Crackdown on unruly or unmasked passengers

Status
Not open for further replies.
PeterNSteinmetz

PeterNSteinmetz

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Sep 9, 2015
Messages
2,653
Location
Tempe, AZ
Display Name
Display name:
PeterNSteinmetz
I wonder how many of these incidents are purely mask related?

Seems like cracking down on a policy based on mixed evidence of the efficacy of cloth masks (which most people are wearing) in an environment where the air is generally very clean and with the pandemic dying off will be unsuccessful.

Though I guess it does depend on how you measure success. If one means avoiding cases of Covid-19, probably simply no measureable effect. OTOH, if one means producing a lot of enforcement cases for the FAA, it could be quite successful by that measure.

Of course the airlines have a right to do what they want on their planes, but I believe we now have a coercive Federal mandate about it as well, right? The airlines of course will welcome that since it gives them a bigger stick and deflects the onus for a policy off them and ensured no company can compete by having a more reasonable policy.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/faa-unruly-passengers-enforcement/index.html
 
Last edited:
Their planes, their rules. If you don't want to act appropriately, don't fly commercially. I don't agree with the mask policy so I don't pay them to fly my butt around.

The old adage "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" is even more ludicrous these days. I stopped flying commercially when they invented the TSA.
 
Last edited:
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I wonder how many of these incidents are purely mask related?

Seems like cracking down on a policy based on mixed evidence of the efficacy of cloth masks (which most people are wearing) in an environment where the air is generally very clean and with the pandemic dying off will be unsuccessful.

Though I guess it does depend on how you measure success. If one means avoiding cases of Covid-19, probably simply no measureable effect. OTOH, if one means producing a lot of enforcement cases for the FAA, it could be quite successful by that measure.

Of course the airlines have a right to do what they want on their planes, but I believe we now have a coercive Federal mandate about it as well, right? The airlines of course will welcome that since it gives them a bigger stick and deflects the onus for a policy off them and ensured no company can compete by having a more reasonable policy.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/faa-unruly-passengers-enforcement/index.html
Click to expand...
The mandate advocates claim credit for every single person who has not contracted the disease. Since by that measure the policy is wildly successful, we can anticipate it will continue for a long time. Notwithstanding the fact that an airliner in flight has very clean air. And by FAA logic, it makes perfect sense that if you have too many enforcements, you should step up enforcement. So what would ever cause a bureaucracy to change this policy when that carries only downside from their perspective?
 
The crackdown isn't because they aren't wearing a mask. The crackdown is because they fail to respect the crewmember's instructions because they feel that they "know better" or have some 'rights" that don't really exist.
 
I can see how people get a bit confused on this because commercial flying is so heavily regulated. The boundaries between the government rules and the company rules are likely often unclear to passengers.

And frankly the airlines like being able to point at the rules as being required by the government as it reduces the onus on them. And they get released from liability, for example in the case of attacks using their planes, by letting the government take over security.

So a lot reasons passengers may not understand what is private and what is public and think they have some “rights”.
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I can see how people get a bit confused on this because commercial flying is so heavily regulated. The boundaries between the government rules and the company rules are likely often unclear to passengers.
Click to expand...

We're required to make announcements to the passengers about the mask rules, and we make it clear that the federal government, CDC, and TSA are now the ones calling the shots.
 
There is no confusion. These passengers simply think the mask rule, complying with crew directions, not getting drunk and becoming loud, obnoxious and aggressive with crew and passengers, and a heck of a lot of other rules, just don’t apply to them. For whatever reason, they see themselves as special. You can believe it’s a misunderstanding about what rules apply but I don’t. These people are simply anti-authority which might be ok in some places but not in a shiny silver tube at FL350. By the way, these kinds of people have been with us ever since the Garden of Eden and will continue to be with us until the end times.
 
Flying commercial is a privilege, so by agreeing to fly, you agree to follow their rules. If airlines wanted to, they could require everyone to wear striped pajamas. I'm not a very good social activist, I guess, because despite my strong disagreement with the whole mask mandate stupidity, I've flown twice since then. I'd much rather suffer through 16ish hours with a mask and get a wonderful weekend out of the deal than refuse to wear one...

The funniest thing to me is the announcement before every takeoff - "If you refuse to wear a mask during any part of the flight, you will be removed from the plane and may be subject to federal and civilian penalties (whatever that means)." Do they open a window or door to remove the offender from the plane when cruising at 41,000 ft? ;)
 
Jumpmaster said:
These passengers simply think the mask rule, complying with crew directions, not getting drunk and becoming loud, obnoxious and aggressive with crew and passengers, and a heck of a lot of other rules, just don’t apply to them. ... These people are simply anti-authority which might be ok in some places but not in a shiny silver tube at FL350.
Click to expand...

It's funny. I think if you are going to be against government coercions, and in that sense anti-authority, that it is even more important to respect private property and the rules of the owners.

The running together of government and private property with regulations, as in this case, may encourage this failure to respect any authority at all. Though I suppose as suggested some people may just not have respect for others at all and are more likely to manifest that behavior when intoxicated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top