Plane Masking
Apr 27, 2022, 12:35 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2022
Posts: 23
Flying with P100 elastomeric masks?
On routes and airlines that no longer require masks, are gate agents or flight attendants still preventing passengers from wearing P100 elastomeric masks?
During the mask mandates, there were strict limits on the type of mask that could be worn. Masks that looked like they might have a valve were generally prohibited, as were any masks that looked subjectively 'unusual.' While this made sense from a practical enforcement standpoint, it did prevent passengers from wearing the most highly protective classes of masks.
At least in the USA, there is no longer an explicit prohibition on the wear of valved or unvalved silicone-rubber masks with side-mounted filter cartridges. Such masks potentially provide much better fit and filtration than disposable N95 masks, especially if using P100 filters (99.97% filtration). Now that COVID is both much more infectious and much more prevalent than it was last year, and we're beginning to better understand the long-term damage that a mild or even asymptomatic COVID infection can cause, having the option to wear better-than-N95 masks would seem useful.
I want to avoid a situation where I'm asked to swap masks during boarding, when ventilation is at its worst and virus concentration is at its highest. So, if airline staff are still using their broad individual discretion to routinely prevent passengers from wearing elastomeric masks, I'll stick with just wearing an N95. But if gate agents and cabin crews don't generally consider elastomeric masks objectionable anymore, it would be nice to know.
During the mask mandates, there were strict limits on the type of mask that could be worn. Masks that looked like they might have a valve were generally prohibited, as were any masks that looked subjectively 'unusual.' While this made sense from a practical enforcement standpoint, it did prevent passengers from wearing the most highly protective classes of masks.
At least in the USA, there is no longer an explicit prohibition on the wear of valved or unvalved silicone-rubber masks with side-mounted filter cartridges. Such masks potentially provide much better fit and filtration than disposable N95 masks, especially if using P100 filters (99.97% filtration). Now that COVID is both much more infectious and much more prevalent than it was last year, and we're beginning to better understand the long-term damage that a mild or even asymptomatic COVID infection can cause, having the option to wear better-than-N95 masks would seem useful.
I want to avoid a situation where I'm asked to swap masks during boarding, when ventilation is at its worst and virus concentration is at its highest. So, if airline staff are still using their broad individual discretion to routinely prevent passengers from wearing elastomeric masks, I'll stick with just wearing an N95. But if gate agents and cabin crews don't generally consider elastomeric masks objectionable anymore, it would be nice to know.
Apr 27, 2022, 1:30 pm
#2
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 38
On routes and airlines that no longer require masks, are gate agents or flight attendants still preventing passengers from wearing P100 elastomeric masks?
During the mask mandates, there were strict limits on the type of mask that could be worn. Masks that looked like they might have a valve were generally prohibited, as were any masks that looked subjectively 'unusual.' While this made sense from a practical enforcement standpoint, it did prevent passengers from wearing the most highly protective classes of masks.
At least in the USA, there is no longer an explicit prohibition on the wear of valved or unvalved silicone-rubber masks with side-mounted filter cartridges. Such masks potentially provide much better fit and filtration than disposable N95 masks, especially if using P100 filters (99.97% filtration). Now that COVID is both much more infectious and much more prevalent than it was last year, and we're beginning to better understand the long-term damage that a mild or even asymptomatic COVID infection can cause, having the option to wear better-than-N95 masks would seem useful.
I want to avoid a situation where I'm asked to swap masks during boarding, when ventilation is at its worst and virus concentration is at its highest. So, if airline staff are still using their broad individual discretion to routinely prevent passengers from wearing elastomeric masks, I'll stick with just wearing an N95. But if gate agents and cabin crews don't generally consider elastomeric masks objectionable anymore, it would be nice to know.
During the mask mandates, there were strict limits on the type of mask that could be worn. Masks that looked like they might have a valve were generally prohibited, as were any masks that looked subjectively 'unusual.' While this made sense from a practical enforcement standpoint, it did prevent passengers from wearing the most highly protective classes of masks.
At least in the USA, there is no longer an explicit prohibition on the wear of valved or unvalved silicone-rubber masks with side-mounted filter cartridges. Such masks potentially provide much better fit and filtration than disposable N95 masks, especially if using P100 filters (99.97% filtration). Now that COVID is both much more infectious and much more prevalent than it was last year, and we're beginning to better understand the long-term damage that a mild or even asymptomatic COVID infection can cause, having the option to wear better-than-N95 masks would seem useful.
I want to avoid a situation where I'm asked to swap masks during boarding, when ventilation is at its worst and virus concentration is at its highest. So, if airline staff are still using their broad individual discretion to routinely prevent passengers from wearing elastomeric masks, I'll stick with just wearing an N95. But if gate agents and cabin crews don't generally consider elastomeric masks objectionable anymore, it would be nice to know.
