37/5000. They got to be kidding

C

Clip4

Final Approach
Joined
Jun 27, 2013
Messages
9,422
Location
A Rubber Room
Display Name
Display name:
Cli4ord
Out of 5000 passenger violations for crap conduct on commercial flights,, the FAA refers 37 for criminal prosecution.
 
Some of the violations were probably on the thin side. He said/she said. Probably only the 37 rose to the point of criminal conduct and were prosecutable.
 
I’m thinking there’s little incentive for the Feds to have people prosecuted; no fines to collect, no property to take, no political gain, victims of prosecution are generally tax paying middle class people, safety is maintained by simple removing violators from the aircraft. Why procescute?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Similar thread about bad behavior “bless flight attendants”, has been locked for a week for MC review.
 
Perhaps the level of conduct did not rise to the criminal standard. "Bad conduct" can mean a lot of things and may be handed out like peanuts by stressed flight crews.
 
schmookeeg said:
In my ideal world, the other 4,963 are sent forcefully through the intake of a running turbofan to inspect the exhaust side as an ill-behaved mist.

Their comfort companions too.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of George Carlin’s “people who we could do without” piece, where he uses elaborate descriptions of how they should go…

“here’s another group of people who need to inspect turbofan exhausts, entering through the intake side while running “….:D
 
There might be things beyond criminal prosecution to equal the scales of justice. I would imagine some of the 4963 are now also on the banned list for the airline on which they misbehaved.
 
I don't care about criminal prosecution as much as a banhammer from the airlines. The whole damn Part 121 world that is. For all 5000.
 
Here's an article with this 37 out of 5000 figure: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/unruly-passengers-airplanes-fbi-criminal-review/

From the article:
As of Thursday, the FAA has investigated 950 of the 5,033 incidents reported, including 3,642 involving masks. So far, it has initiated enforcement in 227 cases.

Where the evidence supports criminal review, the FAA refers the cases to the FBI, which forwards those that merit potential prosecution to field offices for further investigation, according to the statement. Dickson had said in an August letter to airport officials that "many of these passengers were interviewed by local police and released without criminal charges of any kind."
Click to expand...

In other words, these 37 are only the worst of them that merit criminal prosecution when civil penalties are not enough. this article says more than $1M in civil penalties have been proposed by the FAA this year, and another article I found says that the FAA can assess civil penalties up to $37,000.

I don't know how the FAA is deciding when to refer cases to the FBI for criminal investigation and prosecution and I don't know how the FBI is deciding how to proceed in each case. In my experience in making that type of decision at a lower level, some of the factors probably include whether someone was physically injured, whether flight crew or the flight itself was directly threatened, and whether there are witnesses who can be brought to testify at trial.
 
2 come to mind.

A friend was traveling Anchorage to Juneau. A passenger refused to cover his nose and mouth with his mask. They landed in Yakutat AK not a scheduled stop and made the passenger disembark. Sure would hate to be stuck in Yakutat with no way out.

An AK senator refused to wear a mask. She can no longer fly on the airline.
 
Last edited:
How soon before the debate surrounding "is airline travel a privilege or a right?" conversation breaks out I wonder.

I hope it stays as a privilege, but... I dont have very many intellectually satisfying arguments in favor of that. Maybe we can do a two-tier system. You ride in cargo if you can't behave up in the sardine compartment. If you somehow annoy the boxes and bags too, THEN you can be blackballed off the whole thing and take greyhound forever.
 
schmookeeg said:
How soon before the debate surrounding "is airline travel a privilege or a right?" conversation breaks out I wonder.

I hope it stays as a privilege, but... I dont have very many intellectually satisfying arguments in favor of that. Maybe we can do a two-tier system. You ride in cargo if you can't behave up in the sardine compartment. If you somehow annoy the boxes and bags too, THEN you can be blackballed off the whole thing and take greyhound forever.
Click to expand...
We recognize that all rights have limitations. The right to board a common carrier (if it exists) is certainly limited to those who follow the rules of carriage. So, right or privilege, I do not think airlines will be forced to carry passengers who break the rules in such a way that it compromises safety of flight. And it's a policy decision whether any particular rule is a safety of flight rule or not, not a constitutional rights decision. Just like smoking on commercial flights has been banned, harassing crew members who are legally required to be there for safety of flight is just never going to fly.
 
AKBill said:
Please list a few..:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Kivalina, for one. (picture)

bigimage_large


Venitie, up on the Chandalar River.

Kaktovik, up on the north coast.

Umiat, up on the Colville River.

Note: These are above the Arctic Circle, so that might make a difference...:lol:
 
AKBill said:
2 come to mind.

A friend was traveling Anchorage to Juneau. A passenger refused to cover his nose and mouth with his mask. They landed in Yakutat AK not a scheduled stop and made the passenger disembark. Sure would hate to be stuck in Yakutat with no way out.
Click to expand...
I have fond memories of Yakutat, oddly enough. ;) I spent time up there with my grandpa when I was a teenager. He and I built the two buildings behind the Quonset together…
upload_2021-11-5_11-15-25.jpeg
 
TCABM said:
Or a sentence.

I’m to the point I’d rather fly space-a on a C-17 to Europe them get on an airline.
Click to expand...

Seats are actually quite comfy as well. Just always so damn cold in a C-17.
 
TCABM said:
With a comfort pallet, a blanket, and decent ANC headphones, they’re the bomb.
Click to expand...

Unless you finish off the flight with a Tac arrival into Camp Speicher and everyone looks green and barely holds their lunch down. ;)
 
Kritchlow said:
...has been locked for a week for MC review.
Click to expand...


Well, it does take quite a bit of time to do a thorough and careful review. I understand the spelling check was completed yesterday and the thread is beginning the grammar review. Evaluation of all references and cross-references will need to be done next, followed by mathematical analysis of cited statistics.

Completion of the review is about 30 days out if the thread doesn’t need to be deferred to OKC.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Just realized, the last time I flew in a C-17, we didn’t have noise canceling headphones.
Click to expand...

I only did one trip as pax with early generation ANC headsets, but the plane is pretty quiet as is, in my opinion.

If the LM let me spread my snugpak on the floor, I usually did that and racked out on the long-hauls.
 
TCABM said:
If the LM let me spread my snugpak on the floor, I usually did that and racked out on the long-hauls.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly what we did.

I flew one from Oman to Norfolk 20 years ago. C-17s were still new then and the aircraft commander had been a test pilot on the program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top