Forced off the plane

[dfwskier]

---

@Frequentflyer89 wrote:

False. They literally told us today it was implemented two weeks 

---

ahh, not false

the date of he article in JULY 27,2020

 https://www.10news.com/news/coronavirus/southwest-airlines-tightens-face-mask-requirement

[swa-suck-it]

When you check in???  How is that helpful???  Should they have quickly sedated their child? 

[PetertheProphet]

Taking Southwest to court might be too expensive, but you might be able to file a civil suit against the flight attendant(s) who were present on that flight. By forcing you to mask your two-year-old, they broke the Air Carrier Access Act AND participated in a form of child abuse. 

I suggest calling corporate and getting the names of the flight attendants. "Just doing my job" isn't a valid excuse; the SS soldiers tried that, and look how it worked out for them.

In any case, I wish you the best of luck. Do not let Southwest bully you around like this. Remember that the customer is ALWAYS right as you are the one paying them money (feeding them), not the other way around. 

[TheMiddleSeat]

Ugh, @PetertheProphet, 6 posts spewing an argument about semantics (law vs executive order vs whatever you want to call it) is more than anyone needs. Fact is all passengers 2 years of age and older are required to wear a mask. Until you take the issue to court and get it overturned it doesn't matter what it's called and all airlines will have the requirement in the place.

Edit: I shouldn't have said "until you take the issue to court" since even that would fail.

--TheMiddleSeat

[PetertheProphet]

---

@TheMiddleSeat wrote:

Ugh, @PetertheProphet, 6 posts spewing an argument about semantics (law vs executive order vs whatever you want to call it) is more than anyone needs. Fact is all passengers 2 years of age and older are required to wear a mask. Until you take the issue to court and get it overturned it doesn't matter what it's called and all airlines will have the requirement in the place.

Edit: I shouldn't have said "until you take the issue to court" since even that would fail.

--TheMiddleSeat

---

I re-emphasized that the so-called "mandate" wasn't actually law to highlight the FACT that "passengers 2 years of age and older" are not required to wear face masks. Even IF there was such a law, it would be in direct violation of the Air Carrier Access Act. So even assuming or pretending as if such a law exists is fallacious.

[TheMiddleSeat]

Again, it's clear @PetertheProphet you do not know what you are saying.

As a result of the executive order directing various agencies to act, the TSA wrote a security directive, linked here if you decide to start reading facts.  While TSA may not write laws as you seem to be so hung up on, they do have the power to dictate who can and cannot fly.  That power has been granted to them.  Furthermore, the directive has two exemptions, children under 2 and "People with disabilities who cannot wear a mask, or cannot safely wear a mask, because of the disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.)".

The DOT Office of Aviation Consumer Protection then issued a “Notice of Enforcement Policy” to help airlines with the conflict between the ADA and the security directive.  That guidance includes this direction, "Part 382 allows an airline to refuse to provide air transportation to an individual whom the airline determines presents a disability-related safety risk, provided that the airline can demonstrate that the individual would pose a ‘direct threat’ to the health or safety of others onboard the aircraft, and that a less restrictive option is not feasible.”

In quick summary, airlines can therefore say that passengers not wearing a mask due to a disability present a safety risk to others on-board and can be denied boarding.  Airlines can, and are encouraged to also establish testing requirements, require evaluations from airline medical staff, and/or designate planes/sections of planes as non-safe zones if doing so means the passenger who claims to be unable to wear a mask would not have any potential impact on other passengers. 

Airlines were given 45 days after the directive takes affect to work out details before DOT will step in to provide any necessary corrections.

In addition to the TSA directive and DOT policy linked above, I will offer this additional citation for the above summary I have provided.

Please, @PetertheProphet do some reading before you start erroneously spewing misinformation.

--TheMiddleSeat

[PetertheProphet]

You said: "As a result of the executive order directing various agencies to act, the TSA wrote a security directive, linked here if you decide to start reading facts. "

No need for the unnecessary snark. Everything I have stated so far in my posts is 100% factual. 

You also said: " While TSA may not write laws as you seem to be so hung up on, they do have the power to dictate who can and cannot fly. "

What does that have to do with the situation the original poster described? TSA agents weren't the ones who forced his 2 year old child to wear a face mask; the flight attendants did that. In fact, the post itself implies that they didn't have any problems with TSA while going through security. 

You then said: "In quick summary, airlines can therefore say that passengers not wearing a mask due to a disability present a safety risk to others on-board and can be denied boarding."

If not wearing a face mask "presented a safety risk to others," then yes, your statement would be correct. However, that isn't what the scientific and medical literature show. The usage of face masks actually INCREASES the risk of infection for all passengers on-board. 

Bottom line is that Southwest Airlines is breaking the law, and so are their flight attendants. By choosing to kick off this young man, his wife, and their two-year-old child simply because of the face mask issue, the flight attendants committed a crime. They willfully attempted to coerce this young man and his wife to restrict their child's breathing (via face mask). And just for that alone, he can not only file a CIVIL suit against them, but also a criminal one as well. 

---

[swa-suck-it]

Ugh Middle seat - it's not your place to comment about what's too much for everyone else.  Maybe you're too much.  And you should sit in the last row next to the window.

[dfwskier]

---

@swa-suck-it wrote:

Ugh Middle seat - it's not your place to comment about what's too much for everyone else.  Maybe you're too much.  And you should sit in the last row next to the window.

---

Oh, I’ve done worse than that: a middle seat in the last row.

[swa-suck-it]

Last row window seat would mean that you would have the opportunity to torture the fewest number of people on