I highly doubt this will go through. It would violate the same laws that prohibit requiring a note for a service animal, or exemption from any policy. I get the concern. However those with actual medical issues are generally easy to tell apart. They don't get defensive, they understand you dont know they're exempt, etc... Fakers get tense/defensive, start yelling/being rude, etc...

They don't need to make it long or difficult - as that would be unfair to the people who really do need the exception.

Just make it short and sweet and the doc can say "put on a damn mask or stay grounded". End of discussion.

Kudos on Delta for doing this, I hope others follow suit.

No, such an interview does not.

Air carriers make medical judgments about "fit to fly" every day. An entirely legitimate question as to whether someone who suffers from a condition which does not permit a cloth mask is fit enough to fly on an aircraft where, in an emergency, he might require an n oxygen mask for a significant period of time.

This is the same DL DOT had to tell changes for ESA were illegal. Again I get the concern, however even the CDC/all state orders recognize medical exception. Last thing DL needs is a major cash payout for violating the law.

I've noticed no other airline has jumped on this bandwagon, just as they didn't with DL ESA changes.

Yes, yes it does, try reading the act. They can not require a medical certification/certificate except in vary limited situation. Nothing here qualifies.

I’m not entirely sure that what you say here aligns with this:

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/32535730-post110.html

There is a "direct threat" exception to the Air Carrier Access Act (and the ADA) that allows what would otherwise be disability discrimination where the passenger's sought accommodation would be a direct threat to others. Also note that Delta is not asking anyone to prove their disability, but rather ensuring that those who don't wear masks are fit to fly, which is a clever loophole. As noted, airlines are free to ensure that passengers with disabilities are fit to fly.

Certainly if a passenger has a disability that makes it impossible for them to breathe with a piece of thin fabric over their mouth and nose, an airline is only being responsible in ensuring that air travel is safe for someone with such a fragile respiratory condition. See 14 CFR 382.19.

I am sure that Delta's General Counsel and likely outside counsel is quite aware of, and read, the Air Carrier Access Act (and it's implementing regs) before the company adopted this policy.

You're confusing things. Yes airlines have the right to have a policy to require masks. This is not in dispute here. However as per the ACAA they must make exemptions to policy for those with disabilities. They can't require medical certificates/certification except under the limited situations the ACAA allows. None applies in the way DL is doing it.

The one way around is if they required ALL passengers to indeed go this process. The fact they are not means it must fall under an ACAA exception to require it only for those claiming due to disability.

They cant require a passenger to prove to be fit to fly. This is noted on the DOT website even. Also direct threat isn't applicable here. Lastly DL has been slapped recently for violating ACAA in regard to ESA changes they tried. Thus the comment on lawyer knowing is quite wrong.

That is simply not true. As is explicitly stated in the regulations, a carrier may (and indeed is required) to make an individualized assessment as to whether transporting a passenger with a disability is safe. The carrier is not required to make such an individualized assessment as to every passenger.

Not sure what the ESA has to do with it. The agency and the airline disagreed on the meaning of the relevant regs. That's not the same as your position that it is crystal clear in the statute that something is not allowed (it is not). And I'm not sure why you think direct threat isn't applicable where passengers are claiming a right to an accommodation that would put other passengers at risk of disease.

As one disability rights group explains:
"carriers cannot mandate separate treatment for an individual with a disability except for reasons of safety or to prevent the spread of a communicable disease or infection."

Direct threat is defined. A person that isnt known to have CV19 cant be shown to be a direct threat simply cause they can't weat a mask. In order to refuse service they must be able to document a direct threat. They can't refuse simply because you might be a direct threat. A person that tested positive for CV19 could be considered to be a direct threat.

As for lawyer comment, it was direct rebuttal to show DL counsel has been wrong (and it wasnt a surprise at that). This wasnt an interpretation by DOT that wasnt known. They hoped that since there was demand for rule change they could just change their policies even though rules hadn't changed

Do you think AA/UA/WN/B6/etc/even DL didn't think about this to begin with? There's a reason they all have this exception. There's a reason they've been begging FAA/DOT to issue a rule. DL just like ESA is hoping they can get away with not following the rule because there's public demand for it.

I love your username and I love the work you are doing. Welcome to Flyertalk!

While I agree that some individuals are not honest in regards to not wearing a useless mouth covering. There are many people who have a hidden disability and or medical condition that prevents them from wearing a useless mouth covering. These are the people who are being discriminated against. To those that will reply with the public health emergency claim.... Save your breath and get a law degree... The ADA and ACAA gives very wide latitude.....

I am tested regularly at my office. None of us have ever been positive. To me wearing a mask implies that you think you might be infected with the virus. In that case you shouldn't be flying but quarantining yourself. A temperature check at check-in would be sufficient and would give far more insight than a piecee of flimsy fabric over the face.

But you've summed it up very well. These companies and municipalities are playing with fire and are bound to get burned. And Delta really can't afford that right now.