[jimworcs]

Judge, the planes are privately owned, but they transport the public.. so they are public transportation.

Gromit..
The reason you say this...

Am I going to waste time looking up specific laws? No, you're not worth the effort.

Is because no such law exists. You appear to be making up civil torts which don't exist. An owner of private property can, if they wish, prohibit taking photographs. It is not prohibited, unless the owner of the property expressly prohibits it. You can't quote the law, because no such law exists. You made it up.

You may have had a case to argue, if the airline involved prohibited photography. I cannot find a single airline which prohibits photography. So I asked you to name one US airline which did so. You couldn't do that either.

You finally threw up the red herring of requiring the consent of the subject of the photograph. This is also bogus. I can give you thousands of examples of people having their picture taken, even against their will, on private property but in a place which is accessible to the public. For example, celebrities arriving or departing at airports. If that was actionable, you seriously think that wouldn't have been tested in law by now? The reason it has not, is because there IS NO SUCH LAW.

I am happy to have a debate with anyone, but you make it hard, when you just make things up to support your argument, and then twist and turn desperately trying to justify your position.