Air Canada Clean Care+ program
Jun 8, 20, 8:59 am
#91
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: YYT
Programs: AC E35k, HHonors Silver
Posts: 743
More practically, for the cranially well endowed such as myself (8 1/4 hat size), standard masks don't fit. My wife has made me a number of "XXL" fabric masks which is what I'll be using if I need to travel anytime soon!
Jun 8, 20, 9:05 am
#92
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
I've been on several flights since the mask regulation was introduced, and not once has there been any onboard announcement about it being "mandatory," just that "we thank you for wearing one." I've generally removed my mask as soon as takeoff and not a single FA has ever said anything. Again, I assert that it's "mandatory" officially but unofficially not really enforced. And how would they enforce it anyways? Divert the plane and arrest you?
The TC regulation is very clear: covering one's nose & mouth aboard aircraft is compulsory "when they cannot physically distance from others, or as directed by the airline employees". On most AC flights now, both of these apply.
Jun 9, 20, 10:49 am
#95
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: YYC, SFO, OAK
Programs: AS MVP 75K, AA Platinum, IHG Platinum, Club Carlson Gold
Posts: 733
It's unfortunate you decided not to comply. The risks of transmission are low, but the comfort provided to staff and fellow passengers can't be ignored. I also dislike wearing masks or face coverings, but decided instead to be sensitive to the needs and preferences of others and to not pick & choose which regulations I felt like obeying. I imagine enforcement would be at the discretion of the crew or prompted by passenger complaint, and would follow the same protocols of enforcement of any other airborne conflict.
The TC regulation is very clear: covering one's nose & mouth aboard aircraft is compulsory "when they cannot physically distance from others, or as directed by the airline employees". On most AC flights now, both of these apply.
The TC regulation is very clear: covering one's nose & mouth aboard aircraft is compulsory "when they cannot physically distance from others, or as directed by the airline employees". On most AC flights now, both of these apply.
In my case, I also have a medical condition that makes wearing a mask for extended periods of time difficult, it's not just a matter of "picking and choosing what I feel like obeying" as you suggest. I actually take offense to your wording there, which I find very passive aggressive and implies an intention behind my actions.
Jun 9, 20, 11:04 am
#96
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: YVR
Programs: Bottom feeder Star Gold
Posts: 2,652
Jun 11, 20, 9:18 am
#97
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: YYC, SFO, OAK
Programs: AS MVP 75K, AA Platinum, IHG Platinum, Club Carlson Gold
Posts: 733
I have had a discussion with Air Canada about medical reasons for being unable to wear a mask and how to obtain an official exemption that would help avoid conflicts with gate agents, check-in agents and FAs. I mentioned previously that the mask policy on board is de facto weakly enforced if at all, however in my experience the gate and check-in agents are more strict.
I have a respiratory problem that makes long periods of wearing a mask difficult/impossible. A few minutes to get checked in or boarded is fine, but sitting for 4+ hours on a plane with the mask on 100% of the time isn't possible. So far I've been able to avoid major conflicts, but if the day comes that this policy is strictly enforced, I wanted to arrange an official exemption.
If you read the AC CleanCare+ FAQ, they explain as follows:
"This requirement applies to all customers except for children under the age of 6 or customers who have a medical condition preventing them from wearing such a covering. This exemption will need to be verified and approved by Air Canada in advance through a medical certificate or Air Canada Fitness to Fly form. Click herefor more details on how to submit."
The issue with the "Fitness to Fly" form is that it lists a whole bunch of different medical conditions and your doctor is supposed to fill out whatever section applies to you with very specific information. However the "Chronic Pulmonary Condition" section is primarily focused on people who need oxygen to fly or can't walk long distances, and makes no mention of masks. I've told AC that this form isn't well suited to obtaining an exemption to the mask requirement and they should consider updating it. Their reply was the following:
"Please note, you may provide us with a doctor’s letter indicating the condition that prevents you from wearing a mask.
A doctor’s letter is valid for 1 year.
You may email us your letter, with your flight information, and we will add the approval to your booking."
I was impressed that they replied in under 24 hours. So I will obtain said doctor's letter and see what happens.
I have a respiratory problem that makes long periods of wearing a mask difficult/impossible. A few minutes to get checked in or boarded is fine, but sitting for 4+ hours on a plane with the mask on 100% of the time isn't possible. So far I've been able to avoid major conflicts, but if the day comes that this policy is strictly enforced, I wanted to arrange an official exemption.
