Ryanair-11
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dorking - Agreed the legal situation is a minefield.
In fact mask wearing isn't that simple either. On the ground in the UK - not enforceable but outside UK airspace that could change.
Too complex for me but this article appears to cover it quite well if anyone's interested. I should add, I am not a lawyer so can't guarantee it's accuracy but from memory it sounds about right.
Which Country's Laws Are Enforced During International Flights? - Simple Flying
In fact mask wearing isn't that simple either. On the ground in the UK - not enforceable but outside UK airspace that could change.
Too complex for me but this article appears to cover it quite well if anyone's interested. I should add, I am not a lawyer so can't guarantee it's accuracy but from memory it sounds about right.
Which Country's Laws Are Enforced During International Flights? - Simple Flying
Unilateral changing of contract terms is indeed naughty. However, how many passengers would really challenge Ryanair cabin crew by insisting on their rights, especially when calling the police is threatened for not wearing a mask ? Flying with FR usually involves multiple jurisdictions - it's a bit of an unknown to figure out which country's laws do or don't apply. I very much doubt that the average police officer in Europe is remotely interested in the legal niceties of what details were in the contract at the time of booking versus what is in the contract now.... most police officers at an airport will just arrest first when cabin crew claim a passenger has been disruptive, and ask questions a few hours later. Do you really want to be held under arrest for a couple of hours while your flight departs, only for the police to decide to let you go without charges ? Challenging FR through the police and courts to seek later recompense can be an awfully expensive and time consuming business
Thus, FR pretty much can insist on everyone wearing a mask whether the requirement is legally binding or not... and get away with it
Thus, FR pretty much can insist on everyone wearing a mask whether the requirement is legally binding or not... and get away with it
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 9,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continued mask wearing will persuade some passengers to fly but with Covid cases set to double in the next 9 days and then the removal of restrictions in England, so they will double again at a faster rate, I can see Europe locking down on U.K. flights.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Outer London
Age: 43
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They have the right to prevent anyone from boarding that doesn’t conform to their rules. I’m sure you could also be offloaded into any jurisdiction on the basis of ignoring crew orders if the mask was removed.
Any business could demand masks be worn on their premises. What the anti-maskers/libertarians fail to understand is others have rights as well.
Any business could demand masks be worn on their premises. What the anti-maskers/libertarians fail to understand is others have rights as well.
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: North of Dorking
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The point I was making is a legal one. Their rules, as you put it, have to be enshrined in law and for the most part the Air Navigation Act gives the crew, rightly, their authority. The particular issue with this is that the legislation, presently empowering crew, is being withdrawn and not replaced by any other overarching or specific legal instrument. That, precisely, is the legal minefield that operators are going to have to negotiate. I`m making no comments on any other aspect of this issue.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Crawley
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AirportPlanner1
that is correct. On private property you follow the owners rules. As long as it’s not illegal it is fine. Take smoking on board an aircraft, it wasn’t illegal for years yet many airlines chose to enforce it. It can be the same with masks.
that is correct. On private property you follow the owners rules. As long as it’s not illegal it is fine. Take smoking on board an aircraft, it wasn’t illegal for years yet many airlines chose to enforce it. It can be the same with masks.
I suspect as Javid has predicted UK C-19 cases could soar to 100,000 a day, many countries will just stop accepting UK originating pax, vaccinated or not. Thus mask wearing for air travel from the UK is almost academic.
AirportPlanner1
I think we all need to stop thinking in extremes. "Anti-maskers" and "anti-maskers" is bundling some good honourable arguments in with the extremists. I won't be flying again until the mask mandate is removed, mainly because I won't be paying that much money to sit with a cloth covering across my face for hours on end. It's worth remember why the mask mandate remains. It is PRIMARILY a reminder and a CONTROL MECHANISM, with all the good intentions in the world, it's a noble lie. How many times have you gone out and forgotten your mask and had to go back for it? That's what it's primarily for, to keep us conscious we're in a pandemic and danger remains. If you ever want to go back to normal, and I do, then if we cannot take masks off in mid summer as hospitalisations and deaths have collapsed as the vaccine is rolled out, then there's a real chance that this panic runs to next summer, That's two and a half years.