Apr 28, 2022, 6:51 am
#3
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Mexico City
Programs: Hyatt Explorist, Hilton Gold, Marriot Gold, IHG Silver, Choice Platinum, Wyndham Gold
Posts: 3,847
I have worn P100s with fiber and gas cartridges on planes domestic and international. I have regular mask material covering the exhaust valve. What I have done, depending on the carrier and where I was flying from was, at least entering the airport and boarding with a N95 with a KN95 on top of it and once I was situated in my seat, after disinfecting it and the surrounding areas, I would do a magic act and switch to the P100. To do that I had situated everything. I would in quick sequence, remove the KN95, flip over the bottom band of the N95 while holding the P100 facing down in the cup of my hand, and then flipping off the N95 upper band and immediately holding the P100 suctioned to my face. I have the 3M 7000 silicone series. Anyway, it's a super quick transfer and I haven't had covid since the pandemic started. While still holding the P100 to my face I adjust the head band and then snap the neck band together. It sounds like a long procedure but it's not it's done in seconds. I also wipe the interior down with straight alcohol before using. As I use the alcohol to clean my seating area too. It's a ritual I do like clockwork. Was doing the same thing before covid except I wasn't wearing N95s or P100s, but thick cotton masks. I have never been approached by anyone on board or at check-in about my P100 respirator regardless if I had gas cartridges or fiber filters installed. I've mainly wore it on all Aeromexico, Delta and Emirates flights throughout the pandemic. But quickly switching a N95 out for the P100 is not a problem on board if you practice at home first. But, always remember that the experts say it's the amount of viral load you breathe in and how your immune system fights it as to if you actually get infected. So a few particles wouldn't be of concern, because I'm certain we've all had a few covid virus particles enter our body in the last 2.5 years with no I'll effect.
In saying all of this, I agree with the first poster, as most airlines won't have a mask mandate so you can wear anything you want if it agrees with the country you are flying to.
I'll be wearing my P100 until I feel it's safer not to, which could be a few years and then I'll continue to wear N95s indefinitely. Not for covid but for every other communicable disease that's spread on airplanes.
In saying all of this, I agree with the first poster, as most airlines won't have a mask mandate so you can wear anything you want if it agrees with the country you are flying to.
I'll be wearing my P100 until I feel it's safer not to, which could be a few years and then I'll continue to wear N95s indefinitely. Not for covid but for every other communicable disease that's spread on airplanes.
Jun 1, 2022, 12:29 am
#4
Join Date: Jan 2014
Programs: Amtrak Guest Rewards (SE), Virgin America Elevate, Hyatt Gold Passport (Platinum), VIA Preference
Posts: 3,134
My interpretation (which I've expressed before) is that they're worried about this rule just "hanging out there" without being contested, since it went pretty far. The problem with this situation is that there are arguably three positions one could take:
(1) The CDC had the authority to issue the initial mandate and the authority to issue all of the subsequent extensions.
(2) The CDC had the authority to issue the initial mandate, but the subsequent extensions at least required a notice/comment period.
(3) The CDC did not have the authority to issue the initial mandate.
The administration's view is (1) and the judge's ruling was (3). As I've said elsewhere, I feel like the answer is closer to (2) given the amount of time (and length of two of the extensions involved...I believe that two of the extensions set expiration dates 4-5 months (March/April 2021 to August 2021) and 7 months (August 2021 to March 2022) in the future, so I think you could reasonably argue that 7 months (in particular) ought to be long enough to go through most of the normal rule-making processes. A standard that amounts to "If you have had a rule in place for at least six months and you extend it for another six months, you must pursue a comment period as if you were planning to make it permanent to as to determine when you're going to drop it" feels reasonable.
There's another wrinkle, which would be the question of whether absent explicit statutory authority the CDC could impose the mandate on intrastate public transportation [i.e. the local bus system] versus interstate transportation [i.e. the airlines], but that wasn't specifically being litigated this time around (i.e. nobody has litigated a local bus system, and there seems to be a reasonable case that having different rules on different flights would be problematic given that outside of a few specific markets [e.g. LAX-SFO, DAL-HOU/DAL-SAT...basically, select markets in NY, PA, FL, TX, CA, HI, and AK] a lot of pax would be connecting on most of those flights anyway). And another possibility would be some sort of requirement that while the CDC can issue recommendations, other agencies need to have authority to amend them when actually making rules for enforcement (e.g. the TSA has to have the ability to weigh the CDC rules vs the issue of "air rage" ["You have to have the policy but you can decline to enforce it if, in your opinion, enforcing it would present a greater risk to the flight in question or the safety of employees or passengers"], since the latter isn't really in the CDC's wheelhouse). Again, this all wasn't really "in the mix" on this case.
Anyhow...due to the risk of an adverse result (i.e. a superior court affirming most or all of the ruling), I'm a little bit surprised they decided to carry this on, but not totally shocked.
(1) The CDC had the authority to issue the initial mandate and the authority to issue all of the subsequent extensions.
(2) The CDC had the authority to issue the initial mandate, but the subsequent extensions at least required a notice/comment period.
(3) The CDC did not have the authority to issue the initial mandate.
