the810

There are two issues. Firstly, as many have already pointed out, where masks aren't required, most people don't wear them, which is indicative of the general public opinion. But then it's also a question of who's more likely to travel - those who are afraid of catching covid or those who accept it as an unavoidable thing? I think this is what travel industry got wrong in the beginning of the pandemic - they overfocused on providing a "safe" experience and as a result, they've lost both groups. Those determined to not get covid at any price, stayed home because the safe experience wasn't safe enough, while we who were willing to travel and pour money into the industry also stayed home because the safe experience wasn't really pleasant (it's not just masks but all kinds of service reductions).

Ironically, my travel budget throughout the pandemic was all time high but 95% of those money went to that one European country that never had any strict restrictions in place.

JD1905

Congratulations on having an opinion. Plenty will have one opposite to yours.

Unfortunately your opinion contributes absolutely nothing useful to the discussion of face mask policy on BA and therefore I kindly ask that you keep your opinions to yourself as once again this is being turned into a discussion on peoples personal views.

jimlad48

I would be wary of assuming polls equal real life. In Oxford St today, very busy and crowded and well under 10% masked.

I cannot wait for masking to be optional.

Bohinjska Bistrica

They are supposed to represent a balanced cross-section of society, with weighting in place to try and counterbalance the 'keener' types. Election polls for example take into account liklihood to vote as part of their weighting for the final result.

I don't think the sample selection is biased to produce a certain outcome, but I am baffled at the gap. Perhaps it's people telling the pollsters what they think is the right answer rather than their actual opinion, or maybe it is as CWS says and people support the idea as long as they don't have to do it. Mask for thee, not for me. Polls regularly show people in favour of higher taxes, for example, with the pretty significant caveat that someone else pays them!

Aircraft will go through the same shift as society did when they're removed. A lot of people won't stop wearing them initially but wearing will decrease over time.

IAMORGAN

This is what I came here to find out. As far as I understand it, the rule is based on destination rules. So presumably once airborne on a flight to Heathrow, masks would not be required?

Maybe we need, in addition to the Fasten Seatbelt sign, a “Mandatory Face Coverings” sign and the policy could be “we recommend you wear a face covering whenever you are seated, it must be securely fitted whenever the “Mandatory Face Coverings” sign is on…”

I don’t understand why BA see it as their job to police. Maybe they had some difficult conversations with regulators / world governments who were concerned about people turning up without them. But really people need to check they understand the destination rules and why they should have to wear them on a British registered aircraft not in the mask requiring country’s airspace when a person arriving via road wouldn’t until they reached the border is a bit beyond me.

I mean, I had better not ask what BA think will happen in the case of a medical / technical diversion and so on.

“Life Jacket Under Your Seat. Use antimacassar as face covering if needed.”

nk15

Yes, that's because people realize that their desires are shameful and have to lie even to anonymous polls...

EDIT: In this case though "social desirability" is not a problem but rather a benefit, because we should be following what people think they should do (wear masks to protect self and others), and not what some of them want to do (put their convenience first).

KARFA

On LHR face coverings are definitely not mandatory anymore. I don’t see anyone is investigating what route you are doing so that shouldn’t be relevant, and you can choose whether or not to wear one inside the terminal.

For outbound flights where face coverings are required my understanding is you would need one from boarding onwards.

For inbound flights (where face coverings are required) I suspect it is face coverings for the whole flight until you get off at LHR.

Cap'n Benj

Fair points! Will save it for somewhere more relevent

IAMORGAN

Presumably unless you are coming from a port of origin where also not required!

So in other words it is “the most stringent standard” rule rather than destination rule.

KARFA

Yes, I thought in the context of the post that was implied. But for clarity if a route is on the list as duplicated in the wiki, face coverings are option both for flights to that destination and for the return flights to LHR.

If it is not on the list then you should have a face covering for that route for flights in either direction.

IAMORGAN

Sorry, genuinely assumed if flying TO Heathrow they wouldn’t be needed onboard as based on destination.

Another way of putting it is the most stringent standard rule applies. This would then cover a scenario where a flight has an intermediate stop - so, say a flight SYD-SIN-LHR, masks required on all sectors - you can’t drop it on SIN-LHR and so on. If BA ever introduced MAN-BHX-LHR then no masks needed. But if MAN-BER-LHR then masks required on all legs as Berlin requires masks.

Tobias-UK

Would you have preferred BA this option?

I still cannot see the messy implementation. The policy is really very simple - if crew ask you to wear a mask, you do. If crew don't ask you to wear a mask then it's up to you whether you put one on or not. A mask costs a few pennies and doesn't take up any space.

KARFA

Well they will be needed if you departure point still requires them. For say EDI-LHR I would expect face coverings to be required for the whole flight since Scotland (your departure point) still requires them.

the810

Of course not. My point is that BA apparently sees a commercial benefit in removing masks where possible, which suggests that passengers indeed make decisions based on whether they are required or not.
​​​​
If nothing else, the initial delay of the policy shows that it didn't go as planned. Also, finding out on board is too late because at that time it's impossible to cancel the ticket. If no mask mandate is meant to be a motivation to book with BA, passengers should be informed in advance whether masks are required on their flight. How hard is it to share the list with passengers? There have been numerous reports of people who expected their flight to be mask-free, only finding out it isn't on board. This could've been easily avoided.

PUCCI GALORE

I have just come off a flight from Nantes with Ryanair. Everyone without exeption was masked and I did not see anyone being asked to put theirs back on. Maybe Lowcost airline passengers are more compliant as they are used to being ordered about by Ryanair and their like? Not wearing a mask when asked or required is a minor form of DYKWIA -ism? I mean, whoever heard of that attitude on the likes of Ryanair. It'd be a bit like sending a sow to an Elocution lesson.

No the whole point of this thread is to say that to announce a major change and then in the next breath say that nothing is changing, in spite of us making a song-and-dance over the whole issue is going to get everyone's back up.

It just seems that BA cannot get it right at the moment and they really need to do so.