"No mask, no travel, no exceptions"

Old Aug 12, 20, 2:21 pm
  #76  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: YVR, HNL
Programs: AS MVPG, UA peon, BA Bronze, Marriott Gold, HH Diamond, Fairmont Plat (RIP)
Posts: 5,859
Originally Posted by Kacee View Post
Many airlines, including AS, have expressly called out passengers who drag out eating/drinking as a deliberate subterfuge to avoid wearing a mask. That's why AS's exception expressly states that masks may only be removed "briefly" while eating or drinking.
Until they define ‘briefly’ or put a set time limit on eating and drinking, my answer would be the same. I will be happy to put it on once I am finished my dinner. Your ‘briefly’ and mine could be vastly different and until there is a set time limit, I will be finishing my dinner whether you like it or not. I would not engage after the first response and would call the FA if another pax kept going on at me. If they continued, it would not be me who would be met at the gate on arrival, I assure you.
PDXFlyBoy likes this.
Finkface is offline  
Old Aug 12, 20, 2:39 pm
  #77  
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 6,256
Originally Posted by jrl767 View Post
that's why I said it was a literal answer and not exactly relevant to the instant (i.e., AS fleet) issue ... not sure why you're trying to be argumentative here



this ... exactly
Because it is trying to deflect from the issue. The poster made a wrong analogy. You are supporting the wrong analogy. That's it.

For example, someone asks Trump a question about A, Trump elaborates on B. Accepting "B" as an "answer" means buying into subterfuge. And currently there's a lot of debate about masks, but seemingly only in the US (and possibly Australia and the UK). Why? Last month an article was published about why the rest of the world wonders how come the US doesn't wear masks.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/22/us-c...the-world.html
pcoll and Flying for Fun like this.
s0ssos is offline  
Old Aug 12, 20, 2:52 pm
  #78  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 31,933
Originally Posted by Finkface View Post
Until they define ‘briefly’ or put a set time limit on eating and drinking, my answer would be the same. I will be happy to put it on once I am finished my dinner. Your ‘briefly’ and mine could be vastly different and until there is a set time limit, I will be finishing my dinner whether you like it or not. I would not engage after the first response and would call the FA if another pax kept going on at me. If they continued, it would not be me who would be met at the gate on arrival, I assure you.
One would hope that common sense would rule the day, and any particular scenario at issue.
One would expect that common sense will not always prevail.
One would expect that set time limits are ridiculous. "You have five minutes, starting NOW." (This applies whether you've got a bag-o-airline snack or a 2 pound Fa Tassarito.)
One would expect that we all have a sense of "reasonable" and know when we're crossing the line just to be a turd.

I wouldn't be too inclined to engage with with a non-compliant passenger. On the other hand, unless there was a reasonable opportunity for seating re-accommodation, I would not be eager to be seated within 18 inches of someone not pleased with my complaint to the crew for what could be hours.
Eastbay1K is online now  
Old Aug 12, 20, 3:01 pm
  #79  
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: YVR, HNL
Programs: AS MVPG, UA peon, BA Bronze, Marriott Gold, HH Diamond, Fairmont Plat (RIP)
Posts: 5,859
Originally Posted by Eastbay1K View Post
One would hope that common sense would rule the day, and any particular scenario at issue.
One would expect that common sense will not always prevail.
One would expect that set time limits are ridiculous. "You have five minutes, starting NOW." (This applies whether you've got a bag-o-airline snack or a 2 pound Fa Tassarito.)
One would expect that we all have a sense of "reasonable" and know when we're crossing the line just to be a turd.

