Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

You heard it here first ...

You heard it here first ...

You heard it here first ...

I think masks are going to be required in the future on intercontinental fights.

Just as 911 brought security issues to the forefront, I think COVID has brought public health issues to the same focus.

Wearing a mask is a minor inconvenience for travelers (like airport security), particularly when compared to the major disruption that a pandemic causes.

Further, the general public is somewhat atuned (placated?) to wearing masks so the requirement won't seem So outlandish.

This may not apply to business jets (since does the 1% get the same treatment as the 99% ?). But the logic could be that the more limited number of passengers can be traced.

Thoughts ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: You heard it here first ...

The US public has been itching to ditch masks even on what they half heard about continuing to wear them if unvaccinated.

International flights are a different matter with countries continuing mask and being symptom free before boarding.

What I would love to see is people in the West wearing masks when they have a cold or the flu and no one taking any particular notice of it - a found responsibility of the individual to the community. I just don't see that happening in the US.

RE: You heard it here first ...

I was going to ask why anyone is still discussing masks a year+ later, then I noticed the OP is Canadian.

Good luck w/that thought. Flights arent currently requiring it until landing overseas, so I doubt it will happen.

RE: You heard it here first ...

My suggestion is that in the future, after the pandemic, we will have to address the 800lb elephant in the room. How do we respond, long term, to this ? I think the pandemic has woken us up to the possibilities/consequences in the same way as 911 (woke us up to the security issues).

1) do we do nothing and wait for the next pandemic. Remote communities are now (and have been for decades) only hours away from all the major population centers of the world.

2) do we impose strict quarantine on all intercontinental travellers ? 2 weeks ?? that sounds a very heavy burden, and would possibly send intercontinental passenger travel to ships (and why not ?) But it would have a very significant impact on aircraft manufacturing industry.

3) Masks seem like a tolerable measure, that may have little actual impact, but surely can't hurt. I see it as similar to the security search procedures ... any (potential) passenger may decline search, in which case the airline will decline travel.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: You heard it here first ...

In the US, those remote communities are $10k to $500k for out-of-network access to medical care for severe diseases. They are an hour away from care they cannot afford.

Masks are a few percent effective at blocking the inhalation of most viruses. They are 70-80% effective at blocking the effective spread from infected people. To see the effect, put on a mask and try to blow out a birthday candle and then picture that without the mask, a few minutes of being spread in a diffuse matter vs the 60 to 100 mph expulsion in a cough or sneeze reduces the decay time to fractions of a second.

The N95 masks can increase the effectiveness for inhalation reduction and significantly reduce exhaled particles to decrease the rate even further.

It's been reported both in the USA and several other countries that cases of influenza have dropped to near zero and there is no motive for every country to lie about that. I would wonder about the sales of cough syrup and other cold remedies this past year.

The initial problem dealt with by masks was the overload of hospitals which masks would have helped, and to lower the number ever infected ahead of the vaccine development. The US opted to go the other way.

The use of quarantines has been demonstrated to work. New Zealand stopped many incoming travelers and quarantined those they did let in and have had zero cases for most of the past year. It could be a boon to the hotel industry. Going by ship is demonstrably worse, as seen when Norovirus comes sweeping through, but also the ships that were refused docking privileges leading to nearly total infection.

What I envision is a demand system for annual vaccination variants to offset Covid variants, but a lot of Americans would rather make a political statement and not wear masks and not get vaccinated, so it's unclear how that would function.

I hope that in the future there is a more ready acceptance of travel restrictions and quarantines. For a look at the opposite - the handling of the outbreak at the Atlanta airport where, knowing there were ill people on board, no one on the ground was prepared to isolate or stop them and the passengers continued from their international flight to other airports across the USA.

RE: You heard it here first ...

ships/voyages are bad in that the AC system spreads pathogens very quickly and quite thoroughly.
Voyages are good in that they allow diseases to develop, as they did before intercontinental air travel, and quarantine procedures are well understood.

Australia also protected itself, on the whole, with an effective quarantine.

Hotel stays for air travelers would be damn near impossible. One large jet = a pretty good sized hotel. and hotels suffer the same communication problems as ships, but their staff is uncontrolled. Australia (AFAIK) sent visitors to quarantine stations for 2 weeks.

Yes the US is a "special" (short bus ??) case. "I have the right not to wear a mask", "Certainly sir, but then you won't travel on our plane", "That's discrimination", "No, it isn't", "Yes it is", etc. It'll be as interesting when someone decides to wear a mask after COVID ... "I have the right to wear a mask", "Yes sir, and I have the obligation to stop and detain you".

with "remote communities" I was thinking more of rare infectious diseases coming from remote Africa, Asia to densely populated NA, European cities.

I think we're being overconfident in our vaccines. There'll always be a variant that the vaccines don't protect against. The best way IMHO to keep ahead of this menace is to change behaviour (like 911 changed our behaviour to security).

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: You heard it here first ...