If you read the AC CleanCare+ FAQ, they explain as follows:
"This requirement applies to all customers except for children under the age of 6 or customers who have a medical condition preventing them from wearing such a covering. This exemption will need to be verified and approved by Air Canada in advance through a medical certificate or Air Canada Fitness to Fly form. Click herefor more details on how to submit."
The issue with the "Fitness to Fly" form is that it lists a whole bunch of different medical conditions and your doctor is supposed to fill out whatever section applies to you with very specific information. However the "Chronic Pulmonary Condition" section is primarily focused on people who need oxygen to fly or can't walk long distances, and makes no mention of masks. I've told AC that this form isn't well suited to obtaining an exemption to the mask requirement and they should consider updating it. Their reply was the following:
"Please note, you may provide us with a doctor’s letter indicating the condition that prevents you from wearing a mask.
A doctor’s letter is valid for 1 year.
You may email us your letter, with your flight information, and we will add the approval to your booking."
I was impressed that they replied in under 24 hours. So I will obtain said doctor's letter and see what happens.
Jun 12, 20, 10:52 am
#99
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,946
Canada implementing mandatory temperature checks
Trudeau speech moments ago - Canada will require air passengers to undergo mandatory temperature checks in order to get on their flights and will be implemented in 3 phase approach:
Phase 1 - passengers TO Canada, phase 2 - FROM Canada, phase 3 - WITHIN Canada
https://ca.travelpulse.com/news/airl...g-trudeau.html
Phase 1 - passengers TO Canada, phase 2 - FROM Canada, phase 3 - WITHIN Canada
https://ca.travelpulse.com/news/airl...g-trudeau.html
Jun 12, 20, 11:21 am
#100
Moderator, Air Canada; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: YYC
Programs: AC SE MM, FB Gold, DL PM, WS Plat, BA Silver, Marriott Plat, Hilton Gold, Accor Silver
Posts: 16,104
Trudeau speech moments ago - Canada will require air passengers to undergo mandatory temperature checks in order to get on their flights and will be implemented in 3 phase approach:
Phase 1 - passengers TO Canada, phase 2 - FROM Canada, phase 3 - WITHIN Canada
https://ca.travelpulse.com/news/airl...g-trudeau.html
Phase 1 - passengers TO Canada, phase 2 - FROM Canada, phase 3 - WITHIN Canada
https://ca.travelpulse.com/news/airl...g-trudeau.html
Interesting that domestic flights are going to be phase 3, seeing as how AC and WS are both already doing temperature checks.
Jun 12, 20, 12:11 pm
#102
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
It's not as if Canada or Air Canada are the leaders in temperature ideas. I posted this on May 14:
QUOTE:
Air Canada insists on temperature checks but that alone isn’t enough to deny boarding, they first ‘consult a medical professional’ at least. After all children and people with cancer can have slightly elevated temperatures.
Interesting article about temperature checks etc, relevant perhaps for those flying AC ex-USA:
"Government Temperature Checks By TSA Are A Bad Idea, Let Airlines Do It Themselves"
https://viewfromthewing.com/governme...it-themselves/
Air Canada insists on temperature checks but that alone isn’t enough to deny boarding, they first ‘consult a medical professional’ at least. After all children and people with cancer can have slightly elevated temperatures.
Interesting article about temperature checks etc, relevant perhaps for those flying AC ex-USA:
"Government Temperature Checks By TSA Are A Bad Idea, Let Airlines Do It Themselves"
https://viewfromthewing.com/governme...it-themselves/
Jun 12, 20, 1:39 pm
#103
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: YVR - MILLS Waypoint (It's the third house on the left)
Programs: AC*SE100K, wood level status in various other programs
Posts: 5,948
If one believes that this would actually screen people out, this approach would stop the pax in question from mixing with the general populace inside the secure zone.
Jun 12, 20, 4:10 pm
#104
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SFO
Programs: AC SE MM, AA PPro, UA Gold, Bonvoy Tit LT Sil, Hyatt Glob, HH Diamond, Accor Silver
Posts: 43,514
Efficacy aside, moving the testing to security screening would make more sense than doing it at the gate while boarding, IMHO.
If one believes that this would actually screen people out, this approach would stop the pax in question from mixing with the general populace inside the secure zone.
If one believes that this would actually screen people out, this approach would stop the pax in question from mixing with the general populace inside the secure zone.
Jun 12, 20, 5:27 pm
#105
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: YEG
Posts: 3,921
Efficacy aside, moving the testing to security screening would make more sense than doing it at the gate while boarding, IMHO.
If one believes that this would actually screen people out, this approach would stop the pax in question from mixing with the general populace inside the secure zone.
If one believes that this would actually screen people out, this approach would stop the pax in question from mixing with the general populace inside the secure zone.
