航空公司會因為你拒絕戴口罩而把你列入禁飛名單嗎?

航空公司會因為你拒絕戴口罩而把你列入禁飛名單嗎?

Early this week, Delta Air Lines made news after a plane headed to Atlanta circled back to its gate in Detroit, delaying takeoff. The crew was returning to expel two passengers who had been unwilling to follow a new but quintessential coronavirus rule.

本周早些時候，達美航空公司登上新聞，一架飛往亞特蘭大的飛機盤旋飛回底特律的登機口，延誤了起飛。機組人員返回機場是為了驅(qū)逐兩名乘客，這兩名乘客不愿遵守一項新的但非常典型的冠狀病毒規(guī)則。

They had refused to don masks.

他們拒絕戴口罩。

When it comes to the new rules for the novel coronavirus, airlines like Delta are taking them very seriously. So far, the carrier has banned 100 anti-maskers from taking their flights and gone a step further by adding them to a "no fly" list.

當談到針對新型冠狀病毒的新規(guī)定時，像達美這樣的航空公司都非常重視。到目前為止，該公司已經(jīng)禁止了100名反戴口罩人員搭乘他們的航班，并更進一步，將他們加入了“禁飛”名單。

In a statement provided to NPR, Delta wrote: "Medical research tells us that wearing a mask is one of the most effective ways to reduce the COVID-19 infection rate." The airline "remains committed to requiring customers and employees to wear a mask or face covering as a consistent layer of protection across all Delta touchpoints."

在提供給美國國家公共電臺的一份聲明中，達美航空公司寫道:“醫(yī)學研究告訴我們，戴口罩是降低COVID-19感染率的最有效方法之一。”達美航空“繼續(xù)要求客戶和員工在所有達美航空公司接觸點佩戴口罩或面罩，作為一致的防護層。”

Many private businesses have similar rules: Be Masked or Be Gone.

許多私營企業(yè)也有類似的規(guī)定:要么戴口罩，要么走人。

Though the scientific consensus is clear and strong that masks are critical in stemming the spread of the virus, some consumers feel aggrieved by what they consider an attack on personal freedom. But according to aviation, health and legal experts, such outrage ignores a few fundamentals: In entering into agreements (read: contracts) with airline carriers (by purchasing a ticket), you're required to adhere to their policies.

盡管科學界的共識明確而有力地表明，口罩對遏制病毒的傳播至關(guān)重要，但一些消費者認為這是對個人自由的攻擊，因此感到憤憤不平。但航空、健康和法律專家表示，這種憤怒忽視了一些基本原則: 在與航空公司(通過購買機票)簽訂協(xié)議(即合同)時，你必須遵守他們的政策。

In other words, Delta's no-fly list is perfectly within its scope of rights, experts stress.

換言之，專家強調(diào)，達美航空的禁飛名單完全在其權(quán)利范圍之內(nèi)。

The legal reasoning is pretty straightforward, says Sharona Hoffman, co-director of Case Western Reserve University's Law-Medicine Center. She puts it simply: "They're a private business, and private businesses can have rules."

凱斯西儲大學法律-醫(yī)學中心聯(lián)席主任沙洛娜·霍夫曼說，法律上的理由很簡單。她簡單地說:“他們是私營企業(yè)，私營企業(yè)可以有規(guī)則。”

So why do some people think airline mask mandates are a violation of their freedom? Part of the misconception, explains Eduardo Angeles, a lawyer who served as Federal Aviation Administration associate administrator for airports during President Barack Obama's administration, is the confusion about what exactly a "right" is.

那么，為什么有些人會認為航空公司要求戴口罩侵犯了他們的自由呢?曾在巴拉克•奧巴馬執(zhí)政期間擔任聯(lián)邦航空管理局機場副行政官的律師愛德華多•安吉利斯解釋說，這種誤解的部分原因是，人們對“權(quán)利”到底是什么感到困惑。

"No one has a right to fly," Angeles says. Instead, you're just a participant navigating the free market: "You have several options [to get to your destination] — car, train, foot. And in this way, an airline is just like a restaurant: It can deny service to somebody for reasons that are specific to [it]," he says.

“沒有人有權(quán)飛行，”安吉利斯說。相反，你只是自由市場的一個參與者:“(到達目的地)你有幾種選擇——汽車、火車、步行。在這種情況下，航空公司就像一家餐廳:它可以以特定的理由拒絕為某人提供服務。”

For those who land on the no-fly list because of mask infractions, processes to get your name removed would likely vary from airline to airline, guesses Angeles. "They have to go through their due process and appeal with the airline."

安吉利斯猜測，對于那些因為戴口罩違規(guī)而被寫在禁飛名單上的人，將自己的名字移除的程序可能因航空公司的不同而有所不同。“他們必須通過正當程序，向航空公司提出上訴。”