Southwest Airlines Community

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.  ... View more

@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. ... View more

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.  ... View more

@TheMiddleSeat wrote: lol, "Thanks Southwest"?   You even say "according to new federal law two weeks ago, ages TWO and up must wear a mask" so why are you mad at Southwest?   Thank you Southwest for enforcing federal mandates and keeping passengers safe.   --TheMiddleSeat   Mandates are not law. Airlines are required to follow the Air Carrier Access Act. Forcing a two year old child to wear a face mask violates an ACTUAL law. Southwest and the flight attendants who bullied this man and his wife about the mask issue can be held accountable as they have broken the law. ... View more

    @jksobonya wrote: You must have missed the story about the family with a 2 year old that got kicked off a flight months ago (not Southwest) for this very thing.   I agree it’s ridiculous, though. 2 year olds should not be forced to wear a mask in my view, but the airlines hands are tied. They have to follow the rules until they are relaxed, which should hopefully be soon.   —Jessica It's not an actual "rule." though. An executive order is NOT law and never has been. "Just doing my job" didn't work for the SS soldiers during World War II, and it certainly won't work for the flight attendants once this "COVID" hysteria dies down.   Because forcing a 2 year old to wear a face mask isn't just illegal (violates the Air Carrier Access Act), but it's also a form of child abuse and the flight attendant who made this man and his wife deplane can be held accountable.  ... View more

That's not true. There may be an executive order "demanding" that all passengers wear masks, but executive orders are NOT the same thing as laws. Only legislative bodies like Congress can pass laws.    But even IF there was such a "law," it would violate the Air Carrier Access Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The actual law prohibits airlines from discriminating on the basis of either medical condition or religious beliefs. And people with both medical AND religious exemptions exist. ... View more

Executive orders aren't law. Here in America, only Congress can pass laws.  ... View more

@dfwskier wrote: I presume you are unaware of the fact that there is a federal law that requires everyone age 2 and higher to wear   masks.   Do you expect SW t violate federal law? Cite the statute. On-the-spur mandates aren't law. In fact, by forcing the original poster and his/her two-year-old child to wear a face mask, Southwest is violating the Air Carrier Access Act. ... View more

But Southwest isn't attempting to "slow the spread." Notice how they're filling up middle seats and not planning on increasing the size of their seats anytime soon. If they TRULY wanted to "slow the spread" (even by allopathic standards), they wouldn't be so inconsistent.  ... View more

And I like I said earlier, even IF they were quacks, it wouldn't render their citations irrelevant. ... View more

Even N95 masks do MUCH more harm than good, for many of the reasons outlined above. Regardless of the type of mask, the point here is that there is nothing in the scientific or medical literature necessitating their use. Just for kicks, feel free to explore some of the studies yourself:   1) https://www.realfoodhouston.com/wp-files/dr-arthur-firstenbergs-research-on-medical-face-masks/   2) https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/masks-dont-work-denis-rancourt-april-2020.pdf    I've seen ALL the "fact-checkers," OSU and UCSF articles which claim that two over two is five, etc. etc. The dishonesty or inaccuracy of these sources doesn't invalidate any of the above studies compiled on either of the two websites.     Yes, I get that flight attendants, gate agents, pilots, airport officers, and other taxpayer-funded employees (don't forget that airlines received a GIANT taxpayer bailout earlier this year) enjoy going on power trips because it makes them feel good about themselves. Yes, I concede that the FAA has given airlines a tremendous amount of power, especially in the post 9/11 era where we're witnessing a monopoly on domestic (and much of international) travel. Yes, I concede that even tarmac rule violations are rarely ever penalized by the FAA. The government is on your side.    However, even the most powerful individuals have to obey certain laws in a civilized society, and Southwest is violating the Air Carrier Access Act as well as the 1964 Civil Rights Act. ... View more

Even IF Dr. Firstenberg and Meehan were "quacks," it wouldn't make their citations of medical and scientific literature invalid.    Here's a list compiled by Denis Rancourt:   https://vaccinechoicecanada.com/wp-content/uploads/masks-dont-work-denis-rancourt-april-2020.pdf    Fact of the matter is that the pores in face masks are simply too large to make any difference, and the constant re-breathing of one's own breath may actually increase contamination. Not to mention, forcing someone who is unable to wear a mask violates the Air Carrier Access Act.  ... View more

