News and notes from around the interweb:
- United adding complimentary snacks in coach to flights of 301 miles or more (down from 801+ miles) starting January 1, 2023.
- Woman attacks her husband after landing in Charleston and seeing ‘indecent photos’ on his phone
- Plane of vomiting passengers lands in Philadelphia American calls it moderate turbulence.
- The Dilemma of Babies on Airplanes (Atlantic)
- Hotels replacing housekeepers with robots
- Hyatt owned this (supposedly haunted) downtown Austin property themselves, but sold it this past spring to the owners of the Hyatt Regency Hill Country and Hyatt Lost Pines.
- The Washington Post calls for a national no fly list of bad behaving passengers, misleadingly using stats on 2022 incidents which were mostly from before the mask mandate was lifted. Incidents are still elevated compared to pre-pandemic times, though down significantly, a phenomenon that former American CEO Doug Parker recognized a couple of years ago – which, without the full return of business travel, I dubbed ‘everyone’s passengers are Spirit Airlines passengers now’.
However there are still fewer incidents on United than American. United did real work on de-escalation of conflict after the David Dao incident and it’s paid dividends. Better procedures for dealing with problem passengers is proven to be a better approach than abrogating the constitutional right to travel (which will require judicial review, and current proposed fines rarely even happen, so don’t expect a national no fly list to be a deterrent).
WaPo is nothing more than an arm of the administrative state. They ceaselessly cheerlead for ever more consolidation of federal power.
Wapo is state run media at this point.
Gary – there is no “constitutional right” to travel. Even if there is there is no right to fly on planes owned by a private entity. You can drive or take a train/boat.
I am not in favor of this national no fly list but please don’t spread misinformation about people having a right to fly on an airline.
Who cares about this issue other than those who wish to behave badly?
Once again, rather than posting on earning points and burning points, the choice of article is one intended to inflame.
Not the articles I’m looking for.
See ya later, pal.
Bezos will likely put the WaPo up for sale next year. Bloomberg has expressed an interest. 85% of WaPo subscribers are 55+. No exactly a “growth” demographic.
@AC – “there is no “constitutional right” to travel.”
The Supreme Court disagreed in Saenz v. Roe 526 U.S. 489 (1999). See also generally Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) and United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966).
Now, a separate question is to the extent there’s a right to a specific *mode* of travel but unquestionably this burdens the right to travel, the degree of scrutiny and what balancing test the court would apply remain as-yet undetermined.
The court’s predisposition – and legal positivism – aside, I do think there’s a clear liberty interest in travel, a fundamental human right to travel.
Gary needs to hand in his high school diploma, and any remote claim to journalism.
The supreme court case which he cites implying a constitutional right to travel in the context of airlines says nothing of the kind. With standing his click – bait yellow journalism Saenz only, says that the government cannot stop you from going from Illinois and Wisconsin, it sure as hell does not imply that the that the citizens cannot be banned from travel in any mode that they see fit as a constitutional right the case is cited below, for those who are not as dimwitted as the author of this blog
There may, or may not, be good reasons to have or not have a national no-fly list, but when the best arguments that can be made against it, are to do name-calling against the author, and fabricate constitutional rights that do not exist. In this context,, it’s pretty much an indication that the author is scraping the bottom of the barrel, and shooting blanks instead of using valid information
Sáenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States discussed whether there is a constitutional right to travel from one state to another. The case was a reaffirmation of the principle that citizens select states and not the other way round
“Sáenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489, was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States discussed whether there is a constitutional right to travel from one state to another. The case was a reaffirmation of the principle that citizens select states and not the other way round”
@H – responding to the claim about there being ‘no right to travel’ i cited examples where the court has found that there is (but there’s such a right, whether formally acknowledged by the court of not) and then I specifically said the court has NOT found a right to a particular *mode* of travel. So you aren’t saying anything here I did not say.
@Gary – You beat me to the punch on mentioning that the freedom to travel doesn’t mean that a specific mode or company. Otherwise, airlines would be unable to ban someone for any reason whatsoever.
You’ve previously written about how you strongly disagree with a combined airline no-fly list while I think one is direly needed. What do you think should be done about people who try to sneak guns on planes? The most recent is the guy who hid a gun and ammunition in peanut butter jars but remember that Congressman, Ashley Madison or something like that? Anyway, he “forgot” that he was carrying a gun hidden in his wheelchair at least twice. If TSA actually caught him twice then you can bet he made it through on other occasions. A mandatory no-fly list would fix these problems as lots more people would suddenly remember to leave their guns elsewhere.
Until all the people in the supposed “no fly list” unite, organize and file a class action lawsuit against any of the majors. The attorneys will be drooling and the clients will sue their pants off. No “no national no fly lists”, it’ll never happen! Merry Xmas.
Just say no to blacklisting of free people by the government. If an airline wants to not enter into contracts with a person, that’s the airline’s business to the extent allowed by law, but I see no good coming from allowing the airlines to collude against free people or to have the government restrict the freedom of movement of free people by commercial means.
Free people should be free to fly and otherwise move. People guilty of crimes should do their time and then be as free as allowed by the terms of their release and/or sentencing.
Who owns who? Some airlines are considered critical infrastructure, including US3, thus being bailed out by tax payers.
Privately owned with moderation.
The owner of the very invironmental conscious Wapo is sitting in his private jet, reading and making money on articles advocating for restricting regular peoples ability to freely move over the judicial system.
Money and double standards makes the world go round.
Says Kris, the person who was happy that Trump beat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election for US President?
Don’t vote, what’s your point GUWonder?
Don’t vote, what’s your point GUWonder
@Christian
“Congressman, Ashley Madison or something like that? Anyway, he “forgot” that he was carrying a gun hidden in his wheelchair at least twice. If TSA actually caught him twice then you can bet he made it through on other occasions. A mandatory no-fly list would fix these problems”
What problems? What happened the times he made it through? I don’t remember hearing of a congressman hijacking a plane. I don’t remember anybody hijacking a plane since midday 9/11 when the passengers on Flight 93 figured out what was in store.