LarryJ

At the moment, the mask rules are airline policies. Mask rules outside of aviation are being established by state or local governments which don't have authority on the aircraft.

I'm not aware of any federal mask requirements. Are there any?

United provides masks to any passengers without one prior to boarding. They are also providing disinfectant wipes. All passengers and crew are required to wear a mask onboard United aircraft.

https://www.united.com/en/us/fly/covid-update.html

bluedemon211

Mrs. BD211 had a flight yesterday that just showed how little people "get it", IMHO. Flying SFO-HNL. Multiple people in boarding area not wearing masks. GA's went around offering masks and told people to wear them in gate area and on board. People grudgingly agreed.

Fast forward to the on board experience. My wife turned down the UG as they filled all 28 FC seats and she opted for a row in Y. They were not even up in the air when people were shedding masks. When a couple of passengers challenged them, the offending passengers pulled out the bottle of water they bought in the terminal and proceeded to sip once every 10 minutes and told the only FA that bothered to ask "hey, they said we don't have to wear them when we eat or drink".

Whether we agree that masks make a difference, clearly people that don't want to abide by the rules will do what they want until/unless the requirement is enforced and there are consequences. I respect the heck out of people that don't want to wear masks and then won't fly because of the rule. It's the people that know the rules, get on the plane, and then thumb their nose at the rule that drive me crazy.

uastarflyer

Both can be true. People avoiding flying UA and Kirby fluffing his load factors by putting tricycles on major hub to hub routes. Hopefully the PR continues to skew negative. And no more taxpayer loans.

Nihon_Ni

I was wondering this myself. For example, there's no FAA regulation that requires a passenger to use supplemental oxygen at any cabin altitude. There are specific altitudes where the flight crew has to use it, and other altitudes where they have to provide passengers with it, but there isn't a rule that requires passengers to use oxygen.

14 CFR § 91.211 - Supplemental oxygen

Doppy

Although this is the opposite situation - supplemental oxygen is for the passenger's own benefit, while mask wearing is to protect other passengers. It's more akin to a smoking ban, it's for the safety of other passengers.

I'm not sure if that makes any difference from a legal perspective.

spin88

The only difference is that the airline can't say "the FAA requires you to wear a mask" they have to say "per to our policy, and following CDC guidelines, you have to wear a mask". There are a lot of things that if someone is disruptive they get arrested for interfering with a flight crew, 49 U.S. Code § 46504, when they land that are NOT FAA requirements.

FA orders you to move as you are harassing/upsetting someone
FA order you to put your clothes back on and not disrobe in the cabin
FA orders you to put your pet back into it's container and not have it run around or sit on your lap.

And I doubt that their is a provision by the FAA which prohibits you from yelling in the cabin like a crazy person, but flights get diverted when folks go postal.

I can recall diverts (and arrests) for all four of these.

And I might add that I have had flight crew claim that the "FAA requires x" when the FAA does not require x.

The real question for United and AA (but also a lesser degree it appears Delta) is "do we require masks and enforce it, so that the vast bulk of the public feels (or is) safer to fly" or "we are going to try to avoid getting caught in a culture war, and will allow people to take off their masks, and hope no one figures out that we are really not enforcing a mask policy, because that will set us all back in getting people to fly"

Same issue applies to blocking middle seats (AS, DL) vs. just doing faux blocking (UA and AA).

whitethunder

exactly people will always find away around things like saying their are eating etc

There is no way someone is going to wear a mask for a 17 Hr SFO-SIN flight, I was in the hospital recently with someone and I wore a mask for three hours and my ears hurt it was so uncomfortable, there is no way I am keeping one on for a TPAC and I bet there a ton of other fliers who feel the same

fumje

I had several TPAC flights still in late February and early March, and I started wearing a mask including on board. In fact I found I preferred it, as my sinuses dried out significantly less. It reminded me that, prior to all of this, NH distributed (and maybe still distributes?) in-flight face masks solely for the purpose of limiting moisture loss, at least if I understood the packaging.

