Bill Overview
Title: Protection from Abusive Passengers Act
Description: This bill addresses the banning of abusive passengers from commercial aircraft flights. Abusive passenger is defined as any individual who engages in behavior that results in a civil penalty or conviction for assaulting, threatening, or intimidating a crew member or passenger on an aircraft flight, or who takes any action to interfere with security screening personnel or any security system related to civil aviation security. It requires the Federal Aviation Administration or the Attorney General to provide the identity, including the full name and date of birth, and gender of all abusive passengers to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The TSA must maintain a list of abusive passengers and develop and make publicly available policies and procedures for handling individuals included on the list. Any individual on the list shall be prohibited from boarding any commercial aircraft flight until the individual is removed from such list. Additionally, all abusive passengers shall be permanently ineligible to participate in the TSA PreCheck or the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Global Entry programs, with specified exceptions.
Sponsors: Rep. Swalwell, Eric [D-CA-15]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals engaging in abusive behavior on commercial flights
Estimated Size: 25000
- The target population primary consists of individuals who may engage in abusive behavior on flights, estimated very conservatively at less than 0.001% of global and US flyers.
- There are over 4 billion airline passengers per year according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), but the percentage of those who are abusive is extremely low, based on reported incidents.
- Air travel is a global activity, so the potential target includes individuals worldwide who take flights.
- In the United States alone, there are approximately 700 million passenger enplanements annually (Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2020 data).
- The proportion of flights with reported incidents of unruly behavior remains very small, though there's been an uptick during certain years.
Reasoning
- The policy primarily impacts a very small subset of airline passengers who might act abusively. Given the reported incidents, this could impact around 25,000 people in the US annually, which is a small fraction of all flyers.
- The budget constraints imply that the enforcement and management of the policy need to be efficient, likely focusing mainly on major airports where the volume of passengers is highest.
- Given the rare occurrence of such behaviors, most people will not be impacted by this policy directly. However, it might improve the sense of safety and reduce anxiety about potential incidents for other passengers.
- The Cantril wellbeing scale will reflect how this policy might improve or reduce perceived safety and actual wellbeing on flights, especially for frequent travelers and those who have previously encountered incidents onboard.
Simulated Interviews
Commercial Pilot (New York, NY)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is crucial for ensuring the safety of both the crew and passengers on flights.
- Having a standardized way to handle abusive passengers will make flying less stressful for the crew.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Business traveler (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The fear of encountering an abusive passenger always lingers when I travel by air, so this policy gives me some peace of mind.
- The ability to keep troublemakers grounded is a good move.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Frequent Flyer Program Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy should safeguard ratings and perceptions of airline safety and hospitality.
- While it's important, over-enforcement could create its own issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Freight Airline Operations Manager (Dallas, TX)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy doesn't impact me directly in my current job, but it reflects generally improved attitudes towards passenger safety.
- It might set a tone that extends to freight operations one day.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Airline Cabin Crew (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The implementation might reduce fights or heated arguments that escalate.
- Passing laws alone is not enough; training for the crew to manage their impact is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Litigation Lawyer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems fair and reasonable but may open contentious legal debates on freedom to travel.
- It will be important for passenger rights to be clear.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Retired (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think making flights less stressful is worthwhile, even if I personally don't fly often.
- Having clear consequences for bad behavior could prevent incidents.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Theme Park Employee (Orlando, FL)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's nice to know airlines are taking passenger safety seriously.
- Any actions that prevent delays and disruptions are appreciated.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
TSA Agent (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A list of abusive passengers is a necessary tool to ensure security and order at airports.
- The additional responsibility may challenge current workloads.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Travel Blogger (Miami, FL)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Such measures assure travelers that they're safe, which is crucial for the travel industry.
- Being barred from TSA PreCheck or Global Entry could be drastic for frequent travelers if errors occur in listing people.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $4000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $3000000 (Low: $2000000, High: $6000000)
Year 5: $2500000 (Low: $1500000, High: $5000000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1000000, High: $4000000)
Year 100: $200000 (Low: $100000, High: $300000)
Key Considerations
- The administrative and technological costs of maintaining the list could be significant, particularly in the initial implementation stages.
- Potential legal challenges from those listed could incur additional costs.
- There could be political implications associated with restricting an individual's ability to fly based on past behavior.