Maybe the original poster shouldn't have sworn at the gate agent, but she was forcing him to reduce his oxygen saturation DESPITE knowing about his medical condition. Not sure if you've ever run a business before, but when profit margins are as razor thin as they are when one is running an airline, the customer gets the final say.    Ever heard the old expression, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you"? Well, in this particular case, the customer is the one providing the money. No need for the wheedling; you know very well that Southwest would have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy had it not been for federal TAXPAYER bailouts. ... View more

I'm well familiar with that particular UCSF article, but do know that is fraudulent science. They're telling you that two plus two equals five, even though it's four. ... View more

@BigKurt wrote: I keep reading that COVID transmission on board is "improbable," because of the air circulation/filters and the use of MASKS.  So why does Southwest allow/encourage taking off masks for that silly snack and water, and allow people to bring meals onboard.  If someone is sitting next to me eating/drinking without a mask, is virus transmission still "improbable?"   Today, the woman sitting on the aisle seat had her mask off most of the flight as she snacked, ate, drank, etc.     If the masks are to protect us (especially after 12/1 with every seat filled),  make people wear them!  If somebody can't endure a 1 hour flight without a snack, perhaps they shouldn't be flying. There is no scientific or medical evidence to support the usage of masks. Even if we assume that there is a highly pathogenic virus spreading around, if we think about it logically, we will come to realize how useless masks are.     1) How is that the virus infects you if you choose to take off your mask while taking a nap on-board, but doesn't infect you if you're sipping water? How is that the virus infects you if you enter a plane without a mask on, but doesn't infect you if you choose to take off your mask to munch on a snack?   2) How is that the virus infects you if you go to church, but not if you're cramped like a sardine with fellow passengers on a domestic airline?    3) Why do we socially distance at parks, Thanksgiving dinner, and summer barbecues, but not on airplanes? Is the virus truly that smart?    4) How is that sitting shoulder-to-shoulder on an airplane protects you from the virus, but shaking hands on a sidewalk doesn't protect you from this "pathogen"?    Viruses simply aren't that smart. And no, Southwest cannot legally force you to wear a mask as this is a direct violation of the Air Carrier Access Act. Yes, they're currently defrauding customers (kicking them off without a pro-rated refund) for being unable to wear masks, but we have the courts to make them pay up. And they aren't the only airline who are about to be in big trouble either.   Either way, there is no scientific evidence supporting the current policy. Airlines are doing this on their own merit. Even the FAA warned against this...but corporatists enjoy exploiting their customers.        ... View more

@SWFlyer007 wrote: @PetertheProphet eProphet    All the scientific and medical literature show that the wearing of masks increases the likelihood of infection, even in operating rooms.   ??????   ALL??  Well, I'd like for you to just post "several" links that defend this argument.  As for your all, I google this topic and see the 1st 2 threads already dispute this.   You won't find this through Google, but you may want to try Swiss Cows.    This article was written by a mainstream allopathic emergency room physician who believes that the virus exists and causes disease. Even he agrees that face masks are useless: https://www.meehanmd.com/blog/2020-10-10-an-evidence-based-scientific-analysis-of-why-masks-are-ineffective-unnecessary-and-harmful/    Here's a list compiled by Dr. Arthur Firstenberg:   https://www.realfoodhouston.com/wp-files/dr-arthur-firstenbergs-research-on-medical-face-masks/   Masks INCREASE the risk of infection, contrary to current opinion.  ... View more

@M3WAState wrote: I don't disagree that masks are important and I think you're missing my point. As I initially stated, we are compliant in our state. Quickly stopping at a grocery store for a couple of items with a masked child is do able. Masking the child when appropriate and required by our governor's guidelines, generally, isn't a problem. Traveling across the country on long flights is stressful for adult and children alike. The SW policy to kick parents and non-compliant two year olds off the plane is misguided and simply cruel. As parents, we are trying to do the right thing for our children while adhering to flight rules. A little more understanding of that by the airline and its passengers could go a long way.  Cloth and surgical masks do NOT filter out viral particles. Please see my other posts in this discussion. The pores in these masks are simply too large to be able to properly filter out viral particles.    If you're a parent, then PLEASE do not make your child wear a mask, not even "during a quick trip to the grocery store." You do care about their physical and mental development, don't you? Well, we all know that reduced oxygen saturation isn't good for anyone, but this is especially true for the young.    Southwest is actually violating the Air Carrier Access Act by forcing customers to wear masks. All the scientific and medical literature show that wearing masks INCREASES the likelihood of infection. This is even true in the context of hospital operating rooms.    I mean, you're free to wear a mask, but if you care about the health of your children, you would discourage them from doing so.  ... View more

@dfwskier wrote: @M3WAState wrote:   Traveling across the country on long flights is stressful for adult and children alike. The SW policy to kick parents and non-compliant two year olds off the plane is misguided and simply cruel. As parents, we are trying to do the right thing for our children while adhering to flight rules. A little more understanding of that by the airline and its passengers could go a long way.   I view it a bit differently. Parents that can;t get their kids to wear masks are taking the risk of exposing their kids to the virus or having their kids infect others.. Southwest isn't being cruel to anyone. Southwest is simply enforcing a policy that every boarding adult passenger has agreed to abide by.   If I had a kid that would not wear a mask, I would not put the kid on a plane -- but  that's just me. Actually, SW is in fact violating the Air Carrier Access Act by forcing customers and the children of customers to wear masks.    Even IF we assume that there was a pathogenic virus going around (which there's not, see other post for proof), it still wouldn't necessitate the use of masks. Even mainstream allopathic physicians who believe in the existence and pathogenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 virus agree that face masks are useless:    https://www.meehanmd.com/blog/2020-10-10-an-evidence-based-scientific-analysis-of-why-masks-are-ineffective-unnecessary-and-harmful/   Worth the read. Reduced oxygen saturation isn't good for anyone, but this is especially true of the elderly and the young. If you think about it in functional terms, cloth and surgical  masks cannot filter out viral particles because the pores in these masks are simply too big.    So no, there is nothing in the scientific or medical literature supporting the use of face masks. If Southwest doesn't want to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (bailouts don't last forever), they should reconsider their illegal mask mandate. ... View more

@CareforNOLA wrote: @M3WAState, thank you for doing your best as a parent-passenger and articulating the question well.  As a person who worked Pediatrics in medicine, I agree that it can be challenging to fly with little ones right now.  It is always challenging, but the masks add a new level of anxiety, especially with connecting flights.  Getting stuck outside the departure or arrival location would be terrifying.     The airline has to balance having the same rules for all versus giving employees the ability to innovate in serving individual customers which has been a historic precedent for the airline.  I am a customer who once received that innovative service attitude when I left my wallet on a flight, and a flight attendant ran down the concourse to return it.  So I remain a devoted Southwest customer and fan.  I always liked that, as long as safety wasn’t compromised, employees had leeway to do something different.     In this unusual time of empty middle seats, when a screaming toddler is melting down, perhaps a flight attendant might ask if any row would be willing to sit shoulder to shoulder (that is, allow a masked passenger in their middle seat) to offer those seated nearby the crying child a chance to move.  Although it might be a potential solution, I am not an airline ventilation expert.  I have also seen so many self-centered passengers that I can envision a parent who might whip their toddler into a frenzy to try to get the extra space if that were an official policy.  (One only has to look at pre-boarding and service animals to see the lengths that some passengers will use to meet their personal desires versus the greater good of the group.)   Perhaps a return to the smoking versus no-smoking type of seating where two to three rows in the back are designated for families with small children who might get upset about wearing a mask? Giving families an option to be near others who share their same concerns about toddlers and their very natural tendency to get upset about strange situations.     I would expect that Southwest is trying to do whatever it can to fly as full as they can, and I expect that they will always choose safety whenever competing interests occur.  Perhaps someone could design a windowed cloth hood for infants-toddlers versus a mask, and there could be one or two available on each flight.  But then, would it have to be purchased by the parent versus just provided by the airline?  Logistical challenges abound.  (Admittedly, I would gladly have purchased one for a struggling parent in order to calm certain tough situations on flights years ago before the mask requirement.)    Hopefully your request can be considered and the community can contribute any other creative ideas for the airline’s consideration.  Nothing is for certain, but crowd-sourcing and creative ideas could lead to fresh perspectives. You're missing the fact that forcing someone who is unable to wear a mask is a violation of the Air Carrier Access Act. So what Southwest is currently doing is illegal, and frustrated customers have already filed lawsuits. And no, they weren't thrown out, which goes to show that their complaints aren't exactly "frivolous."   If you truly worked in pediatric medicine, you would understand that reduced oxygen saturation is NOT good for anyone, especially children. To force a child to wear a mask is a form of abuse and can result in hypoxic injuries, increased cortisol levels, and numerous other health problems induced by oxygen deprivation and the psychological stress of wearing a mask.    If the airlines want to continue remaining in business, then they should start respecting their customers, because money doesn't grow on trees, and Congress will eventually grow tired of bailing out the airlines, especially if they're abusing customers. ... View more

@dfwskier wrote: I do understand your pain, but wearing masks has been proven that masks do prevent spread.   Besides, the president elect has just asked all people to wear masks the moment they leave their houses.   I'm afraid that   the trend is more mask wearing and not less. Nothing you stated is supported by any of the scientific or medical literature. Masks cannot prevent the spread of viruses because the pores in face masks are larger than the size of viral particles. Masks don't even protect you from wildfire smoke particulates (admitted by the CDC, btw) which are in fact larger than the size of viral particles. ... View more

  You said: "Let me express that I'm all for giving some allowances to those of a younger age, not to go without a mask, maybe an allowance of letting them take them off for a bit of time and put them back on..........But possibly have them at least have a shield on.  With that said, I've looked for data and research to your argument and even talked to my group of friends I recreate with that are predominately in the medical field.  I will quote the one that works with infectious diseases, "A virus doesn't know the age of the carrier, it's only goal is survival.  Therefore a virus is an equal opportunity infection, it's won't discriminate from going from a child to an adult, child to child, or adult to child." Well, buddy, your friends are either misinformed or they're being dishonest. Let me break it down for you: viruses are simply excretions of a toxic cell. They are NEVER the cause of anything. They cannot be properly distinguished from exosomes. This was even stated in journal Viruses 2020 May; 12(5). 571. The paper was written by Gianessi, F et al and is titled: “The Role of Extracellular Vesicles as Allies of HIV, HCV and SARS Viruses.”   There is no SARS-CoV-2 virus as it has never been isolated nor purified using the proper methodology. The CDC themselves have admitted this. What is being called SARS-CoV-2 is simply a computer generated RNA sequence.    And no, I'm not making anything up. Check out the following document: https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download    Scroll down to Page 39. It says and I quote: " Since no quantified virus isolates of the 2019-nCoV are currently available, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with characterized stocks of in vitro transcribed full length RNA (N gene;GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to mimic clinical specimen." Do keep in mind that this document is from July.    Here's another one: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/6/20-0516_article   Scroll down to where it says "Whole Genome Sequencing." It says and I quote: "We designed 37 pairs of nested PCRs spanning the genome on the basis of the coronavirus reference sequence (GenBank accession no. NC045512). We extracted nucleic acid from isolates and amplified by using the 37 individual nested PCRs."   So again...the SARS-CoV-2 virus is simply a computer-generated RNA sequence. There is no proof that it exists since all the current testing methods are surrogate tests. In situations where you're trying to establish causation, you need a GOLD STANDARD test...which has never been done for COVID-19.    Even IF we assume that there is a "highly pathogenic" virus going around, it still wouldn't necessitate the use of masks for the simple fact being that the pores in cloth and surgical masks are larger than the size of viral particles. Basic physics.      ... View more

In other words, you're attempting to win over customers by virtue-signalling and expressing your support for a terroristic, tax-milking institution like the U.S. military. I just love when people who don't pay taxes feign support for their country by praising an institution which the Founders never wanted. (And yes, neither James Madison nor Thomas Jefferson supported keeping a standing army because that was the first step to tyranny. We have the 2nd amendment for a reason).    Secondly, why aren't any of the individuals in the above cover photo practicing social distancing? Aren't those airport rules, after all? In fact, it looks as if Mrs. Way is almost touching shoulders with the male employee next to her, which is not only contrary to the suggested social distancing guidelines, but also odd for a married woman.    Regardless, if y'all are going to tell us to socially distance and "do our part," your model customers/employees should also do the same.      ... View more

There is no evidence to support mask mandates. Not only are they unlawful, but they do more harm than good.    Airlines have been stripping away our rights since 9/11, and it's extremely unfortunate. It's too bad Congress bailed these goons out, because they were almost about to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy thanks to people not traveling back in March, April, and May.    It's time for customers to stand up. Most people don't take kindly to a McDonald's employee messing up their order, so why do we allow these airline employees to bully, intimidate, and harass us?    The good news is that lawsuits have been filed, and these goons will pay for their crimes. Violating the Air Carrier Access Act is never a good idea. Who knows? Maybe the FAA will even be disbanded for allowing employees to defraud customers. Theft is theft, and kicking this family out WITHOUT the pro-rated refund is a crime. Just because it's handled as a civil matter doesn't make it okay or legal. ... View more

So no, Southwest's actions were not "clearly" legal because if they were, the lawsuit against the airline would have been thrown out...which it wasn't.    Sorry to break it to you, but the customer is ALWAYS right. Anyone who has owned a business knows this. Had it not been for Congress bailing out Southwest, they would have filed for bankruptcy.    As a former restaurant owner, I understand the value that customers provide. Much like how I cannot legally deny service to someone unable to wear a mask, airlines cannot do so either. We live in a country with laws. Private property rights are NOT unlimited.  ... View more

The other posters are incorrect. While true that the ADA doesn't apply to airlines (the Air Carrier Access Act does), the Air Carrier Access Act does NOT allow an airline to force the 3 year old autistic child of a PAYING customer to wear a mask.    There is no evidence that going without a mask increases the likelihood of infection. So contrary to what "Texbabygirl" and "Chgoflyer" said (never trust people who hide behind pseudonyms), Southwest was in the wrong.   The bright side is that a few judges seem to agree, because the lawsuit was NOT tossed out. ... View more

You said: "Most people on this forum are pretty good at posing rational arguments and solutions as opposed to calling people names."   If what you say is true, then why are you being so rude and dishonest to the original poster? The Air Carrier Access Act does in fact apply to this situation since the disability of the toddler (i.e. being unable to wear a mask) does NOT threaten the safety of other passengers.    Even assuming that there's a pandemic, there is nothing in the scientific or medical literature supporting the use of masks. In fact, studies have shown that infection rates INCREASE when people wear masks. This is even true in the context of operating rooms. ... View more

  Chgoflyer, I have caught you lying before, so doing so again is pathetic because I already have screenshots of you telling off "Aclark" for wearing a mask back in late February.    The following thread is here: https://community.southwest.com/t5/Check-In-Boarding/Southwest-violating-my-rights/td-p/102213   Odd how you have done a 180 degree turn in your stance on masks. Now, you are wrongfully claiming that the Air Carrier Access Act allows Southwest to kick off a PAYING family simply because their 3 year old disabled child is unable to wear a mask.   I'm not sure which law school you went to, but you may want to sue them and ask for your money back, because it's clear that you didn't get your money's worth. Unlike you, I'm actually well-versed in the Air Carrier Access Act, and I can tell you that Southwest is in the wrong here since NOTHING the family did threatened the safety of other passengers in any manner   If you had actually taken a look at the scientific and medical literature -- which you clearly haven't done so -- you would realize that masks actually INCREASE the likelihood of infection. Just for starters, look at the list compiled by Arthur Firstenberg, Denis Rancourt, and Dr. Thomas Cowan.    Rather than being rude to the original poster, please reconsider your comments because nothing you state is supported by either the law or the scientific/medical literature.    Think about it...if Southwest was truly in the right, then the judge would have tossed out the family's lawsuit...which he never did. ... View more

Sorry, buddy, but you may want to re-read the Air Carrier Access Act. If someone is unable to wear a mask, then they cannot LEGALLY be made to do so. You do know that lawsuits have already been filed against Southwest as a result of this incident?    If what you said was true, then the lawsuits would have been thrown out...which they never were. ... View more

Wrong answer. Southwest cannot legally force someone who is unable to wear a mask to do so. Contrary to what the other poster said, the Air Carrier Access Act does NOT allow for what the Southwest Airlines employees did since a 3 year old child not wearing a mask would not have any impact on the safety of other passengers.   In fact, by wearing a mask, studies have shown that the chances of infection occurring would have INCREASED. All the scientific and medical literature show that the wearing of masks increases the likelihood of infection, even in operating rooms.    So sorry to say, but you are wrong. Nothing the family did threatened the safety of other passengers. The lawsuit has already been filed. To deny that the Air Carrier Access Act "does not" apply to those with disabilities is asinine at this point. ... View more