Would the airlines be violating anything by creating their own, shared no fly list? Don’t they have the right to refuse service as long as the reason isn’t discriminatory? Assault a crew member? No airline will sell you a ticket for five years. Refuse to wear a mask or otherwise follow directions from a crew member? No fly for you. Five years! I bet it would put an end (or at least greatly reduce) the nonsense that we are seeing.
I see there is a factual question at the beginning of the OP, but the rest of it seems to be more suited to Great Debates (or IMHO).
Since I don’t have an answer to the factual question, I will wait until that is answered before I post my objections to the concept.
According to CNN, “Airlines may ban an unruly passenger from their own flights, but competition rules mean that information is not shared with other carriers.”
They don’t specify which law or regulation prohibits it, but I’m guessing it’s some kind of anti-monopoly rule.
This is GQ, but doesn’t the common carrier rule mean that a company must take all well behaved (at the time) people? IIRC, the south was criticized for disobeying this rule pre Civil Rights era.
Could one airline cheat and allow but charge more to blacklisted passengers? I suppose as long as the passenger is not overcharged because they are a member of a protected group, discriminatory pricing is OK.
The trouble with cartels (as OPEC has discovered) is that there is every incentive to cheat.
There is a federal no-fly list for those suspected of threat of terrorism and the airlines have asked the feds to add those convicted of federal charges for disrupting flights. See this paywalled Washington Post article for details.
Perhaps this is better suited to IMHO
As the article is paywalled, I’m not going to read it. Maybe I should subscribe. The airlines are currently only asking that those convicted be put on a list. That has got to be a very low number. Of course, some pols are against this because it equates these people with terrorists.
I never considered, or even knew of, a common carrier rule. But there must be an exception that allows a given airline from flying on that airline regardless of their current behavior or conviction. As I understand it, they do it now for disruptors. The competition rules (whatever they are) may prevent it but I doubt that was the intention when they were drawn up. How is an industry-wide ban anti-competitive? Here’s a list. If you want to let them on your airplane, go ahead. When the flight is diverted or an employee/passenger injured, don’t say you weren’t warned. The potential lost revenue from denying these jerks a ticket wouldn’t even be a microscopic blip.
Maybe make it a year or two in length, depending on the infraction, (did the plane have to be emptied?), but they MUST formally apologize to the crew who dealt with them, (In person or in writing, up to the crew member. No weaselling, full ownership ONLY!), AND pay a fine, to have it lifted early.
It looks like Delta was rather keen on the idea:
Some blogger (?) isn’t quite as bullish on the idea:
I don’t know what the competition rules are, but I seem to remember that the SABRE reservations system was originally developed by American Airlines but subsequently became a shared system among many airlines, possibly all US-based airlines. I can remember going to a travel agent’s office and seeing them bring up one screen on a computer where they could access many airlines’ schedules. This was way pre-Internet.
I very much agree with that article.
The problem, as described in that article, is the complete absence of due process. Nobody has a right to fly, but it has a huge impact if you are banned from all air travel. What if you have some minor verbal dispute with an airline staff member, who decides you’re an asshole, and trumps up wildly exaggerated charges that get you banned from all airlines for 5 years? What recourse do you have if one airline is prosecutor, judge and jury?
The correct approach is more aggressive prosecution of offenders by the actual legal system, including heavy fines and jail time.
I think we’ve all seen sufficient film footage of airline staff being far too accommodating as people scream at, threaten and physically menace and abuse them.
I have a greater fear of an out of control raging passenger causing a dangerous incident than an airline employee overreacting to a tiny slight, as you seem to be implying.
Yes, it sucks to have to handle harsh consequences. But if it’s no secret what those consequences are the I don’t see an issue.
Shout and curse? Off the plane, rebook yourself on another airline, try again.
If security staff is required on site to deal with you, one month no fly, hefty fine.
Plane has to be emptied? No fly list for one year, hefty fine and unreserved apology required.
You’re an adult, not a child, and there will be consequences to your actions. Behave or expect to suffer the consequences.
That’s a complete non sequitur. I’m not objecting to severe punishment of offenders, quite the opposite. I’m saying it should be implemented by the legal system, not an ad hoc system implemented by the airlines. The objection is to a lack of any due process. If a judge decides to put someone a broad no-fly list as part of their punishment, of that’s fine. I want to see heavy fines and significant jail time too.
Did you bother to read the article? There’s precedent for what happens without due process. Thousands of people were mistakenly put on the post-9/11 federal no-fly list for reasons that were never explained, with no recourse and no transparency. Or the David Dao incident?
Everyone loves kangaroo courts that mete out severe punishment without due process until they are the one falsely accused.
If there’s incontrovertible evidence like this, then it’s easy for a judge to deal with the offender appropriately.
Why does the crew get punished? What if a crew-member says no?
How is the crew member being punished? I specified they could ask it in writing. Or waive it for that matter.
There is no yes/no. There must be an apology proffered. Not have one accepted.
I guess I wasn’t clear, apologies.
Yes, I think this is one of the issues. If you fly on United, one of the terms you agree to is that United can permanently ban you for a whole host of violations. But none of the other airlines were parties to that, so you haven’t waived your right to travel on them.
Accepted. 
I’m just thinking back to the situation that occurred at a shelter I support. Some guy was arrested for cruelty/abuse of animals. Part of his punishment was volunteering at an animal shelter aka community service. When he showed up at the shelter with his paperwork, the director freaked out. Why the hell would they want him on their property? They called the police and had him trespassed so he’d never come back.
Also I recall an article, back not long after 9-11 when you had to stay in your set ahlf an hour after tke-off and before landing. Some fellow desperately had to go to the washroom and claimed the flight attendant seemed to delight in making him not get up half an hour before landing. (Nowadays it seems to be only the last 10 minutes on approach). Eventually he had to go so badly he covered his lap with a blanket and went in the barf bag (waterproof).
The flight attendant was extremely upset when she found what he’d done (despite no indecent exposure) and had him arrested on landing. After the police looked at the situation, they let him go without charges.
I agree that barring without due process or a way to get a case removed from the list would be a problem, if it applied to all airlines. It also seems to me it’s an expensive lawsuit waiting to happen if they bar someone and their case is weak. Also, anything other than eyewitness testimony may not be available by the time someone gets around to trying to fly and finding they have a problem.
(I saw someone get tossed off a plane because the flight attendant allowed another person to move forward into a business class seat on a small jet - this passenger wouldn’t shut up about why her and not him… When he interrupted the safety briefing for the third time, they wheeled back to the gate and had him escorted off. That was some guy being an obnoxious idiot, but should it mean he can’t travel at all for the next 10 years? He wasn’t yelling, he just was sitting right beside where she was doing the safety talk; from several rows back I couldn’t even hear what was said. )
I would think the list should be the Homeland Security one, and that it should be limited to those who perform egregious illegal acts such as physically assaulting flight attendants. Failing to follow flight crew instructions, or interfering with their duties, may be a criminal charge but should not result in extreme consequences.
I was on a flight once landing in Denver and desperately needing to urinate. And wow, that airport is enormous, so we seemed to be taxiing for half an hour. (I made it though.)
Based on the responses and the thread direction so far, I think IMHO is better.
Moved from FQ to IMHO.