Australia has had good and bad experiences with quarantine. Existing hotels are not good places to keep infected people, their a/c systems are interconnected, and the hallways become reservoirs of virusses. Also the rooms are not designed to be properly cleaned. We have got some purpose built quarantine facilities where Indian arrivals (in particular) are being sent. these seem to work fine.

Vacuum cleaners are a good example of the sort of thing that should be a no brainer, but of course are great for spreading virii around.


Greg Locock

New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

RE: You heard it here first ...

I'm also Canadian.

I would expect that masks will be required for international travel for a long time into the future with the possible exception to and from the USA "because".

I am hoping that Canada signs onto the EU digital covid certificate system: co-operate with the issuing and validation of vaccine and testing certificates for its own residents on the one hand, and waive testing and quarantine requirements for incoming travellers (of any citizenship) bearing a valid certificate on the other hand. It appears that most (but definitely not all) Canadians are supportive of something like this.

No idea how the US-Canada border is going to be dealt with, but it will have to be dealt with somehow at some point.

RE: You heard it here first ...

Now I'm thinking that masks in-flight are not enough. They offer some level of protection in-flight but what are we to do about infectious people spreading disease after they land ? I'm sure very few would support continued "contact tracking". Perhaps "all" we can do is control access to certain "worrisome" parts of the world (like deepest darkest Africa, etc) where maybe travel is discretionary (tourism) so adding a quarantine period after travel isn't completely unacceptable (as it would be adding to business travel between (say) London and New York).

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: You heard it here first ...

^ Hence, the EU's digital covid certificate scheme ... Not getting onto the plane (which is landing in another country) without that, and wearing masks addresses the residual risk of those who are on the certificate based upon testing (which isn't perfect).

Some parts of the world are likely to require covid clearance in order to get on any airplane, regardless of whether it's an international or short flight.

RE: You heard it here first ...

Nobody is ever going to wear a mask for a full 10+ hour flight in economy class, regardless of the science. It's impractical and unenforceable, especially considering in-flight meals and restroom visits. I'd support going back to pre-Covid policy and avoid the germ hysterics unless absolutely warranted. E.g. something far worse than Covid.

RE: You heard it here first ...

I disagree. It is certainly enforceable, I don't think it is that impractical ... you can drink with a straw, you could possibly remove if eating a meal, airlines could offer liquid meal substitutes, what you do in the washroom is your business ...

I'm thinking that the impact of the pandemic is Way more significant than 911 ever was, and so I thought it made sense to change our approach to in-flight health issues (as 911 changed our approach to security issues).

Possibly airlines may differentiate on this ... some "safer" with masks, some without, although I expected an industry wide response, like through ICAO.

Of course the other side of the question is security, and the need to identify people (so nix masks ?).

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: You heard it here first ...

Exactly. "what you do in the washroom is your business," like blowing your nose and saturating it with germs, which will filter to every single person who goes in after you. That's a benign example. I don't know if you fly much, but it is already a cramped and uncomfortable experience for most people. Overly burdensome mask requirements on airlines would be totally impractical and drive a lot of customers away entirely. People would be incentivized to drive to their destination or connect remotely.

If I was going to police people's health to such a degree, I'd target obesity first (especially in my country, the USA).

RE: You heard it here first ...


People would be incentivized to drive to their destination or connect remotely.

I think that's going to be the norm from now on, just as WFH suddenly became a viable alternative during this pandemic. Nevertheless, there have been airlines that have successfully instituted mandatory masking for transcontinental flights, notably Air Emirates.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies forum1529: Translation Assistance for Engineers Entire Forum list http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

RE: You heard it here first ...

"People would be incentivized to drive to their destination" ... why I suggested "on intercontinental flights". To my mind, there's as much risk of transmission from driving; although not so much as driving within a country, so domestic flights would be a lower priority.

Where you have several nations within one landmass (Europe, South America) ... well, different nations will adopt different rules, presumably dependent on alternatives and tourism revenue and business travel.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: You heard it here first ...

It's still impractical. Especially on long intercontinental flights. I'm usually a reasonable person, but I would take off my mask at every opportunity aboard a 14 hour flight. I stand by the opinion that it's simply not effective or enforceable to a reasonable degree, for the previously provided reasons.

Also, it's not as if children under 6 (Air Emirates current age rule for exemption) are any less capable of spreading any given virus.

RE: You heard it here first ...

A surgeon, and the rest of the surgical team, wears the mask due to care about other people. Not sure how one instills that belief in those who think it's all a conspiracy.

RE: You heard it here first ...

All this adds up to...vaccination certificates.

RE: You heard it here first ...

In the long run, a vaccination certificate and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?


RE: You heard it here first ...

Hmm possible case for high speed rail eurotunnel style, every one drives their car onboard and stays in it till the destination, want a toilet should have brought Winnebago.

RE: You heard it here first ...

No, I'm not talking about COVID but the next pandemic. Yes, in the near term to get flying again I expect vax cert will be required, and this will offer protection against known variants. We don't want to open up international travel only to spread a new variant.

