Stickboy46

So this will likely drive more of those "You can't make me" people to other carriers with loopholes still. I would avoid those carriers like the plague (pun intended) at this point. AA will lose a handful of customers from this, but they will gain a ton more that are extremely happy to have a plane that is guaranteed to be mask wearing which is the VAST majority of people.

SamOF

That's a great idea if widespread rapid testing were available, but airlines can't conjur rapid tests out of nowhere.

I'm sure that's the eventual goal—rapid test every passenger at check in. But we're not even in the right universe yet in terms of supply.

flyerCO

In short term limit to those with medical need. As they become widespread, expand to anyone.

Difference is FAA/DOT has prohibited by law smoking on planes. There's no legally required exceptions to it.

s0ssos

And there's no legally required exceptions to wearing a mask.

flyerCO

Yes, per the ACAA there is. I wish people would read the whole ACAA, not just parts, not assume things from the ADA (which doesn't apply), etc...

Currently mask wearing is a policy intuited by the airline (which I agree with). Thus, as per the ACAA they must offer accommodation. No Smoking is a legal rule/law that airline must abide by. This is why airlines have been asking DOT/FAA to implement a mask rule. In that case they wouldn't be required to offer an accommodation.

Their reason is good, I agree with it. However it weakens disability protection if they get away with ignoring the law when it applies. Get away once and then it's not hard to do it again.

s0ssos

It's a disability to be unable to wear a mask? There's a medical exemption to being unable to wear a mask? I have yet to see legal precedent about someone being allowed to potentially hurt someone else because they have a "disability". Is it established that claiming a disability gives you the right to potentially infect someone else with a life-threatening disease?

flyerCO

Read the ACAA. I posted a link earlier. It has sections dealing exactly with communicable diseases. It details what the airline can ask, when they can ask, and when an airline can deny boarding to a passenger with a CD. Most are familiar with the ADA and assume that the ACAA works similarly, it doesn't.

Again, as I know others will ignore this. I 100% agree with requiring masks. I believe DOT/FAA should mandate them, this way the ACAA is no longer an issue. This is same reason US airlines could previously require masks (without any exceptions) on flights to/from France as an example. The regulatory authorities in that country issued law/rules that airline must follow. Thus the ACAA wasn't an issue.

s0ssos

The ACAA doesn't actually make any sense.
"If a passenger with a communicable disease meeting the direct threat criteria of this section gives you a medical certificate of the kind outlined in §382.23(c)(2) describing measures for preventing transmission of the disease during the normal course of the flight, you must provide transportation to the passenger, unless you are unable to carry out the measures."

There have been cases of people getting pulled because they have MDR TB from planes. There have been people forcibly quarantined at home, when they refused. I don't think the ACAA, in the scheme of priority of laws in the US, holds much sway. In the US basically half the laws are ignored at any one time.

However, presuming you do believe in the ACAA, it clearly states:

§382.21 May carriers limit access to transportation on the basis that a passenger has a communicable disease or other medical condition?
Answer: (a) You must not do any of the following things on the basis that a passenger has a communicable disease or infection, unless you determine that the passenger's condition poses a direct threat:
(3) Impose on the passenger any condition, restriction, or requirement not imposed on other passengers;

Because this is imposed on everybody it meets the requirement.

flyerCO

1)the ACAA says if they have a CD. The airlines are applying the mask rule and refusing transport even without concluding passenger has a CD.
2)the section you bolded means that airline couldnt require a passenger with disability to do something but not others. It doesn't mean just because policy is applied to everyone that they're not required to make an exception. (Which is whole point of ACAA)
3)as for TB. If passengers has it, they're based on current medical knowledge not required to transport passengers. Same with Cv19. They're not required to transport if you have it. However they must show you have it.

rickg523

There's definitely an ambiguity here. People claiming they should be able to fly without a mask are surely not claiming they are ill with coronavirus and should be allowed to fly sick and maskless. What they're claiming is they're not sick, but they should be covered by disability protection because they can't breathe through one. Wouldn't 5 secs on a pulse oximeter prove or disprove that? Because if they're pulling normal numbers, it's not a physical issue. And if they're not, they shouldn't be flying. So then we're left with something much more like the argument over 'emotional support' pets.

flyerCO

This to extent.

What airlines are doing is making an assumption you have it. The ACAA is clear they can refuse if you have a CD. However airline must show you have it.

Being behind a mask for few seconds isn't issue. It's being behind one for hours.

s0ssos

No, you have to go back to the logical premise. You are saying that they are claiming they have a disability. But the airline requires everybody to wear a mask, so it doesn't matter, they aren't being singled out, which is what the ACAA is talking about.
If you are saying in general airlines have no authority to tell people to wear a mask then they has nothing to do with ACAA.

flyerCO

No, it means that airline couldnt have a policy only requiring masks for those claiming disability exception. It doesn't mean they're not required to make exceptions to a policy. This would defeat the whole point of the ACAA. In other words in order to get a disability exception the airline cant require something that they dont require of everyone. Ie they couldn't request a medical clearance certificate for a pregnant passenger claiming disability exception unless they would require it for a pregnant passenger not claiming disability exception.

Again they can implement masks rule. No one has said they can't (well anyone who understands law/isn't an anti-masker nutter). However as it is an airline policy, exceptions are required unlike if was a law or DOT/FAA rule. I agree that DOT/FAA should make it a rule, as otherwise as an airline policy it's subject to ACAA.

Smiley90

Given that there isn't any condition where wearing a mask is more dangerous than flying, couldn't they just disallow the person from flying for their own medical benefit? If someone's condition is so severe that they can't wear a mask, flying would be a HUGE threat to their system and the airline would be in serious danger of having to abort the flight halfway anyway.

flyerCO

Guess the fact they flew for decades without issue should be ignored? Face masks worn for lengthy periods effect O2/CO2 levels. The effect of the mask itself is what is dangerous to them. It's why you're not supposed to wear one while sleeping, or put one on an unconscious person or person that can't take it off on their own.