Jet Blue Requiring Passengers to Wear Masks

[Doheny]

Starting May 4. United requiring FAs to wear masks.

ETA: I have to imagine other airlines will follow suit. Likely to be in effect for sometime to come.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/jetblue-begins-requiring-customers-wear-003100551.html

Sent from free America

[edgerly779]

I have been flying to Houston every 2 weeks for 6 weeks. Last trip 1/2 people on plane wore masks. only 20 people on 737-200 lost of separation. No drink service.

[jarhead714]

I have been flying to Houston every 2 weeks for 6 weeks. Last trip 1/2 people on plane wore masks. only 20 people on 737-200 lost of separation. No drink service.

You flew on a stovepipe -200? How? Where?!

[PaperTarget]

Good news.

I used to fly often. Discretionary travel only so I haven't been traveling this year.

When planning ahead. I expect face covering masks to be required in airports and airplanes.

If that requirement is in place AND that requirement is proven to reduce the spread of the virus to a very minimal chance, then I may fly again.

[ACfixer]

Crap, I deleted my post somehow while trying to edit.

Anyway, on the regional jet everyone was masked up without being asked. On the ONT-DFW 737 most people were but like edgerly779 said it was pretty spaced out anyway. All of the flight crew wore them on all my flights in March and April.

[Tere_Hanges]

I have no problem flying if everyone wears a mask, long overdue IMHO. Everyone should have been doing this before COVID. All mass transit should require facial coverings.

[Doheny]

[ACfixer]

I have no problem flying if everyone wears a mask, long overdue IMHO. Everyone should have been doing this before COVID. All mass transit should require facial coverings.

I might agree as long as it is corporate policy and not a government mandate.

[Transient]

I might agree as long as it is corporate policy and not a government mandate.

I disagree because mass transit requires public funding. It must therefore comply with laws. It's not a private entity. Somebody choosing to not wear a mask can cry about discrimination if they're denied access to public services. That strategy has been used successfully to stop COTUS violations. I could see a 14th Amendment violation on this one. Just ask Rosa Parks. You are more than welcome to wear a mask for your protection, but that doesn't mean you have the right to force me to. The danger to you no longer exists because you're wearing a mask. Because the airlines accepted federal funding this argument could possibly be successful against them too.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[ACfixer]

I disagree because mass transit requires public funding. It must therefore comply with laws. It's not a private entity.

<snip>

Because the airlines accepted federal funding this argument could possibly be successful against them too.

I was talking specifically about the airlines, not other forms of mass transit and I would be against any government mandate whether they accepting bailout money or not.

Yes, the government can and will attach strings to your bailout money.

[The War Wagon]

Reason #876,964,835,271,283,940,485,634,721,239 I haven't flown since 2005... with no intentions to in the future!

[cgseanp1]

I despise flying because it always seems to end with one of us getting sick! So I guess this could be viewed as a positive thing. As long as I can still drink onboard [emoji848]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tere_Hanges]

You are more than welcome to wear a mask for your protection, but that doesn't mean you have the right to force me to. The danger to you no longer exists because you're wearing a mask.

Dummy. The primary purpose of wearing a mask in close quarters where distancing is not possible, is so the WEARER doesnt spread whatever pathogens THEY may be carrying. It only works if everyone wears a mask. Thats the beauty of it. You are protecting others and they are protecting you. Capisce?

You are promulgating a very common misconception about the purpose of wearing a mask. It is to keep the pathogen inside the mask to limit the risk of it spreading to others.

There is also a psychological benefit. If only a few people wear a mask, everyone will think they are sick. No one wants to be stigmatized. But if EVERYONE wears a mask there is no stigmatization.

Its a quid pro quo deal. You cant make other people wear a mask for your benefit, without wearing one yourself, so that they may benefit. Theres got to be some kind of religious lesson there. It really is a beautiful concept.

[duenor]

Dummy. The primary purpose of wearing a mask in close quarters where distancing is not possible, is so the WEARER doesnt spread whatever pathogens THEY may be carrying. It only works if everyone wears a mask. Thats the beauty of it. You are protecting others and they are protecting you. Capisce?

You are promulgating a very common misconception about the purpose of wearing a mask. It is to keep the pathogen inside the mask to limit the risk of it spreading to others.

There is also a psychological benefit. If only a few people wear a mask, everyone will think they are sick. No one wants to be stigmatized. But if EVERYONE wears a mask there is no stigmatization.

Its a quid pro quo deal. You cant make other people wear a mask for your benefit, without wearing one yourself, so that they may benefit. Theres got to be some kind of religious lesson there. It really is a beautiful concept.

The stigma reluctance is very real. We had active sick people at my wife's work site that were very much possible COVID19 (no way to know at that time in early march; no tests available). I told her she should wear a mask especially since she works inches away from people. She was so upset about the idea of being the "freak" that she took several days off rather than gear up.