Covid-19; Impact on the aviation industry

3xh

MadYaker wrote: »

So they don't pay any salaries? We're all working for free are we, I wonder whats that in my bank acc so? Such nonsense.

You definitely don’t fully understand GDP and it’s limits then.

This has come up in another Covid thread today too. People are rehashing the media reports that GDP isn’t as bad now as the government forecasted at the start of this.

Jack1985

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I agree with some of what you say, but the idea that you have a 1 in 27 million chance of contracting COVID on a flight is nonsense, and really takes from the message that aircraft are in fact a relatively safe mode of transport, because it is demonstrably false, wildly inaccurate, and I think damages the message our industry is trying to deliver.

IATA has demonstrated how it came to this finding here; You've every right to dispute it but if you can demonstrate how you form the above conclusion with material to refence it here, I'd appreciate it.

If the industry thinks it's damaging, they'd be hounding IATA about it - They contributed to this analysis largely.

https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2020-09-08-012/

Jack1985

circular flexing wrote: »

I'm not disputing the fact that aircraft themselves are probably safe though mask or no mask it's still a long time to spend in close contact with potentially infected people. The real risk in my view...

Therein lies the problem. None of that is backed up with facts I'm afraid. You are letting your own assumptions dictate the choices of others.

circular flexing wrote: »

Testing can give false positives and negatives and I would honestly question spending government resources supporting non-essential travel, particularly outbound.

Nobody expects the states testing capacity to be affected for mitigation measures to be put in place at our borders, that has been made clear by all in Aviation.

No test is completely accurate, there is not one that is 100% accurate, we have no silver bullet - You do realise we have false positives in HSE testing too? LAMP and Antigen products coming online will be game changers for the industry - 15-minute results at costs as low as $5.

There’s a narrative here that because there can be some false positives we shouldn’t bother and it’s such a laughable position.

circular flexing wrote: »

And ISTR English residents having to scramble home from Spain and France when the government there suddenly changed the quarantine advice. Stories around that would definitely put people off traveling.

I wouldn't be using the UK hammer head response at the tail end of Summer as stories for basing people's assumptions on. I referred to the UK to demonstrate demand for travel that was there, the UK's response was all over the shop - It remains so.

Friday newspaper:

ProfessorPlum

Jack1985 wrote: »

IATA has demonstrated how it came to this finding here; You've every right to dispute it but if you can demonstrate how you form the above conclusion with material to refence it here, I'd appreciate it.

If the industry thinks it's damaging, they'd be hounding IATA about it - They contributed to this analysis largely.

https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2020-09-08-012/

I have read it. The reason the numbers are wildly inaccurate is precisely how IATA came to its finding.
They are only counting positive cases that have been reviewed and published in medical journals. Even IATA suggested that they might only have captured 10% of actual cases - and they’re still being disingenuous here.
One flight (Vietnam Airlines - London Hanoi) had 15 positive cases. 12 out of 20 passengers seated in business class with one symptomatic passenger became infected. Yet we’re to believe that in total since this pandemic began, that only twice that number again have been infected on aircraft??
That fligh was in early March, yet it only achieved publication in September. That’s a 6 month lag in reporting of data in a rapidly evolving pandemic.
And of course, the idea that even 10% of cases would be captured and published in medical journals is ridiculous. If 1% or even 0.01% were, I would be shocked.
Estimating the prevalence of disease in a population by counting cases in peer reviewed journals is bad science.

MrMusician18

Jack1985 wrote: »

IATA has demonstrated how it came to this finding here; You've every right to dispute it but if you can demonstrate how you form the above conclusion with material to refence it here, I'd appreciate it.

If the industry thinks it's damaging, they'd be hounding IATA about it - They contributed to this analysis largely.

https://www.iata.org/en/pressroom/pr/2020-09-08-012/

It isn't the travelling thats the issue, i.e. the hour or two spent sitting on an aircraft. Its the behaviour of people travelling - its the fact that holidaymakers move about a lot, shop, visit museums, eat in several restaurants and would interact with well over 50 people a day.

Aircraft are safe, particularly with the low load factors seen at present. Going on holiday and adhering to a message of reduce your contacts to the minimum are, unfortunately, incompatible with one another.

