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: Sen. Reed, Jack [D-RI]
Target Audience
Population: Passengers on Commercial Aircraft Worldwide
Estimated Size: 926000000
- All passengers who travel via commercial airlines would be impacted as the presence of the bill aims to increase safety on flights.
- Flight crews and airline staff will see changes, as this protects their working environment from abusive passengers.
- A potential deterrent effect the bill may have on individuals considering abusive behavior on flights.
- The prevalence of incidents involving abusive passengers is a consideration; each incident potentially endangers the flight safety for all onboard.
- The bill provides legal and procedural implications for managing abusive passengers through the TSA.
Reasoning
- The Protection from Abusive Passengers Act impacts a wide range of people in diverse ways. While the primary target is those who have engaged in abusive behavior, the broader aim is to enhance safety for all passengers.
- The implementation budget suggests a modest allocation per capita given the enormous potential number of people affected and benefited indirectly. Thus, individual impacts might be perceived more through general safety improvements rather than personal interaction with the policy.
- Safety perception and real incidents related to abusive behavior can significantly affect travelers' wellbeing. Passengers who feel safer on flights might report an increase in wellbeing, especially apprehensive travelers.
- Airline crew members' job satisfaction could potentially improve due to a safer work environment, impacting their long-term wellbeing positively.
- Not everyone will be directly impacted by the policy. Travelers without direct negative experiences might not perceive an immediate benefit, but the deterrent effect could reduce the frequency or seriousness of abuses.
- The policy is likely to deter potential offenders, avoiding costly and dangerous incidents which entail both economic and psychological costs for airlines and passengers.
Simulated Interviews
Corporate Executive (New York, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I dislike confrontations, so the presence of this policy would make flights less stressful for me.
- Using Global Entry is crucial for my frequent travels; impacting violent passengers makes me feel safer.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Airline Pilot (Dallas, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen aggressive incidents greatly affect the crew and passengers.
- Stricter policies will discourage violence and make flights safer.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Travel Blogger (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Knowing that abusive passengers may be banned provides peace of mind during my travels.
- This policy is a positive step towards ensuring everyone’s safety on flights.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Security Consultant (Chicago, IL)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the intent of the policy is good, there needs to be clear guidelines to manage its implementation.
- It should balance safety and individual rights to avoid misuse.
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 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Flight Attendant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Long flights can be stressful with difficult passengers.
- Knowing there's a policy to combat abuse makes me feel more secure going to work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired (Tampa, FL)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don’t fly often, but it's comforting to know that flights may be safer with this policy.
- Hopefully, this ensures considerate behavior.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a frequent flyer, I welcome measures that enhance in-flight safety.
- Knowing disruptive passengers are being managed assures a better flight experience.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Scientist (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While safety is important, data privacy and rights should be safeguarded in policy implementation.
- The policy should be transparent and fair.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
College Student (Denver, CO)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sometimes flights can feel dangerous with unruly passengers.
- Policies that make flying safer are very important to me.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Freelance Writer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Traveling with children can be stressful if safety is a concern.
- Policies that decrease aggressive behavior are welcome for family travelers like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)
Year 100: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $15000000)
Key Considerations
- Inter-agency collaboration between FAA, TSA, and the Attorney General is crucial for effective implementation.
- Ensuring privacy and fairness in handling individuals on the abusive passenger list will be critical to avoid potential lawsuits.
- Availability of a robust appeals process for individuals who believe they are wrongfully placed on the list.
- Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess the policy's effectiveness in reducing abusive incidents on flights.
- Ensuring compliance by airlines and support for TSA in list management and enforcement.