I wouldn't be too inclined to engage with with a non-compliant passenger. On the other hand, unless there was a reasonable opportunity for seating re-accommodation, I would not be eager to be seated within 18 inches of someone not pleased with my complaint to the crew for what could be hours.
Agreed. All of it except for one part. Eating my dinner is not being ‘non-compliant’. I am just eating my dinner. Just because someone else doesn’t like it or thinks I am taking too long, too bad. It takes as long as it takes. “Reasonable” cuts both ways and just because someone is living in terror that I am daring to eat my dinner is not my problem. It is entirely unreasonable to expect me not to eat or drink on a 6 hour flight. Or any flight, since you have no idea where I may have come from. If one is that fearful of my few unmasked minutes to eat or drink, then they should protect themselves with an N95 or reconsider their choice to be on public transit where such things are going to happen (and are permitted to happen). But my eating dinner and not obeying another passenger’s demands to stop is not ‘non-compliant’.
PDXFlyBoy likes this.
Finkface is offline  
Old Aug 12, 20, 3:02 pm
  #80  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 48,073
This is a safety issue and a serious one at that.

I would hit the call button or find a FA. It's easy enough to be pleasant about it and I get that the FA's don't like the additional duty. But, to be frank, as the people in the aisles day-in and day-out, they are likely at greater risk than the average passenger.

The next step will be a clear rule, e.g. 5 minutes per 2-hours of flight-time or somesuch.

The better answer is to ban these people. Will put an end to the juvenile silliness.

Last edited by Often1; Aug 12, 20 at 3:09 pm
Often1 is offline  
Old Aug 12, 20, 4:09 pm
  #81  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 31,933
Originally Posted by Finkface View Post
Agreed. All of it except for one part. Eating my dinner is not being ‘non-compliant’. I am just eating my dinner. Just because someone else doesn’t like it or thinks I am taking too long, too bad. It takes as long as it takes. “Reasonable” cuts both ways and just because someone is living in terror that I am daring to eat my dinner is not my problem. It is entirely unreasonable to expect me not to eat or drink on a 6 hour flight. Or any flight, since you have no idea where I may have come from. If one is that fearful of my few unmasked minutes to eat or drink, then they should protect themselves with an N95 or reconsider their choice to be on public transit where such things are going to happen (and are permitted to happen). But my eating dinner and not obeying another passenger’s demands to stop is not ‘non-compliant’.
Nowhere did I suggest that one eating his dinner is non-compliant. Nevertheless, I don't know how one can be eating dinner on a "snack" flight.
Eastbay1K is online now  
Old Aug 12, 20, 7:46 pm
  #82  
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: SFO
Programs: AS MVP, SK, UR, MR
Posts: 1,040
Originally Posted by Eastbay1K View Post
Nowhere did I suggest that one eating his dinner is non-compliant. Nevertheless, I don't know how one can be eating dinner on a "snack" flight.
A determined hot dog or cherry pie eating contestant might pull it off. And no less risky, if you will allow me a small digression, in an Alaska historical setting, seen at Tlingit potlatches in times gone by, eventually outlawed.
https://www.sheldonmuseum.org/vignet...git-potlatches
vanillabean is offline  
Old Aug 12, 20, 8:18 pm
  #83  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Seattle
Programs: Alaska airlines 75K
Posts: 332
The policy is ultimately a business decision. This is good for business. It is likely more people would be willing to fly given a mask requirement vs those not willing to fly because of a mask requirement.

I learned in my business courses that without a workforce and customers willing to use your product ,- the business is likely to fail. In addition, business that potentially cause their customers to become ill then don’t have as many customers to purchase the product (exception is an addictive product such as tobacco - “senator I don’t believe that smoking tobacco Is addictive or associated with cancer”. )

Freedom or tyranny.... it’s just business. Don’t like it shop somewhere else.

Given choices I feel comfortable with AS policy and expect they do what they say “no expceptions”
Emeraldcity likes this.
Xrayman is offline  
Old Sep 14, 20, 3:52 pm
  #84  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: SEA, NW/DL 1.6Million Miler
Programs: DL 1MM Annual Silver, AS 75K 15-20
Posts: 3,446
Passenger denied travel AS21 ORD-SEA 9/13

After multiple flight attendants reminded this Adult passenger to mask-up within the cabin, she continued with multiple phone conversation and refused to mask-up. Before boarding door could close, attendant made a final policy announcement. This lady was definitely delaying our departure. She did not comply, and Subsequently was greeted by the gate agent to remove herself and her belonging to the jetway. Boarding door closed without the passenger and departed.

