Jun 15, 2020, 10:26 pm
Last edit by: JDiver
American Airlines Strengthens Requirement Customers Wear Face Coverings on Board
Link to full article
“Wearing a face covering is a responsibility we all share. An effective covering, worn properly, is one of the best ways we can control the spread of COVID-19 to protect our team members and customers,” said Alison Taylor, Chief Customer Officer at American. “Since American began requiring face coverings in early May, the vast majority of customers have welcomed our continuing efforts to strengthen the policy based on the CDC’s guidance.”
American began requiring face coverings on board its flights in May and, in July, announced it would only allow exemptions for customers under 2 years old. The airline requires all other customers to wear a face covering from the time they enter the airport where their trip begins until they leave the airport where their trip ends.
Based on the updated CDC guidance, below are examples of face coverings customers can and cannot wear while traveling with American.
https://news.aa.com/news/news-detail...es-OPS-DIS-08/
- New policy is effective Wednesday, Aug. 19
- Allowed face coverings must be worn correctly, covering the nose and mouth, and only can be removed briefly for eating and drinking
- Face coverings made with materials such as mesh or lace fabrics are also not allowed
“Wearing a face covering is a responsibility we all share. An effective covering, worn properly, is one of the best ways we can control the spread of COVID-19 to protect our team members and customers,” said Alison Taylor, Chief Customer Officer at American. “Since American began requiring face coverings in early May, the vast majority of customers have welcomed our continuing efforts to strengthen the policy based on the CDC’s guidance.”
American began requiring face coverings on board its flights in May and, in July, announced it would only allow exemptions for customers under 2 years old. The airline requires all other customers to wear a face covering from the time they enter the airport where their trip begins until they leave the airport where their trip ends.
Based on the updated CDC guidance, below are examples of face coverings customers can and cannot wear while traveling with American.
https://news.aa.com/news/news-detail...es-OPS-DIS-08/
Allowed:
- A well-secured cloth or mask that fits snugly against the face and covers an individual’s nose and mouth. It must be made of a material that prevents the discharge and release of respiratory droplets from a person's nose or mouth.
Not allowed:
- Face coverings with exhaust valves.
- Face coverings made with materials such as mesh or lace fabrics.
- Face coverings that do not cover the nose and mouth.
- Face shields without the addition of a face covering.
A face covering is required while flying on American, except for very young children or anyone with a condition that prevents them from wearing one. You also may be required by local law to wear a face covering in the airport where your trip begins, where it ends or where you connect.
- Please bring your own face covering to use while traveling. While limited quantities of face coverings may be available at the gate, they will not be available for every customer on every flight.
- Be sure your face covering is on before you board the plane and wear it during your flight. If you’re not exempt from wearing a face covering and decline to wear one, you may be denied boarding and future travel on American.
- Your face covering may be removed to eat or drink, but please put it back on when you’re done.
Details of the updated policy for face coverings will be communicated to American Airlines team members this week, and the policy will go into effect June 16. American also requires team members to wear face coverings while at work.[/quote]
PRIOR POLICY as of 1 May 2020
Link to AA News story
Flight Attendants must wear masks as of Friday, May 1, 2020.
Passengers must wear masks as of Monday, May 11.
AA Passenger Facial Cover / Mask Use Policy 2020 (Inc. changes)
Feb 3, 2021, 2:37 pm
#181
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Live: IWI; Work: DCA/Everywhere; Play: LAS/SJU/MLE
Programs: AA EXP, DL PM, Hyatt Glob, Marriott Ambassador/LTP, Nat'l Exec Elite, LEYE Gold
Posts: 6,675
That last sentence is not clear as to whether proof of having recovered from Covid-19 (and hence have antibodies) is all that is needed. It can be read to state exemptions require 1) doctor note + negative Covid-19 test OR 2) proof of having recovered from Covid-19. That is tens of millions of people. What about vaccinated people? This is going to be a moving target for quite some time.
Feb 3, 2021, 3:45 pm
#182
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
The number of licensed health care providers who are likely to be prepared to certify proof of recovery rather than simply sending their patient for a test, is likely to be quite small. Unlimited liability for the former. Minor hassle for the latter.
Feb 3, 2021, 3:49 pm
#183
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,624
(a) documentation and proof of negative test
or
(b) proof of recovery
Feb 3, 2021, 5:59 pm
#184
Original Member
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Orange County, CA, USA
Programs: AA (Life Plat), Marriott (Life Titanium) and every other US program
Posts: 6,411
Actually, the comma before "as well as" goes the other way. Now, I think you might be correct about what they meant to say but I don't think they phrased it accurately.
Feb 3, 2021, 6:06 pm
#185
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,624
It seems poor that he company didn't just use a bullet point list; there there would have been no ambiguity
Feb 3, 2021, 7:10 pm
#186
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Live: IWI; Work: DCA/Everywhere; Play: LAS/SJU/MLE
Programs: AA EXP, DL PM, Hyatt Glob, Marriott Ambassador/LTP, Nat'l Exec Elite, LEYE Gold
Posts: 6,675
End of the day, yes, the grammar is incorrect and the sentence is ambiguous and that will only compound the cluster that mask enforcement has and will become. I think we can agree on that!
