News and notes from around the interweb:
- D.C. Circuit upholds TSA No Fly List the fundamental right to travel does not mean the travel to fly on an airplane. That’s such a strange argument, because forbidding the use of a plane fundamentally burdens the right to travel to the point it is almost meaningful for many journeys. They also ruled that DHS’s redress process is sufficient due process (even though there’s no opportunity to confront the evidence against you!).
- Is it weird that I did not know that “gloving” was a thing? Everyone on Frontier Airlines 3803 from Fort Myers to Denver found out, on or about March 22, 2026.
I hope you enjoy the show
We’re about to start service - The cleanest space in America is the Tampa airport? That is literally impossible (biosecurity labs exist), of course.
- On many airlines you can buy more than one seat. But no on low cost carriers this is not something they’ll countenance (though I suppose as a one-off it would be interesting to buy out the flight completely, with most passengers no showing). Sadly they aren’t going to sell all seats at the lowest fare inventory.
the american mind (me) cannot comprehend european airline flight prices
can i just book all 190 seats for $3400 and have a private 737 flight? pic.twitter.com/xPCy5VJ9Zy
— Alex Kehr (@alexkehr) April 15, 2026
In any case, my first thought was this:
The point is that airlines aren’t just making money on the fare, but for ultra-low cost carriers fees are a significant portion of the cost of travel. And they’re only going to earn fees on each actual passenger, not on the no shows or extra seats. So selling out the whole plane for base fares breaks the model.
- This pilot for Piedmont Airlines (wholly-owned American Airlines subsidiary) is a true hero.
@AmericanAir this AVL to CLT pilot (AA 6081) deserves a raise!! Saving us from missing our connections 🙏🏻 pic.twitter.com/nFWF8dKEMi
— Nikki Parise (@NikkiParise) April 14, 2026
- Not all photos of coach meals are complaints.
I was in @AmericanAir flight from New Delhi to @JFKairport and can’t believe getting a breakfast with Aloo Paratha – Chana and Dahi ! Kudos to all for planning such a delicious Indian breakfast in the air #newyork #india pic.twitter.com/mpJVGBFw8r
— Sujeet Singh (Authentic Gorakhpuriya) (@Sujeet1988) April 14, 2026
Seems like a well-reasoned decision from the DC circuit and one unlikely to be overturned on further appeal – especially considering the deferential political bent of SCOTUS towards the government’s position.
Gary may find the argument that the right to travel does not include the right to air travel “strange” but this is far from the first time it has been litigated. Having read the D.C.Circuit’s opinion, here is what they say:
“Khalid first contends that the TSA Administrator’s order violates substantive due process by illegitimately restricting his right to free movement. That argument is foreclosed by
binding precedent. Substantive due process protects “fundamental rights” that are so “deeply rooted in our legal tradition” that the government may infringe them only through actions narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 720-22 (1997). While Americans “enjoy[] ‘the right to travel,’” that does not imply “a fundamental right to travel by airplane.” Busic, 62 F.4th at 550 (first quoting Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 306 (1981); and then quoting Gilmore v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 1125, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006)). Khalid may continue to travel to, from, and inside of the United States by means other than airplanes. As a result, the TSA Administrator’s order maintaining Khalid on the No Fly List does not infringe a fundamental right, and Khalid’s substantive due process claim fails.”
The precedent is decades old. In fact the argument that Gary would make is the “strange” one as it is contrary to established court precedents. And reading the decision, I for one am grateful that this particular guy is not allowed on an airplane in U.S. airspace. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.
You don’t have a “right” to a driver’s license or to drive. Why should flying be any different? Those individuals that cause enough trouble that police must be called should be automatic no fly list. If you can’t act properly in public others should not have to deal with your actions.
@Rupert Maclanahan – that this is not novel does not make it less strange. The right to travel is clearly established in Supreme Court precedent, and this substantially burdens that right.
@Neal Z – I do not expect it to be overturned. There are many normatively bad decisions!
Can we have one no-fly list for the legacy carriers and another for the ULCCs?
As it stands, the fundamental right to travel in the US Constitution has been interpreted to also be limited to within the country (intra-state, notably not international), and there is no right to a specific mode of transport (as long as other means of travel exist, the restriction is not a total deprivation of liberty), even if it’s impractical (sure, you can technically swim to Hawaii).
It’s a bit of hardline stance by the DC Circuit, and I doubt this 6-3 conservative Supreme Court is gonna overturn it. Personally, I’d think those of us who care about transportation as an industry would want less, not more, impediments to travel; likewise, you’d think the libertarians at VFTW would be up-in-arms over such government intervention, but, instead, turns out, they’d rather punch-down the poors and the immigrants. Meanwhile, all this particular executive has to do is say the magic words ‘national security’ and they can do whatever they want. If they have a ‘D’ in front, though, no, that’d be tyranny.
It appears that Gary is one of the few people who understand the meaning of the word “rights”. Arguably, the worst take is from George Romey.
@George Romey
Yes, you don’t have a right to a driver’s license, but you do have a right to substantive due process.
The state can set standards to get a driver’s license. If you meet those standards, *then* you are entitled to a driver’s license. If the state claimed that there is some evidence that you don’t meet the standard, and you can’t see the evidence, and you can’t contest the evidence, and you can’t present evidence to the contrary, that would be ridiculous.
“Those individuals that cause enough trouble that police must be called should be automatic no fly list.” Like David Dao? Calling the police doesn’t always mean something illegal has occurred.
If you’re on a US aviation blacklist and want to have some fun, pursue legal name changes to have some common names that has other people with the same birthdate. Do the legal name changes several times with a few months in between. Best yet if it’s the name of a US Supreme Court Justice, a senior Congressperson or a current or former senior Executive Branch employee.
@Mike P — Well, this is rare; we agree.
@GUWonder — Niiice. Turns out Clarence ‘Uncle Tom’ Thomas is on the no-fly list. Besides, he prefers his motor coach anyway.