fines.