Feb 3, 2021, 8:49 pm
#187
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: STL/ORD/MCI/SAN
Programs: AA CK MM, AC SE100K, BA Gold, UA 1K, DL Plat, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 1,989
I disagree and am unsure how you reached these conclusions -- specifically, the idea that there would be any appreciable potential liability for a physician who certifies that a patient had COVID-19 infection and has recovered (assuming we're talking weeks to months later, rather than days), as well as the assertion that healthcare providers would prefer to order new, unnecessary tests (particularly if that test is within 90 days of the positive test), rather than simply providing requested documentation of the prior infection and subsequent clinical improvement.
Feb 5, 2021, 6:30 am
#188
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SEA
Programs: AA LT PLT; HH Diamond; AS 75K
Posts: 2,879
I disagree and am unsure how you reached these conclusions -- specifically, the idea that there would be any appreciable potential liability for a physician who certifies that a patient had COVID-19 infection and has recovered (assuming we're talking weeks to months later, rather than days), as well as the assertion that healthcare providers would prefer to order new, unnecessary tests (particularly if that test is within 90 days of the positive test), rather than simply providing requested documentation of the prior infection and subsequent clinical improvement.
Feb 5, 2021, 6:52 am
#189
Suspended
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA
Programs: UA US CO AA DL FL
Posts: 50,262
I disagree and am unsure how you reached these conclusions -- specifically, the idea that there would be any appreciable potential liability for a physician who certifies that a patient had COVID-19 infection and has recovered (assuming we're talking weeks to months later, rather than days), as well as the assertion that healthcare providers would prefer to order new, unnecessary tests (particularly if that test is within 90 days of the positive test), rather than simply providing requested documentation of the prior infection and subsequent clinical improvement.
As I think about it further, I have to ask myself whether it is easier for me to obtain a quick & cheap (if not free) test rather than a letter which may require an appointment or visit and certainly involves some interaction and wait.
Feb 5, 2021, 8:53 am
#190
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: STL/ORD/MCI/SAN
Programs: AA CK MM, AC SE100K, BA Gold, UA 1K, DL Plat, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 1,989
Back on topic, there's little reason to assume a test would be preferable in the situation referenced in the recent posts. We're talking about a physician certifying someone tested positive for COVID and then clinically improved... not about whether they need to make a diagnosis by history and physical exam without ever doing a test (the test would have been done weeks to months before the documentation is requested).
Feb 5, 2021, 9:06 am
#191
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: STL/ORD/MCI/SAN
Programs: AA CK MM, AC SE100K, BA Gold, UA 1K, DL Plat, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 1,989
"All you had to do doctor, is order this $3.00 test (because that's what they are going to test) and none of these 120 passengers would have been infected because you made the wrong call."
As I think about it further, I have to ask myself whether it is easier for me to obtain a quick & cheap (if not free) test rather than a letter which may require an appointment or visit and certainly involves some interaction and wait.
As I think about it further, I have to ask myself whether it is easier for me to obtain a quick & cheap (if not free) test rather than a letter which may require an appointment or visit and certainly involves some interaction and wait.
It seems like you're trying to make the argument that physicians will be worried about liability for filling out a form that asks about prior infection and recovery. There will be no such worry, as long as everything completed on paper is factual (past positive test, check... clinical improvement, check... completed the recommended self-isolation period, check).
Healthcare providers are not going to be asked to guarantee someone's immunity and/or lack of potential infectivity after a positive test, because that's currently impossible. I'm therefore still not sure why you're so convinced this is such a potentially high liability issue (I believe you said "unlimited liability" in your prior post).
Feb 5, 2021, 12:51 pm
#192
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,624
This seems quite ludicrous ; a doctor confirning that a patient tested positive on date 1 and then shown to be recovered on date 2 is simply providing facts; it isn't the doctor that is choosing to use this information to allow the person to travel on a flight, but the airline
Feb 5, 2021, 2:25 pm
#194
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 44,624
The airline is choosing to allow someone to travel as long as that person has the confirmation. Even in the USA, I cannot see that a doctor simply providing requested medical facts can be liable if a 3rd party has made a judgement error in deciding that this makes the person ok to travel
If the doctor is being asked to confirm fitness to travel, then I could see a risk on the doctor's part
If the barometer reads that the pressure is 1010 hPa , someone decides to go out on a boat but has problems because the weather changes and pressue drops to 890hPa , would the maker of the barometer be liable since they relied on the details that the barometer showed or would it be the person's fault for not allowing for potential change?
Feb 6, 2021, 12:59 am
#195
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: STL/ORD/MCI/SAN
Programs: AA CK MM, AC SE100K, BA Gold, UA 1K, DL Plat, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Platinum
Posts: 1,989
Some jurisdictions actually have COVID-19 immunity laws for healthcare workers during the pandemic, but I don't think they'd need to be relied upon in this situation. You can go on thinking that physicians answering questions accurately on requested paperwork creates some sort of "unlimited liability." I don't see any reason to worry.