Proposal to require vaccine or test for pax
11-18-2021, 05:53 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,236
Originally Posted by ItnStln
Indeed
filler
filler
11-18-2021, 07:28 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,063
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Just grand-standing for the base, going nowhere fast.
Airline groups will not sit still for this (they have already pushed back in the past). In addition to alienating a significant percentage of customers, it would create an absolute logistics nightmare trying to screen everyone.
The regime is not in a position to kick a large, heavily unionized industry in the junk right now.
Airline groups will not sit still for this (they have already pushed back in the past). In addition to alienating a significant percentage of customers, it would create an absolute logistics nightmare trying to screen everyone.
The regime is not in a position to kick a large, heavily unionized industry in the junk right now.
11-19-2021, 07:36 AM
#14
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,283
Originally Posted by Flyfalcons
Seeing as everything else that was considered a conspiracy theory a year ago is in full swing now......
1) They don't want liaibility
2) They don't want operational disruption
3) Because they can
The federal mandates on the other hand (for non-gov employees) are luke-warm, leveraged work-arounds, and are subject to legal challenges.
I'm pretty sure federal vaccine mandates in the US will end with the current mandates... if they stand it will be a near-thing, both legally and politically.
11-19-2021, 08:30 AM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: This side of the dirt.
Posts: 890
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I told you a year ago there would be employee mandates from private companies...
1) They don't want liaibility
2) They don't want operational disruption
3) Because they can
The federal mandates on the other hand (for non-gov employees) are luke-warm, leveraged work-arounds, and are subject to legal challenges.
I'm pretty sure federal vaccine mandates in the US will end with the current mandates... if they stand it will be a near-thing, both legally and politically.
1) They don't want liaibility
2) They don't want operational disruption
3) Because they can
The federal mandates on the other hand (for non-gov employees) are luke-warm, leveraged work-arounds, and are subject to legal challenges.
I'm pretty sure federal vaccine mandates in the US will end with the current mandates... if they stand it will be a near-thing, both legally and politically.
11-19-2021, 01:14 PM
#16
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,283
Originally Posted by av8or
well, in a shortage of labor in general, they’re gonna have to weigh liability vs operational disruption. If you’ve got a two week turn over with ground crews as is, good luck hiring and keeping people if you have one more hooo they have to jump through.
11-19-2021, 02:16 PM
#17
Perennial Reserve
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,503
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Private companies can strike that balance to their heart's content.
That would not be without precedent. UAL used to require a visual standard greater than just an FAA class 1. SCOTUS even upheld that in SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES. But the ADA law has now been changed and it is unlikely the SCOTUS would uphold that today.
https://www.heath.gwu.edu/ada-amendm...has-become-law
An excerpt:
First, the ADAAA overturns in large part the Supreme Court's decision in Sutton v. United Airlines, which held that people with disabilities were not eligible under the ADA if their conditions could be mitigated by medication, assistive technology and equipment, or learned behavioral adaptations. The law also overturns Sutton's holding that a disability must limit more than one major life activity. Moreover, the bill will clarify that major life activities include working, communicating, concentrating, thinking, reading, and other activities of central importance. Although Sutton arose in the ADA context, its holding was equally applicable to 504 cases, and thus, the override is made applicable to 504.
11-19-2021, 04:56 PM
#18
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,945
I have heard, perhaps incorrectly, that the administration is telling companies to do it anyway, appeals court notwithstanding.
If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, and they would order companies to make vaccines mandatory anyway, what happens? How does the court enforce it’s order?
If a company is directed to follow the administration order, it could go back to a District Court. They follow the Supreme Court, and vacate the administration order. The administration does executive branch orders. They say, “so what, ignore the courts.” So what happens? Where are the teeth?
If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, and they would order companies to make vaccines mandatory anyway, what happens? How does the court enforce it’s order?
If a company is directed to follow the administration order, it could go back to a District Court. They follow the Supreme Court, and vacate the administration order. The administration does executive branch orders. They say, “so what, ignore the courts.” So what happens? Where are the teeth?
11-19-2021, 05:28 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,352
Originally Posted by TransWorld
I have heard, perhaps incorrectly, that the administration is telling companies to do it anyway, appeals court notwithstanding.
If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, and they would order companies to make vaccines mandatory anyway, what happens? How does the court enforce it’s order?
If a company is directed to follow the administration order, it could go back to a District Court. They follow the Supreme Court, and vacate the administration order. The administration does executive branch orders. They say, “so what, ignore the courts.” So what happens? Where are the teeth?
If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, and they would order companies to make vaccines mandatory anyway, what happens? How does the court enforce it’s order?
If a company is directed to follow the administration order, it could go back to a District Court. They follow the Supreme Court, and vacate the administration order. The administration does executive branch orders. They say, “so what, ignore the courts.” So what happens? Where are the teeth?
11-19-2021, 07:25 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: This side of the dirt.
Posts: 890
Originally Posted by TransWorld
I have heard, perhaps incorrectly, that the administration is telling companies to do it anyway, appeals court notwithstanding.
If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, and they would order companies to make vaccines mandatory anyway, what happens? How does the court enforce it’s order?
If a company is directed to follow the administration order, it could go back to a District Court. They follow the Supreme Court, and vacate the administration order. The administration does executive branch orders. They say, “so what, ignore the courts.” So what happens? Where are the teeth?
If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, and they would order companies to make vaccines mandatory anyway, what happens? How does the court enforce it’s order?
If a company is directed to follow the administration order, it could go back to a District Court. They follow the Supreme Court, and vacate the administration order. The administration does executive branch orders. They say, “so what, ignore the courts.” So what happens? Where are the teeth?
ironic how probably one of the most racist POTUS policies is now being promoted by Uncle Joe.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