I don't know when I will fly TPAC next, but I may wish to keep wearing a mask even if it is not required.

bocastephen

Long before coronavirus, I've had a N100 mask stuffed in my carry-on in case I was seated near someone with a cold or flu or other unidentified malady - on a number of multi-hour flights including TPAC, I wore my N100 for the duration, so there is really no excuse for someone refusing to wear a fabric mask. I removed mine for eating/drinking and it was on for the duration of the flight.

spin88

I was wearing n95 masks on trips in January and February and into March when SF went into lockdown. I got some funny looks, but it was clear to me what was coming and that it was going to be totally out of control. The idea of sitting next to a person with covid-19 breathing in everything they were exhaling w/o a mask just seemed stupid to me. It was clear by mid-January to anyone paying attention how horribly contagious and easily spread covid-19 was.

All I can say is that United and Co. (including Delta) are playing with fire. Foreign airlines are requiring and enforcing mask wearing, and of the right type (not n95s with vents or cloth masks with no filtration). One person gets on a plane with covid-19, infects 10-15 or even 5 people, and contract tracing links them to a flight on airline X, airline X is finished, done, ended, BKR, if someone was not wearing a mask, or was jammed in middle seat. Dao will look like a walk in the park compared to an airline being a Covid-19 infection cluster.

HNLbasedFlyer

There have been many many flights with Covid - it spread around the world on flights. It didn't get to Hawaii without flights of people infected by Covid - many of our cases in Hawaii have been related to travelers who entered the State from Washington and California. Flights will continue to be an infection risk until we have a vaccine - and blocking middles and this cloth mask thing won't stop it.

Shoot, for all I know I carried it on a flight - got fairly sick from late Feb Bay Area/Vegas trip upon my return to Hawaii - would love to take an antibody to find out. But I don't see how the airlines are playing with fire - they've carried Covid for awhile now.

jsloan

I will take that bet.

Sure, the airline might lose a couple of customers. Most will shrug and go on with their lives. It's not any different than people who say "I'm never flying XYZ airline again." You are vastly overestimating people's ability to stay mad about something.

Toyota was fined over $1 billion a decade ago for covering up problems with stuck accelerators that led directly to a number of deaths. I haven't driven a Toyota since then, but they've sold close to 100 million vehicles worldwide since that happened. People just don't care.

stimpy

There does not need to be an FAA regulation for masks. It would be a waste of time anyways because by the time they got done with the regulation we will be done with masks. These things take a long time.

The good news is that there is already a regulation that we must follow crew orders. Have you ever heard For everyone’s safety, regulations require your compliance with all lighted signs, placards and crew member instructions.

If a crew member orders us to wear masks, we have to wear masks. Plain and simple. There exists well understood procedures for what to do if someone violates crew orders. See FAA parts 121 and 135.

And note that other countries and their airlines have pretty much the same rules.

LarryJ

The regulation, to which you refer, is 14 CFR 121.571. I have included the requirements to comply with crewmember instructions below.As you can see, the requirement to comply with crewmember instructions is limited to very specific topics. It is not an all-encompassing power, as it is often assumed to be.

The all-encompassing regulation is 14 CFR 121.580 but it has a much higher bar.Unless the passengers actions rise to the level of assault, threats, intimidation, or interference it isn't a violation.

stimpy

I don't have time to do heavy legal research, but I recall many a case where a plane left the gate, then taxied back because a passenger was "unruly" as in they got into a dispute with a crew member. All post 9/11 of course.

One of Air France's cabin crew union leaders states that in the case of non compliance with the mask rule... translation: in a procedure that already exists within civil aviation, it is a so-called unruly passenger procedure, therefore a warning and then, possibly, the landing of the aircraft in territory x or y for disembarking the passenger incriminated.

https://www.francetvinfo.fr/sante/ma...s_3956571.html