AirbusA350

The extension is confirmed. Another month of paltry US domestic service and passive aggression of US FAs, though I know some passengers there consider masks to be of political use only and go ballistic as a result, so will cut some slack there for the FAs...Also closer to home, that's BA not removing masks anytime before April 18th!

*eyeroll*

paulaf

TUI also now dropped mandatory mask requirements for England, come on BA!

https://travelweekly.co.uk/news/air/...s-mask-mandate

SamYeager

As AirbusA350 mentions in the post immediately above yours it's unlikely until the US gets rid of their mask requirements. Even then, I wouldn't put it past BA to wait another month or so just to make sure they don't need to reimpose it again.

paulaf

I don't understand why for short haul flights within Europe why BA would choose to align itself with American carriers and not their direct competitors eg Jet 2, Ryanair, TUI and EasyJet, they may lose business? Does it not want different rules for short haul and long haul?

krispy84

I’d prefer BA drop their mask mandate, but I can understand why they are being cautious about doing so. The public, as a whole, are not good with distinctions and nuance. LHR, where the vast majority of their flights start or end still requires masks and we’ve seen that the US will be masked up for at least another month.

Jumbodriver

Most of the rest of Europe still has extensive and stricter mask mandates than the U.K. ever have.

Jet2 and TUI U.K. both essentially transport British passengers to their holidays.

BA short haul flights are normally well over 50% non British pax travelling to a multitude of destinations many of which have mask mandates.

It’s a completely different situation.

NWIFlyer

I departed from LHR T2 on Monday. There's an interesting contrast in attitudes between the "British" parts of the operation and the areas under the control of other entities.

In the public areas of the main and satellite terminal mask wearing was at a very low level, including amongst the staff in the shops. Signage had pretty much been withdrawn. When it gets to a stage where the law of the country says it's not needed and compliance is extremely low then any enforcement becomes impossible and the end is nigh. I sense that HAL just accepts the reality.

In the lounges it was an entirely different story. SQ asked but appeared not to be too worried about enforcing in practice, although at 6.30am there weren't exactly a lot of people in there to worry about the practicalities. Next door at the AC lounge posters proclaimed they still wanted vaccination certs to enter per Maple Leaf Lounge policy in Canada. I didn't go in to test the theory.

In the UA lounge nearby, it was full-on US policy - with prominent, almost threatening, signs on every table telling you to wear a mask when moving around the lounge and between sips of drinks even when seated at a table. The front desk agent was at pains to point out the requirement on entry. The lounge was nearly empty, but everyone was complying.

I happened to be flying on TP, who - like BA - have a mask requirement on their aircraft. In J I'd say it was loosely enforced on the LHR-LIS leg, with plenty of long pauses between sips of a drink being the norm for the passenger across the aisle from me. On the LIS-EWR flight there were more frequent announcements but nothing much beyond that, although compliance was good anyway so it wasn't really put to the test.

Is the end coming? Yes, I'd say so, although it's likely to be by soft implementation where possible rather than by law.

JFX1764

Doesnt the USA mask mandate require airlines to enforce mask wearing from the start of a passengers journey? Including those connecting, so someone flying AMS-LHR-JFK is required to be wearing a mask from AMS. It would be impractical to try and enforce mask wearing based on final destination if you dropped the mask requirement elsewhere.

the810

​​​​​​Ultimately, BA will have to go for destination-based rules. Asian countries won't give up mask mandates for months or even years, while mask-free travel in Europe will become a norm and it will be impossible to keep the mandate here while BA's competitors won't have any. MOL has already indicated he expects removing mask requirement on FR in May.

SAS and Norwegian already do this. No masks when flying within Scandinavia, but still required elsewhere on their network. I don't really see why BA can't do the same. It's a complete nonsense to require masks on LHR-ARN for example when masks aren't commonly worn on either end of the route.

Right now the solution could be to not require masks on routes to Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Hungary and Switzerland, as well as on domestic flights except Scotland. Then expand that list as other countries drop their mandates.

the810

I haven't read it but at least with SAS it's not the way it works. If you book, for example, GOT-CPH-JFK on SK, you only have to wear a mask on CPH-JFK sector.

NWIFlyer

I'll side with the810's interpretation here.

CDC says this:
That's clearly only the flight that enters or leaves the US that's covered.

Anything else would be impossible to police or enforce. The US also has security rules that you aren't allowed to gather near aircraft toilets or move between cabins. Those rules don't extend beyond flights the US DoT has no juristiction over - mask wearing mandates won't be any different.

Ladyfliestheredwhiteandblues

Please just let us all make up our minds again like adults. We mostly have the choice of destination and can choose not to go anywhere that insists we mask up, including on the flight there. BA needs to grasp the nettle and only enforce it where they have no choice. We can all grasp the difference when for decades we have dealt with different entry requirements to different countries without too much difficulty.

fransknorge

Considering the safety rules aboard an aircraft are quite similar around the world (seat belts on from seating down upon leaving your seat, with signage for part of flights where mandatory, electronics in flight mode, etc ...) and that a subset of people can not even follow those universal, clear and simple rules, usually saying they know better and are useless, I think the premises of your idea are demonstrated in real world to be wrong.

Misco60

I doubt very much whether more than a very small minority of people will choose an airline on the basis of whether face coverings are required on board, whatever their views on face coverings may be, especially as there is a chance that the rules will change (and perhaps several times) between booking and flying.

bakera

I think you will be surprised at just how many of us will do exactly that.