289
submitted 1 year ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The Covid era’s surge in air rage incidents is aiding flight attendants’ demand for a benefit they’ve been seeking since 9/11 — legally mandated self-defense training.

A provision in a major Senate aviation policy bill would require airlines to train flight attendants to “subdue and restrain” an attacker and defend themselves against weapons. The proposal comes after an unprecedented upswing in confrontations with unruly air passengers since 2020, which have forced flight crews to contend with everything from near-stabbings to broken teeth.

“Obviously the last three years have given us ample reasons for why self defense is an important part of training for flight attendants,” said Taylor Garland, a spokesperson for the Association of Flight Attendants, a union that has pushed for the training mandate.

Airlines in the past have argued that the costs of federal security mandates, including additional training, should fall on the government rather than private enterprise. The major U.S. airlines and their main trade group did not comment when asked their positions on the current Senate language.

“The airlines were always loath to pay for it,” said former Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who chaired the House Transportation Committee until early this year and led its aviation panel in 2001. DeFazio is now senior strategic advisor to lobbying firm Summit Strategies, though he has said he has no plans to register as a lobbyist.

He called airline opposition to paid self-defense training “irresponsible,” saying that “giving the training — particularly given the uptick of incidents — could be very, very useful and potentially avoid an incident at some point that could be catastrophic.”

Airlines for America, a trade group representing most major commercial airlines, said in a statement that “safety and security of passengers and employees is the top priority.” The group did not answer directly when asked if it supports or opposes the updated flight crew training requirement as written in the Senate bill.

The group said its members “train their crew members and other frontline employees in de-escalation techniques so that self-defense is used as a last resort,” and noted that its airlines “have partnered” with the Transportation Security Administration in support of an optional self-defense training course “for many years.”

United Airlines declined to comment. Delta Air Lines, American Airlines and Southwest Airlines directed POLITICO to Airlines For America. Spirit Airlines and Frontier Airlines did not respond to requests for comment.

Existing law already requires airlines to train their flight crews, including on self defense. But some flight attendants say the current requirement, as written, allows too much room for interpretation.

all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] merci3@lemmy.world 41 points 1 year ago

Now they are fight attendants

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Took me a second, ngl

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

They also need to be paid for the entire time they are in the plane, not just when the fucking wheels are off the ground.

[-] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago

Maybe treating airline passengers like people would help. Some self defense courses wouldn't hurt, but there's a definite slippery slope of escalating violence even more.

[-] Moc@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago

No amount of treating a belligerent anti-masker with empathy will help.

That’s just an example, but if a person chooses to actively ignore society’s rules and reacts violently when you try to stop them, there’s nothing treating them “like people” will do.

[-] iforgotmyinstance@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

How much leeway are we giving? Right now people just get violent and we have to tolerate it until a federally approved person comes on the plane and deals with it.

If you intervene, you get charged. If you fight back, you get charged. If you get pushed by the violent person into a flight attendant, you get charged and no fly listed.

We have given conservatives so much runway, how much more do we have to build before they fly away and leave us the fuck alone?

[-] Aliendelarge@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The 2040's will be wild when flight attendent start gunning us down like cops.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

PUT ON YOUR SEAT BELT YOU HAVE 20 SECONDS TO COMPLY!

YOU NOW HAVE 15 SECONDS TO COMPLY! YOU ARE IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF FAA ORDER 15!

YOU NOW HAVE 5 SECONDS TO COMPLY!

FOUR

THREE

TWO

ONE

I AM NOW AUTHORIZED TO USE PHYSICALLY FORCE!

[-] RatherBeMTB@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 year ago

Has anybody thought about making flying a good experience? I used to travel a lot before 9/11, after that it was once or twice a year and mostly one or two weeks, then COVID hit and everything stopped. After COVID, every trip has been a nightmare where absolutely no one is responsible for anything. Traveling is not for me anymore. Maybe in the not so distant future it will get better.

[-] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

No, that would make the line go down, it's better to let a flight attendant get beat up.

[-] YaaAsantewaa 4 points 1 year ago

I wonder in how many of those incidents the passenger was drunk

While no doubt several are, never doubt the rage a Karen can have while stone cold sober. Don't you know? They deserrrrrve special treatment!

[-] Skunk@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

95% of the time it was every time.

But you’re right, a mate is an A320 captain and unruly pax are 98% of the time somewhat intoxicated. The 2 remaining % are just stupid people thinking they are above anyone else (like rushing to stand up right after landing to be first out and have a smoke on the tarmac while waiting for his family, yeah true story).

this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2023
289 points (100.0% liked)

News

23268 readers
2317 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS