Two recent United Airlines flights diverted over a passenger’s refusal to wear a mask. Could these be anomalies or is United getting stricter over mask compliance?
Two United Airlines Flights Divert Over Passenger Mask Compliance
I’ve flown a lot of United this year and most flights start with a gentle warning from the captain that we all must keep our masks on. However, United’s internal mask compliance procedure suggests an approach of de-escalation rater than confrontation and diversion.
As Live and Let’s Fly documented, United takes a three-step approach to mask compliance:
- First Warning: Be Kind
- Second Warning: Be Empathetic
- Third Warning: Ignore Customer
> Read More: United Mask Policy May Be Passive Aggressive, But It Isn’t Toothless
> Read More: At United Airlines, Mask Incidents Are Way Down. Why?
That third point is key. While we have seen many airlines choose to take a more aggressive approach, United tells flight attendants that after the third warning:
“No additional interaction with the customer or escalation is necessary.”
Instead, an incident report is to be created and the passenger is to be ignored for the remainder of the flight.
But on August 14th, UA3400 retuned to Austin (AUS) after takeoff due to a disruptive passenger onboard. United provided a bit of context:
Federal law and United policy require all customers and crew to wear a mask while traveling. On August 14, shortly after take-off flight 3400 from Austin, TX to Newark returned to Austin to remove a passenger who would not comply with crew instructions. Law enforcement met the flight and the customer has been banned from traveling with United while we investigate the incident.
The flight was operated by Republic Airways, a United Express subsidiary.
Then on August 21st, UA253 from Houston (IAH) to Honolulu (HNL) diverted to Los Angeles (LAX) due to a disruptive passenger. Again, United would only provide a very general statement about this flight:
United flight 253 en route from Houston to Honolulu diverted to Los Angeles International Airport due to a disruptive passenger. The customer deplaned and was met by law enforcement officials. The flight departed for Honolulu shortly after.
UPDATE: An insider tells Live and Let’s Fly the confrontation on UA253 began over mask compliance then escalated when the passenger became aggressive with flight attendants in the galley and refused to stay in his seat.
While I’m not sure we can draw a trend from two incidents, they do suggest that United did not go with its standard operating procedure, which is to ignore the passenger in-flight then ban the passenger post-flight.
On the other hand, the captain is always in control of the airplane. This more aggressive approach to masking may simply be the judgement call of a captain, which always includes the discretion of diverting over a problematic passenger.
CONCLUSION
Perhaps it is too early too tell, but it does appear United Airlines is taking a more aggressive approach to masking compliance onboard. While the official guidance remains to ultimately ignore passengers who refuse to wear masks but do not otherwise create disturbances, these two diversions suggest United may be cracking down.
> Read More: Trump Supporters Flout Mask Policy On United Airlines
Giving a warning card that says they could lose flight privileges and following up on that doesn’t seem like truly ‘ignoring’ the passenger or issue. Plenty of teeth in that.
I fully agree and think it is a great policy. I just mean ignore in the moment; allowing the passenger to Continue to be maskless on the flight.
Passenger takes mask during flight = tell the passenger 2 times to put it back on. Then ignore him and let flight continue. We all know most masks worn by passengers are a joke so nobody will be in danger if one passenger does not wear his mask. Then notify authorities at destination and let them deal with the passenger. Diverting flight because of mask is the most stupid decision since it will make hundreds of other passengers to get their lives disrupted by one passenger.
Agreed – ridiculous to divert. Just call authorities, have passenger arrested, and ban him (almost always a him).
@Santastico: Childish insults aren’t going to make you look better. Just admit that you don’t have a valid argument but don’t like what someone says. “You know you’ve lost an argument when you resort to personal attacks…” – Matthew Klint 8/14/21.
@Christian: did you take your dementia medicine?
Depending on the incident, isn’t it better to avoid diverting (in order to prevent disruption for other passengers), land at the original destination, have the passenger met with law enforcement there, and follow up with a lifetime ban?
Not for the concerned traveler having to sit next to a mask non-compliant passenger for hours on a flight.
Snowflake!! Wake up for reality. Masks worn by most passengers are just a joke so nobody next to a passenger wearing a mask would be in more danger if passenger was not wearing one. BTW, there is vaccine out there so take it if worried. Last, I have been traveling by plane a lot. Many people bring huge meals with them since nothing if offered to eat and while they eat they are allowed to have their masks off so in any event the passenger without a mask is not a problem at all.
Oh, please…. I’m exhausted by you people. Put your mask on. Get vaccinated. Follow the rules. Think of others. Respect authority. It’s really, truly not that hard, “Santastico”…
Yes, pit the mask you bought at Etsy in made of underwear fabric. Wake up sheep!!!
@Anthony: Agreed 100%, which is why I am surprised about these two recent diversions.
As a frequent traveler on United, I feel that my safety is being compromised by United’s mask policy. I certainly would not feel comfortable sitting next to someone who is not mask compliant. I have two trips scheduled with United- one in September, and another in November. Wondering if I should try to change airlines, and fly with one that is taking people’s health concerns more seriously.
People not wearing masks on planes makes me uncomfortable as well, but you could mitigate it by buying N95 masks and wearing them on the plane. That way you are protected no matter what anyone else decides to do. N95’s are reasonably available in US (Home Depot near me seems to always have them). At under $2 a mask, to me they’re invaluable when flying or even more importantly when I’m inside an airport.
I feel like if a captain makes the decision to divert based on one dum-dum refusing to wear a mask, they’re “ignoring” the needs of the other 190 pax on board, and certainly not showing any “empathy” to their desire to get to their destination on time.
Not sure if you are being facetious or not, but I fully agree and would never divert.
On the other hand, I can fully appreciate how the FAs / Captain would not be comfortable in continuing on with a PAX who is brazenly demonstrating that they are unwilling to following flight crew instructions.
I would be incensed if my flight was diverted because of this, but 100% of my ire would be directed toward the idiot individual and not the airline / flight crew.
I think my greater point was if the FAs went through the 3 step program that the airline has prescribed, and the passenger refused to mask up, but there was no further incident with that passenger that occured, choosing to divert would serve little purpose other than to anger the other passengers onboard. I was just poking fun at United’s three steps in doing so.
Yeah, it’s truly a no-win situation for the airlines.
Either they stick to their guns and divert while causing immense inconvenience to the passengers following the rules, or they allow the weenie who suddenly just can’t handle wearing a mask a free pass, again at the expense of the rest of the cabin.
I guess I’d prefer the latter, assuming that they do truly get the book thrown at them and get added to a no-fly list permanently.
There shouldn’t be any warnings. Lives are at stake here. Immediately divert if a mask so much as drops below the nose, or if that’s not an option, give the unmasked individual some food or drink so they can prevent any spread with the eating and drinking exemption.
Put them on the no fly list and a hefty fine, say $10,000. If they did it once, they will be emboldened to do it again. Keep them off planes period.
These comments are HILARIOUS! Does anyone read the back of the mask manufacturers warning? It LITERALLY says that the masks DO NOT WORK against viruses. It’s useless and doesn’t work against a virus. It WILL work against bacteria however which this Chinese flu is not. Wake up sheep!
LOL!!!! The Neanderthal in the basement doesn’t care. It is all about control. I am shocked to see what people wear as masks and have the fake sense of protection. Ask doctors why they do not wear cloth masks. Oh well…..
You must be new here.. This is a blog specifically for sheep.
We do appreciate you reading, Acura.
Make sure to put on your ankle monitors and shoot your dogs
https://www.westernjournal.com/parents-furious-teens-forced-wear-covid-ankle-monitors-warning-others-stay-back
https://www.yahoo.com/now/local-council-shoots-rescue-dogs-195000980.html
Don’t you have some cattle dewormer to ingest? BTW, proper masks do work for particles as small as a virus. Maybe your mesh ones don’t, but that’s on you. Mask protocol works best when all parties are masked. If I wear a mask and you don’t, I’m only 30% protected. If we both wear a mask, then I’m 90% protected. That’s a significant difference. I guess I value my life a little more than you, perhaps.
Baaaa.
I was on a United flight last week and some jerk didn’t wear his mask for 90% of the flight, including when he was talking to the FAs. They didn’t care – they didn’t even warn him. Yikes.
I didn’t see any reference to mask violations in those instances.
The diversion on Republic could be a case of a United partner having its own standard versus mainline. Reading between the lines of the mainline diversion, it would suggest there was a greatest offense than simple mask compliance and the crew decided it didn’t want to risk flying over the Pacific with the passenger.
Yes. The passenger in question was verbally abusive not only to the flight attendants but also other passengers in first class. Almost spitting in their face with his anger. The Captain did the right thing even if it did cause us to miss our connecting flight.
If the passenger continues to be disruptive and pose a security risk (i.e., potentially not complying with crewmember instructions for safety reasons), it is within the discretion of the crew to choose to divert instead of ignoring the disruptive passenger. Armchair second-guessing the crew’s decision without sufficient data is just speculative thinking.
Who was “second guessing” the crew’s decision?
Why do you continue to make assumptions when you don’t have all the facts? Take the IAH-HNL flight that diverted to LAX there is no way that flight when it landed was below max landing weight do to the fuel required to make IAH-HNL nonstop. A diversion would have either required the crew to dump fuel (very expensive) or perform an overweight landing all for as you assume non mask compliance? That is an incredibly expensive diversion for a mask, perhaps there is more to this story or perhaps the flight didn’t divert over a mask issues at all and it was something more sever and the pilot wasn’t willing to cross the Pacific with this person onboard.
I don’t make assumptions. I do my due diligence and when I am stonewalled, I speculate. Big difference. I hope you’re right—-it would have been nice to get official confirmation…
Speculate: A theory or conjecture about a subject without any firm evidence.
Assumption: Something that is believed to be true or probably true but is not known to be true.
The title of your article is Pair of Diversions on United Airlines Suggests Change in Approach to Mask Enforcement.
You are making an assumption and/or speculating on something but have no official information about the real reason why these diversions took place. Your entire article and headline is about masks but yet you don’t know if mask compliance had anything to do with either of these diversion. You can call it speculation I call it assumption, get the facts first and if you don’t have then don’t present your theory as factual.
Oh, I do know it was about masks – UA even confirmed the United Express incident was over masking and I have independently confirmed the HNL diversion began over mask compliance (and then escalated). Thank you.
Diverting do to a passenger refusing to wear a mask is nothing but an ostentatious flex by the pilot to show who is boss. Masking is meaningless for passenger health, and to subject every passenger to an additional takeoff and landing, as well as time on the ground, is counterproductive at best. Personally, I’ll follow the rules because that’s the deal, but now that we’ve all had an opportunity to get vaccinated if we want to, it’s time to let those too afraid to fly without masking their neighbors to simply stay on the ground.