I'm thinking ahead ... as 911 changed our business' approach to security, I think COVID, and the pandemic that resulted, should change our approach to the health questions of intercontinental travel. Another 1/2 measure (cause how do you provide effective counter-measures against a threat you can barely identify ?) would be to have better access/egress controls on potential hot spots (like deepest darkest Africa, and back of beyond Asia) ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

RE: You heard it here first ...

Rightly or wrongly, in the medium term, things will go back to more or less how they were pre-covid. Perhaps more people will generally wear masks, but it's an uphill battle. Long-term quarantining would be devastating - the airline industry, and travellers in general, will not want that to happen. Sooner or later, the money talks.

I hope that this has made people realise that they really don't need to travel halfway around the world to go to a meeting that could have been served by an email or an internet conference call. For that matter, I hope the push to more work-from-home stays in place. It's better for the environment, it's better for traffic. Perhaps some people will go part-time work-from-home, and that's fine.

It might mean that we don't need more international airports.
It might mean that we don't need many more long-haul aircraft.

RE: You heard it here first ...

Nothing really changed in the airline business as a result of 9/11. Aside from the minor change of better cockpit doors and policies about not opening them, the 9/11 changes were changes the FAA (for example) should have mandated in the decades before when drunk, belligerent passengers were known to barge in. There was a huge change in security theater that does little to nothing to enhance safety. I suspect the lack of attacks is more due to the ineffectiveness than to effectiveness of the screenings.

The real change was among passengers who now understood they needed to fight to save themselves and others, which is very much unlike the public's Covid response.

I can't imagine anyone on a plane now, upon seeing a guy grab a flight attendant, saying "That looks like a hoax to me." Yet that has been a common response to Covid.

RE: You heard it here first ...


Yes, in the near term to get flying again I expect vax cert will be required, and this will offer protection against known variants. We don't want to open up international travel only to spread a new variant.

There's nothing to "open up," international travel slowed for a few weeks last spring but has been normal for more than a year now. Its ok, its safe to come out of your basement and take a vacation like the rest of us. Unfortunately you missed last summer's cheap rates.


In the long run, a vaccination certificate and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee.

Gas is topping $3/gallon here, so we'd need a bit more to get to the coffee shop. Therein lies the latest absurdity, while wannabe-Nazis are still screeching about others being forced to show records, others are forging them for freebies.

JMO but the real issue that this sham has brought to the surface is the commonality of poor mental health. Elderly/infirm aside, there's no denying that many folks lost their minds, became hermits, and had a negative impact on their children and community. I'm not a fan of socialized medicine however have long supported socialized mental healthcare to protect the rest of us. Given the number of folks still publicly outing themselves as loony over COVID, I believe its time we seriously consider reopening state asylums, removing the nuts from positions of trust, suspending licenses and voting privileges, and addressing the situation before they cause a real disaster.

RE: You heard it here first ...

International travel is most certainly not "normal". I can't go on vacation to Europe or Australia or New Zealand yet. Many countries have stringent quarantine requirements. If I leave this country for some other reason, I have to quarantine upon return. Some Americans may be trying to pretend that it's normal, but it is not.

RE: You heard it here first ...

Sure you can. Back in reality there's no quarantine. Living on the Canadian border I can attest that many folks on both sides of the border have been crossing to work and play daily since last spring's "nonessential shutdown" (I'd argue both terms) ended. We actually have several in our group this weekend attending tomorrow's race, and crossing the river to go bar-hopping is common. Travel abroad resumed similarly. Sales engineers have been traveling between continents, my wife pet sits for two. Another good friend just came back from a visit home to India. We did a group tour of London and Paris last summer, S America this winter, and have been considering Mediterranean cruises this summer. 2020 was an epic year for those of us not stuck in our own heads and willing to risk the boogeyman of COVID for steals on travel. Again, not knocking the elderly/infirm and legitimately feel bad for them, however their need for caution didn't make the world stop.

RE: You heard it here first ...

It was younger, carefree jet setters that spread it to the elderly. Early hot initiation sites included Colorado where the wealthy headed to ski after getting Covid at, and fleeing, hot spots in Europe.

Glad that some people had a good time.

RE: You heard it here first ...


I had presumed that TSA human scanning equipment.... most of us have-had-to walk-thru/spread-eagle-for... would be modified to include body temperature monitoring/alerts [anything above, say 99.0F]... and possibly body chemistry vapors for communicable disease/infection detection. Or maybe rotate disease detection dogs to walk along the line... OH well.

Regards, Wil Taylor
o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true. [Unknown]
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible. [variation,Stuart Chase]
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion", Homebuiltairplanes.com forum]

RE: You heard it here first ...

I am reminded to follow my own opinion, and to be tolerant of other's opinions of the pandemic.

We have all experienced it differently and so formed our different opinions of it.

Whilst we've all been affected by the pandemic in some way or another, many have not been touched directly, personally, by the pandemic; certainly not in the same way as front line health workers.

But, please don't use the term "boggeyman" to describe the pandemic; out of respect for those who have been directly and personally impacted.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close