HTCOne

Catching COVID on board an aircraft is “virtually impossible”.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/risk-covid-19-exposure-planes-virtually-nonexistent-masked/story?id=73616599

We opened the restaurants, no surge.
We opened the hotels, no surge.
We opened the bars, no surge.

We open the schools and colleges, massive surge.

Travel has zero to do with the mess we find ourselves in.

HTCOne

bk wrote: »

The government are currently pumping hundreds of millions into the public transport companies (DB/BE/IR/GA/Luas), even giving some support to the private coach companies, to keep them going with passenger numbers way down.

They should do similar for Aviation. Though I wonder if the airlines are really asking for it. They seem more focused on wanting things open, then asking for support.

At least 3 Irish airlines and at least one other major Irish aviation company I’m aware of informally approached the Government regarding the possibility of a bailout, all were told no.

Anyone know what's going on with the Ryanair site? Thousands of flights marked as 'sold out' when there's not a hope it's true. Includes fights I already have booked that haven't been cancelled.

Contacted them twice, may as well have asked the wall.

ProfessorPlum

HTCOne wrote: »

Catching COVID on board an aircraft is “virtually impossible”.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/risk-covid-19-exposure-planes-virtually-nonexistent-masked/story?id=73616599

Again, that’s a misrepresentation of the study.
The ‘virtually impossible’ quote is from United’s head of customer something, NOT from the scientists who conducted the study.
While I can’t find that study published online (quick search, granted) this report in the Washington Post about it seems quite a bit more balanced.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/defense-department-study-finds-low-risk-of-coronavirus-infection-through-air-on-a-packed-airline-flight/2020/10/15/e84aa092-0e30-11eb-8a35-237ef1eb2ef7_story.html%3foutputType=amp

Interestingly, they quote the author of the study that IATA used to assert their ‘1 in 27 million’ claim.
“It’s just bad epidemiology, it’s just bad math”. (more in the article linked, won’t copy and paste for some reason)

Again, I do believe that airline travel is relatively safe, but misrepresenting data, especially safety data, undermines our professionalism in the public eye. I think it’s a backwards step.

Jack1985

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

...One flight (Vietnam Airlines - London Hanoi) had 15 positive cases. 12 out of 20 passengers seated in business class with one symptomatic passenger became infected...

The context also of that is the date was 01/03/20, at the time there was no mask mandate and the NIHE remarked they did not have data on passenger movement such as lavatory use. That passenger who as you remarked was symptomatic and had not been tested only thermally screened and had not informed anyone of symptom onset.

Clearly look there is a massive elephant in the room in all of this, we can't negate the fact that there is a one to three-day period prior to symptom onset of asymptomatic transmission in an incubation period that can vary between 2-12 days - That's lots of contacts to trace etc. This belief that we will get a vaccine shouldn’t be relied upon as fact – it creates this false reassurance that may not become reality. That’s why we must deal as best as we can with where we are now. There is positive reading below about the prospects ahead for LAMP/Antigen testing which is much cheaper and as accurate as PCR.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7377665/
https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3789/rr
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/30/15-minute-coronavirus-test-gets-the-green-light-for-a-european-rollout.html

Asymptomatic transmission is what has the World in such a state. By using the best mitigation measures we have such as mask wearing reduces the risk massively, I’d actually like to see the industry go further and ban bloody visors to ensure reduced levels of transmission even as minute as they are in the safest form of transport.

We do safety and we do it well, I have no doubt the industry will over come this, but the casualties along the way shouldn’t be a result of failed policy that is compounding realities out there. Ireland isn’t alone in having demonstrated bad judgment (it's probably been one of the worst IMO), further consensus in Europe in harmonised approaches where possible is needed.

The below where Aer Lingus stood, because effectively it could not operate and the state as a whole, just wasn't ever acceptable. It was a failed response from Gov listening to medics at NPHET who called it wrong.

https://twitter.com/eurocontrolDG/status/1293092933755961345

https://twitter.com/eurocontrolDG/status/1296734555081187328

Jack1985

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Anyone know what's going on with the Ryanair site? Thousands of flights marked as 'sold out' when there's not a hope it's true. Includes fights I already have booked that haven't been cancelled.

