Bill Overview
Title: Mask Mandate Prevention and Recovery Act
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of Health and Human Services from mandating the wearing of masks, face coverings, or other accessories during domestic air travel. It also retroactively mitigates penalties associated with refusing to comply with such a mandate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Within 30 days of the bill's enactment, federal agencies and private air carriers must remove from their no-fly lists any individual placed on a list solely because of a refusal to comply with a mask mandate. Federal agencies must also refund within 30 days any fines issued to individuals solely based on such a refusal. An individual who does not receive a refund in that time frame may sue for compensatory and punitive damages.
Sponsors: Rep. Mullin, Markwayne [R-OK-2]
Target Audience
Population: Domestic air travelers
Estimated Size: 240000000
- During the COVID-19 pandemic, millions of travelers were required to wear masks on flights. This group includes all domestic air travelers during that time who may have refused to comply.
- This bill affects a population that includes all future domestic air travelers as it prohibits future mask mandates in this context.
- Penalties and fines related to mask mandates were likely incurred by a smaller subset of the population, specifically those who actively resisted the mandates.
- The bill also impacts individuals on no-fly lists solely due to mask compliance issues, which is a segment of the larger group of travelers.
Reasoning
- This policy mainly impacts domestic air travelers who faced penalties for non-compliance with mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic. The population can be divided into those who actively resisted mask mandates, which is a more niche group, and the larger group of future travelers who might benefit from no future mandates.
- Given the policy budget limit, reimbursements and compensatory actions will primarily target the past travelers who faced penalties, which is a fraction of the overall traveler population.
- Considering that roughly a few million might have opposed mandates, actual impact might hit tens of thousands directly with significant others benefiting socially or psychologically by the policy's assurance against future mandates.
- Estimating 'selfReportedWellbeing' needs a balanced view of both past grievances addressed and perceived future rights secured.
Simulated Interviews
Travel Blogger (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is a positive step towards respecting personal freedoms, especially for frequent flyers like myself.
- The mask mandates felt really strict and punitive, so it’s good to see some redress happening.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Airline Pilot (Dallas, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I don't deal with passenger mask issues directly, I'd say there was a lot of stress among crew about these conflicts.
- Hoping this policy reduces such stresses and focuses back on better passenger experiences.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This feels like validation after the distress I went through.
- My name being cleared from records and the refund are crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Small Business Owner (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s a relief knowing that next time I need to fly, I won’t feel forced into mask compliance.
- Although I wasn't directly affected by the fines, it’s the principle that counts.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being able to fly again without complying to what felt like oppression is a silver lining for me.
- Reinstating my travel rights is a huge relief and so is any compensation possible for previous penalties.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Graduate Student (Seattle, WA)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it’s potentially risky to prohibit health measures during future health crises.
- While I understand the need for personal freedoms, safety in travel remains a priority for me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Travel Agent (Miami, FL)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Previously, a lot of frustration revolved around these mandates from clients.
- Hopefully, this will reduce stress and complaints going forward.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Healthcare Worker (New Orleans, LA)
Age: 55 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy seems to undermine public safety readiness, which worries me.
- I would hope there would be exceptions allowed during serious health scares.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Tech Analyst (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This feels like overdue justice.
- My fine being refunded should ease some of the financial strains from the last couple of years.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Restaurant Manager (Denver, CO)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy corrects some heavy-handed regulations from the past.
- Though I rarely fly, the peace of mind is encouraging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $10000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $15000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The population affected by the policy includes a significant number of air travelers post-pandemic, albeit more in theoretical terms than practical enforcement, considering the current standing policies.
- Refund processing and successful management of no-fly list removals may face administrative challenges and entail costs.
- This estimate assumes a small proportion of litigations for compensatory damages.