Did she not understand this strict policy? There were multiple hand/face gestures accompanied by voice by the flight attendant to mask-up.

Jiburi
jiburi is offline  
Old Sep 14, 20, 3:59 pm
  #85  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 846
Originally Posted by Xrayman View Post
The policy is ultimately a business decision. This is good for business. It is likely more people would be willing to fly given a mask requirement vs those not willing to fly because of a mask requirement.
It is only good business because customers right now do not have a choice (all major airlines are mandating the mask in a draconion way). We actually do not know if it is good or bad business at all due to this lack of customer choice.

If today Delta or Southwest says "masks recommended but not required" all my travel on comparable direct routes with similar pricing from Seattle will go to Delta/Southwest (since service/mask mandates come only secondary to route convenience). Mostly because I do not want to be in a situation where my flight is delayed or turned around because a 3 year old can't wear a mask but the airlines are being draconion about it.

And I wonder if it is even good business - this week I flew to/from Texas on Alaska Airlines, a place where very few are taking the mask requirement seriiously once you are on the ground - the entire flight had like 20-30 people max both ways, so clearly they aren't selling many seats, maybe in part because folks from texas do not want to travel under the draconion mask mandates that they aren't used to otherwise on-the-ground businesses.

Given that trips to Mexico and Florida and Utah parks are going strong and businesses are obviously more crowded down south if you've been travelling around the country this summer, I very much question the idea that mask mandates by every airline is good business or just one other security theater rule people have to deal with without the option to choose an airline without such mandates.

Last edited by nomiiiii; Sep 14, 20 at 4:04 pm
nomiiiii is online now  
Old Sep 14, 20, 4:17 pm
  #86  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Seattle
Programs: Alaska airlines 75K
Posts: 332
Originally Posted by nomiiiii View Post
It is only good business because customers right now do not have a choice (all major airlines are mandating the mask in a draconion way). We actually do not know if it is good or bad business at all due to this lack of customer choice.

If today Delta or Southwest says "masks recommended but not required" all my travel on comparable direct routes with similar pricing from Seattle will go to Delta/Southwest (since service/mask mandates come only secondary to route convenience). Mostly because I do not want to be in a situation where my flight is delayed or turned around because a 3 year old can't wear a mask but the airlines are being draconion about it.

And I wonder if it is even good business - this week I flew to/from Texas on Alaska Airlines, a place where very few are taking the mask requirement seriiously once you are on the ground - the entire flight had like 20-30 people max both ways, so clearly they aren't selling many seats, maybe in part because folks from texas do not want to travel under the draconion mask mandates that they aren't used to otherwise on-the-ground businesses.

Given that trips to Mexico and Florida and Utah parks are going strong and businesses are obviously more crowded down south if you've been travelling around the country this summer, I very much question the idea that mask mandates by every airline is good business or just one other security theater rule people have to deal with without the option to choose an airline without such mandates.
And my business decision would be the opposite of yours. Im not flying any airline that doesn’t do this. 30 flights since mid March. I’m comforted that the individual was disembarked as a statement of “we mean what we say and we say what we do”. This is not a debate or optional even if it is for perception purposes and may have no health benefit what so ever. I’m fairly confident that no one who is physically able to fly is harmed by a clothe or paper covering.

no shoes, no shirt no service is also a reasonable policy.
Xrayman is offline  
Old Sep 14, 20, 4:28 pm
  #87  
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 846
Originally Posted by Xrayman View Post
And my business decision would be the opposite of yours. Im not flying any airline that doesn’t do this. 30 flights since mid March. I’m comforted that the individual was disembarked as a statement of “we mean what we say and we say what we do”. This is not a debate or optional even if it is for perception purposes and may have no health benefit what so ever. I’m fairly confident that no one who is physically able to fly is harmed by a clothe or paper covering.

no shoes, no shirt no service is also a reasonable policy.
Yes that is fine, its your choice to pick airlines for their strong masking policy. The problem is I am unable to make the same choice currently (well, I did fly a few private flights this summer where no one wore masks on the plane, but in general unless you have gobs of money on regular commercial aviation the no-mask option does not exist).