So yeah, by all means wear a mask, but the experts were being honest in early 2020 when they said it barely makes a difference, the impetus to make people wear one was from behavioural pyschology, and it worked to some degree. The first airline that says they're no longer required will also be within their rights and I am will book with them when the time comes. If not now, then it's going to be another year of this because a lot of people will meltdown when seasonal flu / COVID hits in winter, and the media will LOVE it.
I think we all need to stop thinking in extremes. "Anti-maskers" and "anti-maskers" is bundling some good honourable arguments in with the extremists. I won't be flying again until the mask mandate is removed, mainly because I won't be paying that much money to sit with a cloth covering across my face for hours on end. It's worth remember why the mask mandate remains. It is PRIMARILY a reminder and a CONTROL MECHANISM, with all the good intentions in the world, it's a noble lie. How many times have you gone out and forgotten your mask and had to go back for it? That's what it's primarily for, to keep us conscious we're in a pandemic and danger remains. If you ever want to go back to normal, and I do, then if we cannot take masks off in mid summer as hospitalisations and deaths have collapsed as the vaccine is rolled out, then there's a real chance that this panic runs to next summer, That's two and a half years.
So yeah, by all means wear a mask, but the experts were being honest in early 2020 when they said it barely makes a difference, the impetus to make people wear one was from behavioural pyschology, and it worked to some degree. The first airline that says they're no longer required will also be within their rights and I am will book with them when the time comes. If not now, then it's going to be another year of this because a lot of people will meltdown when seasonal flu / COVID hits in winter, and the media will LOVE it.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the experts actually said is that there was not enough evidence to mandate the wearing of masks. That is not the same thing. There have been a number of papers published in the medical literature since then showing that masks are effective. Perhaps this article will help, the takeaway message is that masks do reduce you chances of contracting COVID-19 by somewhere in the region of 60-90%. Of course as the numbers increase that becomes more relevant as your chance of being exposed is higher.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
I dont understand the hatred towards the mask myself. The country seems very keen on vaccination, which reduces the chance of contracting COVID, symptomatic illness, spreading COVID, hospitalisation and death, but is associated with some side effects. Masks also offer all of these benefits and no/very mild side effects of slight discomfort and occasional skin irritation.
It looks like airlines will require mask wearing for some time - I suspect many employers on the ground will too. So the masks wont be going anywhere for a while yet.
https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/pax-...-post-19-july/
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
I dont understand the hatred towards the mask myself. The country seems very keen on vaccination, which reduces the chance of contracting COVID, symptomatic illness, spreading COVID, hospitalisation and death, but is associated with some side effects. Masks also offer all of these benefits and no/very mild side effects of slight discomfort and occasional skin irritation.
It looks like airlines will require mask wearing for some time - I suspect many employers on the ground will too. So the masks wont be going anywhere for a while yet.
https://thepointsguy.co.uk/news/pax-...-post-19-july/
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Regrettably far from 50°N
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is PRIMARILY a reminder and a CONTROL MECHANISM
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7497125/
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
Ah statistically significant here just means the uplift is due to wearing one vesus not wearing one, it doesn't suggest a significant benefit to public health. My day job is explaining this to marketeers, so you're quite correct, but it's common to overstate the benefit which is, from what I have seen and read, marginal. Hence why I said the main reason to legislate to make people wear them is for visibility and public confidence. I'm not saying they don't help, they do, what I am saying the benefit is relatively small and the principal rationale for them is control. You might not agree with SAGE but this was the arguement that won the day. They were deemed essential to gain compliance in other areas, hence this will never end, while masks are worn, and there's quite a lot of scientists keen to ensure we keep wearing them to tackle flu. It's up to you (from the 19th)!
Could we possibly keep this topic vaguely connected to Ryanair, and perhaps move the question of the general usefulness (or not) of masks in a pandemic to JetBlast please ?
brian_dromey
That's absolutely not what the paper is saying, to reiterate, the wearing of a mask will not stop you catching COVID 19, mask wearing is to catch expelled aerosol spray to prevent you spreading it to anyone else. This has been made clear time and time again, and the benefit attached, the supporting number to go alongside that assertion is unclear and IMHO marginal. It's intentionally vague.