The administration's view is (1) and the judge's ruling was (3). As I've said elsewhere, I feel like the answer is closer to (2) given the amount of time (and length of two of the extensions involved...I believe that two of the extensions set expiration dates 4-5 months (March/April 2021 to August 2021) and 7 months (August 2021 to March 2022) in the future, so I think you could reasonably argue that 7 months (in particular) ought to be long enough to go through most of the normal rule-making processes. A standard that amounts to "If you have had a rule in place for at least six months and you extend it for another six months, you must pursue a comment period as if you were planning to make it permanent to as to determine when you're going to drop it" feels reasonable.
There's another wrinkle, which would be the question of whether absent explicit statutory authority the CDC could impose the mandate on intrastate public transportation [i.e. the local bus system] versus interstate transportation [i.e. the airlines], but that wasn't specifically being litigated this time around (i.e. nobody has litigated a local bus system, and there seems to be a reasonable case that having different rules on different flights would be problematic given that outside of a few specific markets [e.g. LAX-SFO, DAL-HOU/DAL-SAT...basically, select markets in NY, PA, FL, TX, CA, HI, and AK] a lot of pax would be connecting on most of those flights anyway). And another possibility would be some sort of requirement that while the CDC can issue recommendations, other agencies need to have authority to amend them when actually making rules for enforcement (e.g. the TSA has to have the ability to weigh the CDC rules vs the issue of "air rage" ["You have to have the policy but you can decline to enforce it if, in your opinion, enforcing it would present a greater risk to the flight in question or the safety of employees or passengers"], since the latter isn't really in the CDC's wheelhouse). Again, this all wasn't really "in the mix" on this case.
Anyhow...due to the risk of an adverse result (i.e. a superior court affirming most or all of the ruling), I'm a little bit surprised they decided to carry this on, but not totally shocked.
Jun 1, 2022, 8:15 am
#5
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: STL
Posts: 1,546
I've said that overturning the mandate was the right decision for all the wrong reasons.
The CDC should have the authority to implement mask mandates, in the event of another pandemic or if COVID somehow mutates to something a lot worse that evades vaccines (I know this is extremely unlikely). But they shouldn't be allowed to implement an indefinite mandate with no sign of getting rid of it. It should have clearly defined metrics for being dropped. Not "We'll re-evaluate next month" every month. I'd be okay if the court ruling is overturned, without the mask mandate coming back.
The CDC should have the authority to implement mask mandates, in the event of another pandemic or if COVID somehow mutates to something a lot worse that evades vaccines (I know this is extremely unlikely). But they shouldn't be allowed to implement an indefinite mandate with no sign of getting rid of it. It should have clearly defined metrics for being dropped. Not "We'll re-evaluate next month" every month. I'd be okay if the court ruling is overturned, without the mask mandate coming back.
Jun 1, 2022, 8:22 am
#6
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wesley Chapel, FL
Programs: American Airlines
Posts: 30,013
They can bring it back all they want. There will be zero adherence.
Jun 1, 2022, 10:22 am
#7
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
If? I think we'd need some kind of definition of "evades":
Data shows the vaccines reduce the risk of serious illness or death, for those who are vulnerable. So that's good.
The vaccines are (quite spectacularly) not preventing infection or preventing transmission. So that's really not very good at all.
Data shows the vaccines reduce the risk of serious illness or death, for those who are vulnerable. So that's good.
The vaccines are (quite spectacularly) not preventing infection or preventing transmission. So that's really not very good at all.
Jun 1, 2022, 10:33 am
#8
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: VPS
Programs: IHG Diamond, Delta PM, Hilton Gold, Accor Gold, Marriott Silver
Posts: 7,268
Jun 1, 2022, 10:59 am
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2014
Programs: Top Tier with all 3 alliances
Posts: 11,668
We stand with the DOJ.
Last edited by nk15; Jun 1, 2022 at 1:50 pm
Jun 1, 2022, 11:36 am
#11
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: STL
Posts: 1,546
If? I think we'd need some kind of definition of "evades":
Data shows the vaccines reduce the risk of serious illness or death, for those who are vulnerable. So that's good.
The vaccines are (quite spectacularly) not preventing infection or preventing transmission. So that's really not very good at all.
Data shows the vaccines reduce the risk of serious illness or death, for those who are vulnerable. So that's good.
The vaccines are (quite spectacularly) not preventing infection or preventing transmission. So that's really not very good at all.
Everyone I know who’s boosted and had COVID, including an immunocompromised, transplant recipient, had nothing worse than cold symptoms for a few days. To me, the vaccine’s working. It took a deadly virus (especially for the transplant recipient) and turned it into a mild annoyance.
Jun 1, 2022, 12:07 pm
#13
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: not far from MUC
Posts: 6,620
a deadly virus
Jun 1, 2022, 12:11 pm
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Not here; there!
Programs: AA Lifetime Gold
Posts: 29,586
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/majo...t-survey-finds
Jun 1, 2022, 12:21 pm
#15
Join Date: Nov 2021
Location: Somewhere
Programs: SkyMiles, AAdvantage, MileagePlus, Rapid Rewards
Posts: 120
I don't know what percentage of Americans "stand with the DOJ," but a poll taken in April indicates that a majority of Americans support masking on airplanes:
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/majo...t-survey-finds
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/majo...t-survey-finds
The airlines and most crewmembers won't stand for it.