Contacted them twice, may as well have asked the wall.

I would imagine it's off sale as it's about to be canx, they will contact you more than likely over the next few days.

HTCOne

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Again, that’s a misrepresentation of the study.
The ‘virtually impossible’ quote is from United’s head of customer something, NOT from the scientists who conducted the study.
While I can’t find that study published online (quick search, granted) this report in the Washington Post about it seems quite a bit more balanced.

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/defense-department-study-finds-low-risk-of-coronavirus-infection-through-air-on-a-packed-airline-flight/2020/10/15/e84aa092-0e30-11eb-8a35-237ef1eb2ef7_story.html%3foutputType=amp

Interestingly, they quote the author of the study that IATA used to assert their ‘1 in 27 million’ claim.
“It’s just bad epidemiology, it’s just bad math”. (more in the article linked, won’t copy and paste for some reason)

Again, I do believe that airline travel is relatively safe, but misrepresenting data, especially safety data, undermines our professionalism in the public eye. I think it’s a backwards step.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/risk-covid-19-exposure-planes-virtually-nonexistent-masked/story?id=73616599

The study was conducted on the 767 and 777, older aircraft with less advanced filtration systems.

"In fact, I would tell you that in my observations, and I've flown commercially since the pandemic started, being on a commercial airplane with HEPA filtration is probably one of the safest places that you can be," Lyons said.

There are some qualifiers, Lyons noted. The conditions that yielded positive results, he said, involved aircraft with HEPA filtration and "a very, very high air exchange rate of every two to five minutes or two to three minutes.” But under those conditions, he indicated, particle spread rates were even lower than in a conventional indoor setting.

The air on the A320 series is replaced ever 2-3 mins, and all Airbus passenger aircraft are now fitted with HEPA, so would perform at least as good if not better than these old Boeings.

Aircraft are quite simply an extremely safe place to be when it comes to COVID. I’d encourage you to read up the lessons learned from SARS spreading on an Air China flight years ago, and how the air filtration systems in the industry were totally overhauled as a redult.

ProfessorPlum

HTCOne wrote: »

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/risk-covid-19-exposure-planes-virtually-nonexistent-masked/story?id=73616599

The study was conducted on the 767 and 777, older aircraft with less advanced filtration systems.

"In fact, I would tell you that in my observations, and I've flown commercially since the pandemic started, being on a commercial airplane with HEPA filtration is probably one of the safest places that you can be," Lyons said.

There are some qualifiers, Lyons noted. The conditions that yielded positive results, he said, involved aircraft with HEPA filtration and "a very, very high air exchange rate of every two to five minutes or two to three minutes.” But under those conditions, he indicated, particle spread rates were even lower than in a conventional indoor setting.

The air on the A320 series is replaced ever 2-3 mins, and all Airbus passenger aircraft are now fitted with HEPA, so would perform at least as good if not better than these old Boeings.

Aircraft are quite simply an extremely safe place to be when it comes to COVID. I’d encourage you to read up the lessons learned from SARS spreading on an Air China flight years ago, and how the air filtration systems in the industry were totally overhauled as a redult.

Thanks, I’m not arguing that aircraft are not safe places, and I’m fully up to speed with the tech specs.

The limitations of the study, acknowledged by the authors, rest around the fact that it was based around mannequins, sitting in their seats for duration of the flight, not touching surfaces, not talking or eating, not removing their masks, and did not take into account larger droplet spread. In other words, ideal conditions.
Under ideal conditions, the rhythm method (‘natural family planning’) has similar efficacy as the oral contraceptive pill in preventing pregnancy. But no one really argues that it comes close in ‘real life’.

Stevek101

Looks like Ryanair have really cut back at Dublin also. Many routes dropped.

IngazZagni

Stevek101 wrote: »

Looks like Ryanair have really cut back at Dublin also. Many routes dropped.

It's scary. A good example is the Madrid route. Last winter it operated at an 18x weekly frequency. This winter it'll operate 2x weekly.

Also it appears that Ryanair will maintain a 1x daily Stansted flight from Cork this winter but that'll be the only route. At Shannon, Stansted will have a 5x weekly frequency and Manchester 2x weekly and that's it.