And to reiterate, to suggest that wearing a mask reduces the chances of catching COVID by 60-90% is flat out wrong, that's cleverly implied, but that's not actually what they say. One for JetBlast before we go wildly off topic?
That's absolutely not what the paper is saying, to reiterate, the wearing of a mask will not stop you catching COVID 19, mask wearing is to catch expelled aerosol spray to prevent you spreading it to anyone else. This has been made clear time and time again, and the benefit attached, the supporting number to go alongside that assertion is unclear and IMHO marginal. It's intentionally vague.
And to reiterate, to suggest that wearing a mask reduces the chances of catching COVID by 60-90% is flat out wrong, that's cleverly implied, but that's not actually what they say. One for JetBlast before we go wildly off topic?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Leeds, UK & Cork, Ireland
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are quite right, the risk of secondary transmission was reduced by 79% when the positive case wore a mask AND all the individuals in the house also wore a mask prior to the onset of symptoms, so teasing that apart is impossible. What we really did not understand in the early days was the effect of asymptomatic spread on case numbers, this study seems to suggest that masks are effective in preventing transmission when the index case is infective, but does not have symptoms.
I think mask wearing has become so highly politicised, especially in the US but also in some political viewpoints in the UK, that there is little point arguing. I wont harp on any further but it is really important to bear in mind how COVID spreads, this is a respiratory virus that largely does not spread by contaminated surfaces. We argue about wearing masks while we consume huge quantities of anti-viral wipes and cleaning products.
At the end of the day it is up to Ryanair to decide what rules, conditions or other terms passengers need to comply with to board their aircraft, over and above any legal requirements. Their website makes it very clear (far clearer than many of their other T&C's!) that a mask is mandatory while on board a Ryanair aircraft and they are clear they have no plans to change it. At least they are being up front and clear with passengers what to expect. You can't say farer than that.
I think mask wearing has become so highly politicised, especially in the US but also in some political viewpoints in the UK, that there is little point arguing. I wont harp on any further but it is really important to bear in mind how COVID spreads, this is a respiratory virus that largely does not spread by contaminated surfaces. We argue about wearing masks while we consume huge quantities of anti-viral wipes and cleaning products.
At the end of the day it is up to Ryanair to decide what rules, conditions or other terms passengers need to comply with to board their aircraft, over and above any legal requirements. Their website makes it very clear (far clearer than many of their other T&C's!) that a mask is mandatory while on board a Ryanair aircraft and they are clear they have no plans to change it. At least they are being up front and clear with passengers what to expect. You can't say farer than that.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: STANSTED & MANCHESTER
Posts: 1,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if mentioned elsewhere, (Ryanair’s) first B737 MAX 8-200 in full MALTA AIR colours arrived in DUB from over the pond on the 14/07/21. Flightradar24 has a pic when you search registration 9H-VUE, I’m really loving the tail graphics.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Melbourne, ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Age: 74
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm trying to make up my mind if passengers on Ryanair flights don't care or know what aircraft they are flying on, or they just don't care, because the price is right, right? No doubt about that. But I find it interesting now that the MAX is cleared again for commercial operations in Europe, that nobody flying Ryanair seems to worry that it had a significant safety issue. So either everyone accepts its been fixed or they just don't care. I wonder what the real reason is. Or is MOL just quoting very early experience with his new MAX-200 only a few weeks into service is it?
https://simpleflying.com/ryanair-no-737-max-avoidance/
https://simpleflying.com/ryanair-no-737-max-avoidance/
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Majority of the "normal" pax who have no aviation background / interest do not know what aircraft they flying on when they either book and fly. So no.. but besides Ryanair multiple airlines in and flying to Europe have taken the MAX back in service, TUI, NEOS, ENTER AIR, Corendon, Icelandair, Smartwings, Turkish, FlyDubai.
I am really looking forward to my first MAX flight or as Ryanir calls it now.. the 737-8200
I am really looking forward to my first MAX flight or as Ryanir calls it now.. the 737-8200