Exactly. That is the price of hiding from something which is probably never going to go away.

We can't keep up this circus forever. Sooner or later we are going to have to start living again.

In the US the airlines guidelines to FAs is that once off the gate or airborne they are not to enforce mask wearing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/trave...t-disruptions/

Sounds like the airlines there have slowly realised that enforcing mask wearing opens up a whole can of worms.

Let's be done with masks. If you want to fly now, sign a waiver, "I (yournamehere), acknowledge that I may be exposed to COVID19 on board this flight. I expressly assume all risks and dangers and waive all claims against (airline)."

... and such a waiver would be inoperative as you cannot waive your rights under the Montreal Convention and the airline would still be liable for damages to the health of the passenger caused on board the flight.

I think that we need a reality check here. Masks are neither a panacea nor useless but, given the limited range of actions that can be taken aboard an aircraft, they are likely to be part of the arsenal used by airlines in the short term to attempt to minimise covid19 problems and public authorities will probably expect it in a number of states anyway so people can moan to our heart's content as to how they are an unbearable interference with their fundamental rights/incompatible with the US Constitution/a cause of gazillions of anxiety attacks and a mental health scourge/a danger to public health/a creation of the devil/worse than useless/ugly and a crime against fashion/etc.., this will change absolutely nothing so you better get with the programme, as they say, and move on.

Fine for you, but what about others?

You can commit suicide if you want. I will be sorry for you, will try to help if I can, but if this is your choice and if you don't decide to jump off a balcony with people below you whom you can kill in the process, fine.

However, not wearing a mask is not only about you. You increase the risk of passing on Covid-19 to others.

In turn, those you have infected or contributed to infect will infect others who may die (whether you survive or not, at this stage it does not matter).

Your choice not to wear a mask in public is therefore not acceptable to the rest of society. It is in fact threatening.

In single aisle 3x3 planes, what is the problem?

Blocking the middle seat, means you need to increase the price of the ticket by less than 50%.

Come on, let's be serious! Paying 225 instead of 150 will not prevent people from flying for leisure. If it does, it means their trip was not worth it.

With the A320 family, you can fly everywhere. Even transatlantic.

I have not done the match for larger planes, but a smart redesign of the cabin may be possible.

Let's start first with single aisle 3x3 till traffic picks up when larger planes may be needed. Until then, we can start thinking about flying again.

Maybe not for you, I, or the other denizens of Flyertalk. I know plenty of people who would balk at paying 150 in the first place though!

How can you possibly know that? You assume that their is a point of price equilibrium in which one can diminish the capacity by 33% in the economy cabin and yet retain at least the same level of profitability as at present. I do not think that you can posit a priori that such a point exists, still less assume it to be at a price point which is 50% higher than at present. It is not a matter of assuming that reducing passengers number by a 3rd means that you need to increase price by 50%. You still need to make sure that you will still have enough passengers willing to pay that 50% more. If you don't, you need to find another point of price equilibrium which, for all we know, may well be very substantially higher. Or it may be that this price level does not exist at all without a fundamental redesign of how the industry works and the products that it offers.

And when the 150 EUR fare bucket is gone and fares have gone up to let's say 500 EUR, paying 750 EUR instead (+50%) is not neutral, especially if you have all the family with you.

This argument will fly when there's a peer-reviewed paper confirming that wearing mask in public by average Joe is actually useful and that its benefits outweight negatives (including those to my own health). Until then it's just an opinion and should be treated as such.

First of all, with 50% increase the airline gets more than 50% extra because the initial price include taxes, which will not be paid out as they are per pax.

Second, I do not know how many seats in medium haul flights are sold at that price of 500. Whatever the answer, I assume they will be mostly sold to people who fly on business.

Third, if you can fork out 500 for a leisure flight for the weekend, you can pay 750. If not, you don't agree to pay 500 in the first place and chose go fly somewhere else for 150.

People need to come back to their senses. They will fight to the last drop of their blood to get the cheapest flight possible and spend a small fortune in high end hotels and restaurants. They can apportion their budget differently, can't they?

If you are of the opinion that the usefulness of wearing a mask is a matter of belief (or opinion as you say), there is little discussion possible other than asking you which peer review you would trust is not part of a conspiracy to force you to do something bad for you.

By the way, I had never heard or read that wearing a mask had negative health consequences.

In fact, the same argument is used by antivax people.

Even if they are, most companies have policies in place to have you book the cheapest-yet-still-reasonable ticket, if one airline sells a ticket for 500 while the other for 750, you're probably going to have to book the 500 one.


Everyone values and prioritizes their money differently, I almost never go to any "high end hotels" but I still fly mostly J for long-haul, and I tend to choose a convenient route (e.g. no positioning flights) on the other hand looking for a short-haul flight I will generally look for the cheapest fare that is still convenient (e.g. I might pay more for a better timing), and if wearing a mask for 2-3 hours means I pay 50% less I'll most likely do it.

[MENTION=812549]Ditto[/MENTION].

I am the same as you. Short haul economy at low price (not Ryanair though) and long haul business.

What I meant in the first place was that if blocking the middle seat is made compulsory, which I advocate, It would still be possible to fly 3x3 planes profitably.

Contrary to what some say, the price increase would IMO not deter that many people. It will deter some, yes, but as I said: return weekend flights costing a few euros encourages irresponsible travelling.

​​​​​​If it is only a voluntary measure, the risk is high indeed that leisure pax (even business pax) would go for the cheaper flights preventing airlines that block the middle seat from filling their planes profitably.

I don't always agree with MOL, but when he said that people were ready to crawl naked on broken glass if it guarantee them cheaper flights, he was unfortunate!y right.

For long haul, I suggest the La Compagnie model. 2x2, 76 lie flat seats in an A321 NEO. Covid safer and very comfortable.

Great experience at very competitive prices. La Compagnie was just starting to make money with this configuration showing it can work.

The plane was almost full both ways last time I flew with them.

No, I'm not, that was my point. It's a matter of science and for the time being, there just isn't a proper scientific evidence that it is useful. Your opinion that they are useful is just an opinion and should not be treated as a proven fact.

I never suggested there is a conspiracy, I'm simply suggesting that people are making poor decision - benefits are questionable and negative consequences are largely ignored.

Few examples:
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1435/rr-40
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ct-on-covid-19

And specifically about wearing masks on a plane: https://insideflyer.com/2020/05/mask...o-expert-says/

Which argument? Comparing vaccination (which is scientifically proven to be effective) with wearing face masks (which is not) doesn't make any sense.