I'm just saying that it is completely disingenuous to say that the masking policy is a good business decision when consumer choice in this area simply does not exist, specially for consumers who are flying to/from regions with very lax/non-existent mask rules otherwise on the ground, but then have to put up with this policy on every airline.

Last edited by nomiiiii; Sep 14, 20 at 4:36 pm
nomiiiii is online now  
Old Sep 14, 20, 4:49 pm
  #88  
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Seattle
Programs: Alaska airlines 75K
Posts: 332
Originally Posted by nomiiiii View Post
Yes that is fine, its your choice to pick airlines for their strong masking policy. The problem is I am unable to make the same choice currently (well, I did fly a few private flights this summer where no one wore masks on the plane, but in general unless you have gobs of money on regular commercial aviation the no-mask option does not exist).

I'm just saying that it is completely disingenuous to say that the masking policy is a good business decision when consumer choice in this area simply does not exist, specially for consumers who are flying to/from regions with very lax/non-existent mask rules otherwise on the ground, but then have to put up with this policy on every airline.
AS is a publicly traded company as is DL and LUV. I’m not getting into any moral judgement or politics. The VAST majority of publicly traded companies make very intentional and deliberate discussions with the board prior to making “business “ decisions. I have no doubt that if the winds were blowing towards a mask optional policy would increase revenue they would do it in a heart beat.

I have been involved in crisis management and make no mistake it is a “business decision”.
Xrayman is offline  
Old Sep 14, 20, 5:17 pm
  #89  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SFO
Programs: AA EXP; AS 75K; WN A List; UA 1K 1MM; Marriott Ambassador; Hilton Diamond (Aspire); Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 44,635
Originally Posted by Xrayman View Post
AS is a publicly traded company as is DL and LUV. I’m not getting into any moral judgement or politics. The VAST majority of publicly traded companies make very intentional and deliberate discussions with the board prior to making “business “ decisions. I have no doubt that if the winds were blowing towards a mask optional policy would increase revenue they would do it in a heart beat.

I have been involved in crisis management and make no mistake it is a “business decision”.
Yup. The consistency among the major carriers on this point tells you something about their assessment of what the vast majority of their customers want, and what policy is best for their bottom line.

Where we do have a choice is on seat blocking. I personally am favoring DL over all others based on this criterion, and am avoiding AA and UA entirely, regardless of fare differential (and I see that AA in particular typically prices far lower than DL right now). DL management is betting that the goodwill it is generating right now by blocking seats will serve the company profitably in the future, and my strong suspicion is that, once again, they are making a very sound business decision.
jiburi and be_rettSEA like this.
Kacee is offline  
Old Sep 14, 20, 5:39 pm
  #90  
Hilton Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: SAN, BOS
Programs: AS MVPG, Hilton Diamond, Bonvoy Plat,
Posts: 668
Originally Posted by Kacee View Post
Yup. The consistency among the major carriers on this point tells you something about their assessment of what the vast majority of their customers want, and what policy is best for their bottom line.

Where we do have a choice is on seat blocking. I personally am favoring DL over all others based on this criterion, and am avoiding AA and UA entirely, regardless of fare differential (and I see that AA in particular typically prices far lower than DL right now). DL management is betting that the goodwill it is generating right now by blocking seats will serve the company profitably in the future, and my strong suspicion is that, once again, they are making a very sound business decision.
It’s certainly a less risky one. AA is staring it’s second chapter 11 in a decade and making a more risky but potentially more profitable bet.
TravelingZoomer is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search Engine: