British Airways reinstates face masks – and won’t say why

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.

• Novice says:

  17 Mar17 March 09:39

  Face masks should still be worn everywhere where there’s strangers and crowds. The virus is still going strong and people are still dying. The only difference now is that nobody is reporting it anymore and people have become desensitised. I don’t see the problem with face masks. Or if they want people to not wear masks then they should make sure everyone is vaccinated or tested. And not accept doctors notes saying someone has recovered from Covid.

  I think the best thing they can do is, tell everyone to wear masks when boarding and disembarking because that’s when everyone gets into each others space. And, once seated it’s upto a passenger whether they want to wear one or not.

  I wouldn’t take it off in a budget airline because there is hardly any room between people but I would probably take it off in business or first in a proper airline due to the social distancing.

  • JerrySignfield says:

    17 Mar17 March 09:41

    Another one…

  • Ross Parker says:

    17 Mar17 March 09:51

    Honestly, this is an utterly misinformed comment. Just to take one point – you think that a vaccination certificate or negative test is preferable to recent COVID recovery. Why? A recent COVID recovery offers protection at least as good as that offered by a full vaccination schedule, and if somebody can evidence such a recovery, what’s the problem?

  • J says:

    17 Mar17 March 10:04

    Why would you want vaccinated or tested when the triple jabbed are currently 3 times more likely to be infected than the unvaccinated? Surely unvaccinated or tested makes more sense!

  • Spurs drive me mad says:

    17 Mar17 March 10:07

    Your last paragraph is hilarious.
    The rest 🙄

    • Novice says:

      17 Mar17 March 10:18

      No it’s logic. In business and first, a person has more space so less chance of someone affecting you.

      In economy, especially on airlines like Jet2 etc there’s no proper space.

      And, I don’t care what you think of my opinion I’m giving my pov as an OCD passenger.

      • jjoohhnn says:

        17 Mar17 March 10:24

        Apart from the forced air system just pumping what everyone breathes all round the cabin!

      • Rui N. says:

        17 Mar17 March 10:32

        You know that in economy the space is pretty much the same for all companies, right?

        • Novice says:

          17 Mar17 March 10:55

          I did say etc and I am a northerner so usually it’s Jet2 if you want direct flights to Europe.

          Yes, I know economy is same everywhere. If you could read and interpret properly you would realise that I said I would only take masks off in business or first.

          Anyway, it was just my opinion but like the world nowadays it seems ppl can’t take differences of opinions anymore.

        • Rui N. says:

          17 Mar17 March 11:01

          “I said I would only take masks off in business or first.” you did say that, but you also specifically mentioned budget airlines and Jet2 like their seating is any way different of seating of all airlines in economy.

  • Brian says:

    17 Mar17 March 11:13

    Stay at home, young Novice. It’s the only solution.

  • Novice says:

    17 Mar17 March 11:21

    I see people can’t give their own opinions without disparaging others.

    I do what I want to do in my life. I don’t need your pathetic assumptions.

    And, @Rui I said that because I only use direct airlines since covid if flying economy and where I am from, that usually means Jet2. I haven’t had the chance to go longhaul or on any other airline at the moment because my travels have just been to islands or cities of Europe.

    And, when I fly over 4 hrs I always fly business or first by rule even pre- covid.

  • illuminatus says:

    17 Mar17 March 11:28

    I expect you also wear a Faraday Cage when outdoors, just in case you get struck by lightning. – You won the thread if not the Internet today, thank you.

• DavidB says:

  17 Mar17 March 10:24

  Could be the explosion of new cases sweeping Europe? If you’re in a “spacious” F or J pod there’s more distance among passengers but in the back cabins you’re up next to too many people. Either require preflight testing AND proof of 3-shot vaccination or keep the masks. I plan to keep wearing one when flying in those economy cabins (and front “cabin” on narrow bodies).

• Spurs drive me mad says:

  17 Mar17 March 10:30

  That’s what makes their post so funny.

• The Hunter says:

  17 Mar17 March 10:46

  I was on a BA flight from Nice to Heathrow yesterday and masks were definitely not required. None of the crew wore one, and the majority of passengers didn’t either.

  • Andrew J says:

    17 Mar17 March 10:56

    Great. Let’s hope that’s the working practice of this policy and we can travel in comfort without needing to wear a mask.

• StanTheMan says:

  17 Mar17 March 11:07

  Silly question – If masks are effective, cant people who want to wear one, just wear one and protect themselves ??? Regardless of what others choose to do.

  If a person chooses not to wear one, then surely they can only infect another person who also chooses not to wear one. While someone who chooses to wear a mask is still safely protected.

  Make your own choice, knowing the consequences…….

  • Ben says:

    17 Mar17 March 11:15

    They need to be n95 or kn95 masks to be effective at protecting you. The surgical and cloth masks only stop you from spreading it.

    • Novice says:

      17 Mar17 March 11:23

      Well, anyone with half a brain has always been using N95.

      • J says:

        17 Mar17 March 11:39

        And those with a full brain haven’t.

    • GM says:

      17 Mar17 March 11:25

      And obviously cumulative effect – everyone wearing means less virus in the air so everyone gets more protection from whatever mask. I’ll be in FFP2/3 (N95 or N99) but it will have to do a lot of heavy lifting vs getting to wear a KN95 and be much safer in general with universal masking. And I don’t get people comparing it to shops? It’s an enclosed space, packed tight, for hours. Plus just because the English government wants to pretend it’s all over and that everyone should work work work and spend spend spend doesn’t mean that it’s not still a risk and that companies can’t aim to keep passengers and employees safe.

      • StanTheMan says:

        17 Mar17 March 11:54

        OK, but if personal choice means anything, wearing a N95 or N99 seems to be a fair compromise for those that want to, while others choose not to?

        As an aside, i dont think a government wanting people to work and spend is mutually exclusive to keeping people safe….

      • shd says:

        17 Mar17 March 12:03

        > keep passengers and employees safe

        Covid is now less dangerous than seasonal flu, according to analysis published in last week’s FT. Grown-ups shouldn’t need companies (or any governments!) to “keep them safe” from it. Paranoid types are of course entitled to wear three masks at once – or indeed simply stay at home – but *please* just leave the rest of us alone. We played along with the nonsense for long enough as it is…

      • Guy Incognito says:

        17 Mar17 March 13:15

        You do you.

        I’ll be travelling the same way I always have done. No mask. No sanitiser.

        I’ve not had Covid despite working every day, travelling extensively etc.

        The utter paranoia which is totally out of proportion to the actual risk is astonishing. Unless you’re a very specific demographic you’re at more risk getting to the airport (or going down the stairs in your house).

• Dylan says:

  17 Mar17 March 11:14

  I work for one of the British airlines that have officially abandoned masks. On a flight yesterday with 180 pax, a grand total of 5 pax chose to wear them. It seems that most of the British public are quite happy to take their chances with mask freedom…

  • His Holyness says:

    17 Mar17 March 11:57

    175 assassins!

• MaríaJ says:

  17 Mar17 March 11:39

  I got bumped from my seat once again travelling on a 2-4-1. Does anyone know why this happens? I chose the seat when I booked 7 months ago. When I realised the BA staff on the ground told me that my original seat was not available due to the entertainment unit not working, but this was a lie as someone else had that seat. Very annoyingly they put me next to the toilets and kitchen.

  • NorthernLass says:

    17 Mar17 March 13:01

    It might be more helpful to put this in the forum section, but if you paid for the seat you should at least get a refund. It sounds like they wanted it for a status passenger if there was nothing wrong with the entertainment system – you could document all that and submit a complaint.

    • MaríaJ says:

      17 Mar17 March 13:52

      Thank you I will do. They treated me like dirt!

  • CatchFlightsNotFeelings says:

    17 Mar17 March 14:48

    Same happened to us, spent over £100 each on club word seat reservations for our wedding/honeymoon, and they bumped us a few days before flight so a family of 4 could sit together in a row(why couldnt they do 2 and 2?!) and separated us on other sides of the cabin. Bad end to a brilliant two weeks!

    • MaríaJ says:

      17 Mar17 March 16:18

      I think it has happened to me every time I have used a 2-4-1 either in the outbound or the inbound but the purser was always nice dealing about it ( not today though).
      Very frustrating! Specially when they lie about it. It makes you feel ike the don’t value as a customer.

      • kitten says:

        17 Mar17 March 19:26

        2-4-1’s being targeted then?

        • MaríaJ says:

          17 Mar17 March 20:41

          I think it is. My husband has never been bumped, it’s always me.

        • MaríaJ says:

          17 Mar17 March 20:46

          I will post on the blog tomorrow and see if more people reply

• JP-MCO says:

  17 Mar17 March 11:45

  I have long believed that the whole narrative about wearing a mask to protect others was devised as a way of increasing compliance. If the UK hadn’t mandated mask wearing in shops there would have been a great number of people who would have chosen to not wear one and take their chances with an illness which, according to the CMO, was mild for most people. However, if you make it so that the reason is to protect others then those who don’t wear one automatically become ‘selfish’ – you create a sense of obligation in society which results in better compliance. The Government doesn’t have to do as much policing the public do it for them. The narrative was designed to alter behaviour in the same way that SPI-B used fear to control behaviour and increase compliance with social distancing.

  I’m vaccinated, boosted, have had COVID (and only found out because of a test) and I didn’t have the brass neck to exempt myself when mask wearing was mandated. But as soon as it wasn’t I took my mask off and have never put one on again. People need to be allowed to make their own choices and we need to shed the rhetoric and frankly silly narrative that anybody who doesn’t wear one is selfish. It is nonsense.

  • Charlotte says:

    17 Mar17 March 12:24

    Maybe there is an element of the government wanting to drive compliance, and it’s easy to be emotion-led when it comes to wearing masks and other restrictions. But don’t forget that there is clear data from numerous studies on the reduction in infections when wearing masks. CMO guidance last autumn was to continue wearing masks in crowded public places. Boris has eased restrictions to appease his waning electorate, and not because he’s following best practice or looking at the data.

    • JP-MCO says:

      17 Mar17 March 14:47

      I’ve yet to come across a peer reviewed clinical study where the effectiveness of face coverings wasn’t tainted by other NPIs such as distancing. The overall effectiveness of face coverings on their own can never seem to be extrapolated from the data and conclusions are drawn in the wider context of other mitigations. I don’t doubt that physical distancing is very effective but I have my doubts that a face covering prevents transmission in any meaningful way and I’ve seen no data that proves their effectiveness when not taken in the context of other mitigation strategies, no studies that do this exist. It’s interesting that when the decision to mandate masks within the UK was made it was on the basis that ‘we don’t know but we might as well try’.

      The wider point is that we have effective vaccines, we have effective treatments and we have a massive amount of natural and vaccine conferred immunity within the population. Short of a sterilizing vaccine there isn’t going be a better time to remove NPIs so we might as well do it now. I appreciate the Government has spent the past 2 years putting the fear of god in people to make them comply but at some point we need to get on with life and if not now, when? I don’t propose to wear a mask for the rest of my life. I would much rather put my faith in vaccines and treatments than a piece of cloth and that’s not selfish and it should never have been framed that way in the first place. We need to move away from believing that ridiculous narrative.

      • Lady London says:

        17 Mar17 March 19:33

        So what’s the difference in how much you might spread if you sneeze? With a mask on, as compared to without a mask.

        Is speaking any different?
        Is breathing any different?

        Btw I do agree that now is the time for anyone who is worried or vulnerable to protect themselves and everyone else to have their freedom, but in all of the examplea above, a mask (even a poor one) does reduce your potential impact on others.

        • JP-MCO says:

          18 Mar18 March 08:00

          With the greatest of respect you make the statement quite definitively that “a mask (even a poor one) does reduce your potential impact on others” but you cite no peer reviewed study that proves this in the absence of other NPIs. It’s almost like you believe it to be proven beyond such a point that providing evidence is simply unnecessary and yet if you look into it more closely – it’s hasn’t. And that’s kind of my point. We’re all working on the assumption that face coverings work because the studies that calculated their effectiveness were all carried out at a time when we were also social distancing. But these studies are used to uphold the dogma (which is what it is) that face coverings are effective in preventing transmission but the reality is that the data is scant at best and completely tainted. In any other scientific analysis it would be completely discredited. But worse still we’ve created a whole narrative around it that says you’re selfish if you don’t wear one!

  • martin says:

    17 Mar17 March 15:24

    You won’t be visiting any relative in hospital without wearing one..
    Still take them same stance..

    • JP-MCO says:

      17 Mar17 March 15:46

      There’s no comparison to be drawn between clinical settings and an aircraft/shop.

      • Ian says:

        17 Mar17 March 18:34

        Why?

        • JP-MCO says:

          17 Mar17 March 19:30

          If you can’t figure that out I’m not going to explain it to you.

This article is closed to new comments. Feel free to ask your question in the HfP forums.