Consolidated Closed Threads: DL Related COVID Mask Discussions
 

Everyone - This is a mass merged thread collection of the various mask related threads for Delta Air Lines during the COVID 19 Pandemic. When mask threads pop up, they quickly turn into political debates, debates on efficacy of masks, etc. They are simply closed and merged here, without any censorship.

More information on this decision to not permit Anti Mask posts within the Delta forum and flyertalk in general can be found here : https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/sugg...-director.html

Thank you,
Ryandc99
Moderator Delta Air Lines


According to Paddle Your Own Kanoo, it looks like Delta will have a new policy for masks:

1) Strongly discourage those who cannot wear a mask from flying
2) Those who say they cannot wear one for health reasons will have to arrive a bit earlier to complete a telehealth session with a doctor (that it appears is funded fully by Delta) who provides clearance for them to fly without a mask.
3) Gate agents/FAs will have a list of anyone who is cleared to not wear a mask and their respective seat

I think this is unfortunate but necessary given the number of people screaming that wearing a mask infringes on their rights (yet somehow requiring other clothing doesn't?) falsely claiming they have a medical need that prevents them from wearing one.

Not sure this is to “greatly strengthen.” Looks more like some procedures to catch up with their pretty clear rules. Similar to the procedures at TSA if you don’t want to walk through a detector or don’t have an ID.

Based on my last ten or so flights, mask wearing is essentially 100% on Delta planes and 80%+ in the airports, which are so uncrowded it really isn’t an issue.

Today you can walk on the plane and anyone who asks you just have to say "I cannot for medical reasons" and the airline couldn't really do anything. As of Monday, it requires arriving to the airport early and discussing it over the phone with a doctor who will make an assessment and note it for staff operating the flight. Seems like a big strengthening to me.

Imagine if someone pulled over for reckless driving could decline a breathalyzer and the police couldn't do anything about it. If the police then set a new policy that anyone who refuses a breathalyzer has to get blood drawn at the nearby hospital, I'd say that "greatly strengthens" the requirement.

It's a smart move. Allowing someone onboard without a mask is a calculated risk to others, both crew and passengers. That risk has to be worth i

The more I think about it, the more beneficial I think it is for marketing as well - it helps calm those who have seen the viral photos/videos of people not wearing a mask on a plane and may help convince them to travel if they are worried.

It strengthens one avenue to avoid wearing a mask, however all someone has to do is plop a bag of M&Ms on their tray table and claim they're eating.

I have a Doctor friend whose patient told him "I don't believe in this mask business". His response was: "It's not the tooth fairy, it's a pandemic and people are dying". Love that. My response is: "Do you want businesses to open (and stay open)? Do you like having a job? ...then wear a mask so we can slow the spread."

Sadly in this country we're always going to have a small, yet significant part of the population that think the rules don't apply to them. Thankfully from what I've observed, the vast majority of people at airports are wearing masks (the ones that aren't have been good at distancing themselves which isn't difficult in empty airports), and I don't believe I've seen a single person in flight not wearing a mask (unless eating or drinking).

There is always "that guy." But, even "that guy" is dealt with in short order by the FA.

This is great. Nice job Delta.

I am all for it but it needs to be publicized better. I wouldn't have learned it without FT and average passengers are not FTers.

As a free agent, that increases the likelihood I would fly Delta if I have to fly somewhere.

The way delta has handled this virus and their desire to keep passengers as safe as possible has made me proud to be a customer.

I will not fly the other airlines. Their approach to this pandemic will be remembered by many and for a long time even after the pandemic some of deltas competitors will not be used by our family.

While not crowded as before, it's crowded enough with all the gates consolidated that mask should still be worn (from my experience at ATL and DTW).

Agree with DL 100% here,

A plane (and the terminal) is far to congested to not require masks. And for all those jack-asses that claim it is their right to not wear a mask, it is DL's right not to fly them.

Failing to wear a mask risks others. I could care less if Darwin wants to kill off these clowns, but their parents should not die because of it.

Not if others are wearing an N95.

That is not what DL -- or any carrier -- requires, it is not what most people own, what the CDC recommends, and many cannot access those masks. Thus, the point stands: "Failing to wear a mask risks others."

Really? Browsing Amazon for about 30 seconds I’ve seen plenty of listings.

This.

True, for as irritating and uncomfortable as wearing a mask can be, I do wish that it provided me personal protection FOR MYSELF as a sort-of token of thanks for me having to endure it. But it doesn't, and such is life.
But my mask helps protect you, and your mask helps protect me. The Karens out there can't seem to wrap their heads around this.

(As an aside ... at the entrance of every convenience store / gas station / mini-mart located every square block of America, there's a little sign that says "No shirt, No shoes, No Service." Not once that I can recall has anyone complained that their rights are being violated because they have to put on shoes to go into a QuikTrip. But in the middle of a global pandemic that has killed more than 130K people in the US alone, all of a sudden its "my body my choice." I don't get it.)

No Shoes - No Shirt - No Mask = NO FLY

If you are too medically fragile to wear a mask why are you going anywhere in the first place?

Sad that we have come to this, that we need 2). You'd think anyone who is that fragile yet can tolerate the lower pressure and lower O2 at 6-8K ft, well shouldn't be flying with risk of catching COVID and further weaken and maybe kill you.

The cost of Liberty/Freedom isn't the freedom and liberty to do as you please at the cost of increasing the risk of killing someone else.

Amazon is specifically not allowing the sale of N95/KN95 masks to preserve their use for health care professionals (at least in the US). The sellers you see either claim 95% filtration without using those terms or are selling “N95” or “KN95” masks that aren’t actually on the list the CDC or FDA maintains of legitimate and tested N95/KN95 masks. If you want to use those go right ahead but I’ll pass on the “N95” masks made by Viet Fashion LTD or the ones that are shipped to you in ziploc bags with no indicated manufacturer, model, or lot number.

Good luck getting a bunch of N95s. We have a PPE shortage.

I've already got a bunch of them. I actually found a few with vents in them earlier too. Much more pleasant.

I posted it elsewhere, but my Brother had someone get in his face for wearing a true 3M N95 (his employer has tons prior to COVID-19 because of the work the factory preforms).

Ostensibly, the person was annoyed that my Brother's mask protected him and not others because it vented out his breath.

Luckily, someone called the cops and they were able to get the guy to leave my Brother alone and the cops said to my Borther that he was doing nothing wrong and followingthe rules.

In fact (my Brother learned after his experience flying) his employer looked to donate some to hospitals and were told because they have vents they are useless in the hospital setting.

Anyway, I am not sure if DL will care about true N95s which vent out, but just to be aware.

Thank God for that nearly see through bandana and disposable mask that's been worn for a month. It's going to save the human race. But then there are people who think TSA is keeping us safe too. I'm not sure which is more troubling.

Give it time. Delta will likely prohibit that next.

That would be interesting.

4) Keep talking to a minimum. Some trains have silent sections.

Talking Can Generate Coronavirus Droplets That Linger Up to 14 Minutes
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/h...nfections.html

5) Avoid snacking (unless you have something like a blood sugar condition, see 2)).

So, how are you planning to enforce the no talking? Have the flight attendants whack them with a ruler like a school teacher?

I hope they make it really long or difficult process to get approved to deter the fakers.

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.