• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

3 US airlines will let some passengers banned for mask violations back on their flights

Metric Mouse

Your hi-top sneakers and your sailor tattoos.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
20,233
Reaction score
4,151
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive

American Airlines plans to follow suit, according to Nate Gatten, American's chief government affairs officer.

American will also allow most passengers barred from flying for mask noncompliance "to resume travel at some point in time," Gatten said in an earnings call on Thursday.

Interesting. First they call for a ban on all unruly people, but when given the chance welcome them back? Confusing.
 





Interesting. First they call for a ban on all unruly people, but when given the chance welcome them back? Confusing.
IMO it depends what they did. If they just wouldn't wear a mask, then they should probably be allowed back at some point in the not too distant future, now that masks aren't required. If they were disruptive, abusive, or physically violent with staff, then I have much less sympathy.
 
IMO it depends what they did. If they just wouldn't wear a mask, then they should probably be allowed back at some point in the not too distant future, now that masks aren't required. If they were disruptive, abusive, or physically violent with staff, then I have much less sympathy.
Screw em. Don’t let them back. Maybe if more had said NO things would have been different.

I’m glad I never played the mask game. It doesn’t matter if one doesn’t want to wear one but did anyway. Ok, I’ll do what the man says so I can still fly down to the Keys.

I stood my ground and sacrificed recreation and seeing our new grandson. My dignity is more valuable than 7 days on the beach.
 
IMO it depends what they did. If they just wouldn't wear a mask, then they should probably be allowed back at some point in the not too distant future, now that masks aren't required. If they were disruptive, abusive, or physically violent with staff, then I have much less sympathy.

I agree with you about both of those things, Gatsby.
 
Screw em. Don’t let them back. Maybe if more had said NO things would have been different.

I’m glad I never played the mask game. It doesn’t matter if one doesn’t want to wear one but did anyway. Ok, I’ll do what the man says so I can still fly down to the Keys.

I stood my ground and sacrificed recreation and seeing our new grandson. My dignity is more valuable than 7 days on the beach.
Maybe not. Depends on how you wear that Speedo.
 





Interesting. First they call for a ban on all unruly people, but when given the chance welcome them back? Confusing.
They always had the power to ban people who didn’t wear masks. What they wanted was for the government to ban their competitors from doing business with the people they banned.
 
They always had the power to ban people who didn’t wear masks. What they wanted was for the government to ban their competitors from doing business with the people they banned.
Hot take. That makes a certain amount of sense, considering how quickly they ditched masks and brought banned passengers back.
 
Screw em. Don’t let them back. Maybe if more had said NO things would have been different.

I’m glad I never played the mask game. It doesn’t matter if one doesn’t want to wear one but did anyway. Ok, I’ll do what the man says so I can still fly down to the Keys.

I stood my ground and sacrificed recreation and seeing our new grandson. My dignity is more valuable than 7 days on the beach.
Your dignity is more valuable than seeing your grandson?
 
IMO it depends what they did. If they just wouldn't wear a mask, then they should probably be allowed back at some point in the not too distant future, now that masks aren't required. If they were disruptive, abusive, or physically violent with staff, then I have much less sympathy.
Exactly. It's a case-by-case thing that will be the determination.
 





Interesting. First they call for a ban on all unruly people, but when given the chance welcome them back? Confusing.
I work in the industry. Dunno how unruly they were in each case but most bans are temporary. The more aggressive their behavior the longer the ban (up to permanent) but also depends on the airline.
 
They always had the power to ban people who didn’t wear masks. What they wanted was for the government to ban their competitors from doing business with the people they banned.
I never once saw this proposed. Link?
 
‘That makes it illegal for all airlines to do business with them, including the airline that put them there. That’s not the same as banning competitors from serving them.
I'm sorry you got caught in a lie. Just a tip, but it's better to plead forgetfulness than try to rationalize. Anyone would believe that you simply forgot that thread after seven months.
 
I'm sorry you got caught in a lie. Just a tip, but it's better to plead forgetfulness than try to rationalize. Anyone would believe that you simply forgot that thread after seven months.
Your wording was ambiguous, no need to be so mad about it
 
I would have not allowed it.

These scumbags deserved their banning. They clearly don’t give a shit about others. Typical MAGAts, selfish. Me, me, me
 
I work in the industry. Dunno how unruly they were in each case but most bans are temporary. The more aggressive their behavior the longer the ban (up to permanent) but also depends on the airline.
Anything for money, for sure. I'm sure airlines are afraid to ban most people because they fear that person will just fly on another carrier. Literally putting profits ahead of the lives of passengers and crew.
 
Anything for money, for sure. I'm sure airlines are afraid to ban most people because they fear that person will just fly on another carrier. Literally putting profits ahead of the lives of passengers and crew.

It's probably more just the idea that 'there are no bad people, just people having a bad day'. There are limits to it of course, but that's why they don't ban people for life just for being mildly obnoxious.
 





Interesting. First they call for a ban on all unruly people, but when given the chance welcome them back? Confusing.
Don't believe in 2nd chances?? :rolleyes:
 
My dignity is more valuable than 7 days on the beach.
It isn't dignity, it's called sheer stubbornness just to prove a point.

download.jpg
 
I would have not allowed it.

These scumbags deserved their banning. They clearly don’t give a shit about others. Typical MAGAts, selfish. Me, me, me
Airlines don't care. As long as massive corporate profits can be made and they can continue to destroy the planet without interference, they are happy.
 
Back
Top Bottom