Editorial: Zero tolerance for flight disruptions

There’s not much on which almost everyone can agree in these contentious times. Here’s one thing: Attacking an airline employee on board a plane is carrying things too far and must bring more severe penalties than those already in place.

On Thursday all eyes were on this issue, locally and nationally. In Washington, D.C., the aviation subcommittee of the U.S. House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure heard testimony from flight attendants about the attacks they’ve endured from passengers livid about masking requirements on board planes.

And as if to punctuate those accounts in living color, two incidents were occurring that same day on Hawaiian Airlines flights. In an early-afternoon case, an unruly passenger protested the directive to wear a mask and disrupted order aboard the flight, en route to Seattle. Attendants said they were able to de-escalate the situation, but the flight did return to Oahu after being two hours on its way.

The other, more violent case was first: On a morning flight to Hilo, a Hawaii island man punched a male flight attendant in a reportedly unprovoked attack. After the flight turned back and landed in Honolulu, 32-year-old Steven Sloan Jr. was arrested. On Friday, he was charged in U.S. District Court with federal offenses: interference with flight crew members and attendants, as well as with assault by striking.

Statements in court documents do not indicate that the incident was prompted by the mask mandate. Regardless of the triggering event, however, it’s the unruly behavior that must be deterred in the most forceful way possible.

Exactly how this is accomplished is somewhat clouded. At the very least, steps taken by some airlines to avert problems, such as ending on-board alcohol service, should be adopted more broadly. The Federal Aviation Administration, which does not have prosecutorial authority, is seeking to work with airports to prevent passengers from taking to-go cups of alcohol from airport bars onto airplanes. This seems like a rational step.

So far this year, more than 4,300 unruly-passenger reports have come in from airlines, with civil fines being sought topping $1 million so far this year, according to the FAA. It’s reportedly deterred some of this horrendous activity, but a further increase in fines could tamp it down further.

Finally, there is an impulse to strip offenders in such cases of their ability to board another flight. This idea resonates with a lot of people, but there are complexities. Would addition to such a list require a conviction on charges first? What would the criteria be for such a list maintained by an individual airline? And what would govern addition to the secretive federal no-fly list? This is serious, especially for a state as dependent on air travel as Hawaii.

Delta Airlines officials, who have said the carrier has some 1,600 passengers on its own no-fly list, on Friday proposed that other airlines share their own no-fly lists in an effort to “further protect airline employees across the industry.”

Acknowledging that such restrictions will draw protests as restraint on civil liberties, there should be room to discuss standards for access to air transportation, in which rights are balanced against the imperative to keep transportation safe.

It is dismaying to see this level of assault and animosity targeting people trying to do their jobs, serving the public. Shouting and pushing against restaurant and hospitality workers; temper tantrums about restrictions governing entry to public libraries and other facilities.

But it’s unconscionable that this behavior be tolerated from people boarding airplanes. They are a menace to public safety and must be treated accordingly.