Is it punishment, or reduction of harm?

The vast majority of the traveling public would never even think about assaulting a flight attendant. Presumably most flight attendants would not like to fly with someone who has assaulted a flight attendant.

Most people suffering from mental illnesses pose no danger or annoyance to anyone. Lumping them in with violent / abusive / entitled / dangerous troublemakers is insulting and demeaning to mental illness sufferers as a whole.

The general public (including non dangerous mental patients) has a right to not be put at risk, intimidated or restricted in their travels by a tiny minority of dangerous individuals.

Finally, most antisocial types are either not really diagnosable with a mental disorder, or not diagnosed when one could be. On top of that, even when a diagnosis can and is applied, the effective treatment options are few. We just don't know how to fix narcissists. Thus labelling them as having a mental disorder is entirely pointless, even if you're so generous as to be willing to disregard the massive damages they cause.

> Most people suffering from mental illnesses pose no danger or annoyance to anyone. Lumping them in with violent / abusive / entitled / dangerous troublemakers is insulting and demeaning to mental illness sufferers as a whole.

I don't think you'll find any objection towards punishing the latter in principle, but how do you propose we differentiate between "people suffering from mental illnesses pose no danger or annoyance to anyone but had a bad day and/or is experiencing a stressful event", and "violent / abusive / entitled / dangerous troublemakers"?

You don't need to differentiate, just treat dangerous people as dangerous, irrespective of whatever formal diagnosis exists. This is not a criminal trial, wherein extenuating circumstances have to be weighed for sentencing, constraints are imposed not for punishment but for the protection of others.

This strikes me as a strawman argument, considering the OP article clearly states "unruly", which is not inherently violent. Tourette's Syndrome sufferers could often be considered unruly (I posted examples of them being punished by airlines already).

It seems to me you're not only okay with those actions, but want to expand punishment in a more systematic way for people who cannot control their actions and do not engage in violent behavior.

It's not so much about punishment as it is about keeping people safe. If you can't behave in a safe manner in the air, you shouldn't be there regardless of your mental health.

You want to predict my future behaviour? In other words, read my mind? So, I cannot fly because you, without any other knowledge, are afraid of me.

That is why I requested being put on the list. I encourage others to do the same. Let Delta stew in it.

If you've already proven that you're incapable of behaving on a plane, yes, I don't want you on any flight I'm on.

> So, I cannot fly because you, without any other knowledge, are afraid of me.

I do have knowledge. You were given an opportunity before, and knowing the risks to yourself and co-passengers, misbehaved anyway. Take the train.