Cookiemunster

IngazZagni wrote: »

It's scary. A good example is the Madrid route. Last winter it operated at an 18x weekly frequency. This winter it'll operate 2x weekly.

Also it appears that Ryanair will maintain a 1x daily Stansted flight from Cork this winter but that'll be the only route. At Shannon, Stansted will have a 5x weekly frequency and Manchester 2x weekly and that's it.

There looks a weekly flight to Wroclaw from Shannon too according to the airports press release yesterday.

Padraig Mor

IngazZagni wrote: »

Also it appears that Ryanair will maintain a 1x daily Stansted flight from Cork this winter but that'll be the only route. .

Think they have two Polish routes as well (not sure of frequency). All Spain / Canaries routes seem to be gone for winter. I'm actually amazed - would have thought they may have kept a couple of once per week routes using Spanish based planes.

Stevek101

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Think they have two Polish routes as well (not sure of frequency). All Spain / Canaries routes seem to be gone for winter. I'm actually amazed - would have thought they may have kept a couple of once per week routes using Spanish based planes.

All Canaries bases are closed. The Spanish never really signed up to the new pay deal before this all started.

IngazZagni

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Think they have two Polish routes as well (not sure of frequency). All Spain / Canaries routes seem to be gone for winter. I'm actually amazed - would have thought they may have kept a couple of once per week routes using Spanish based planes.

It's a shame they couldn't maintain a Cork based aircraft operating these but I suppose the Buzz subsidiary operates at a lower cost base. Only self employed style contracts exist over there.

Jack1985

IngazZagni wrote: »

It's a shame they couldn't maintain a Cork based aircraft operating these but I suppose the Buzz subsidiary operates at a lower cost base. Only self employed style contracts exist over there.

That's it in one, there'll be demand for those routes especially around Christmas. The only routes FR are operating from ORK/SNN are;

ORK-GDN
ORK-KTW
ORK-STN

SNN-MAN
SNN-STN
SNN-WRO

Padraig Mor

IngazZagni wrote: »

It's a shame they couldn't maintain a Cork based aircraft operating these but I suppose the Buzz subsidiary operates at a lower cost base. Only self employed style contracts exist over there.

Two of my cousins in Cork are captains with FR so agree it's a shame! Family men, must be tough...

Stevek101

Stevek101 wrote: »

Looks like Ryanair have really cut back at Dublin also. Many routes dropped.

I spent 2 hours on with them yesterday trying to find out of the Flights to Spain at christmas are cancelled and if the entire schedule is gone as all the flights were 'sold out'. Guy just kept repeating a mantra without answering anything.

Ryanair are very dishonest in how they handle these things. If the flights cancelled, just tell me so I can make other arrangements FFS!

Padraig Mor

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

I spent 2 hours on with them yesterday trying to find out of the Flights to Spain at christmas are cancelled and if the entire schedule is gone as all the flights were 'sold out'. Guy just kept repeating a mantra without answering anything.

Ryanair are very dishonest in how they handle these things. If the flights cancelled, just tell me so I can make other arrangements FFS!

'Sold out' generally means it's been scheduled for cancellation AFAIK - you should know more in a day or two.

Padraig Mor

Padraig Mor wrote: »

Think they have two Polish routes as well (not sure of frequency). All Spain / Canaries routes seem to be gone for winter. I'm actually amazed - would have thought they may have kept a couple of once per week routes using Spanish based planes.

Actually just had a look - not alone are the winter flights gone, so are all the ones for next summer which were already on sale! Including the three winter ones.

Padraig Mor

Padraig Mor wrote: »

'Sold out' generally means it's been scheduled for cancellation AFAIK - you should know more in a day or two.

I know now, the entire schedule has been shelved until April but no answer on of my cooked flights are still happening.

They could have told me yesterday but now, insisted that sold out meant sold out when we both know that couldn't possible be true.

Now I'm told the flights absolutely aren't cancelled so what? They cancel when I can't get a reasonable alternative option?

Credit Checker Moose

They will cancel them shortly. Sold out means cancelled in Ryanair speak.

MrMusician18

HTCOne wrote: »

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/risk-covid-19-exposure-planes-virtually-nonexistent-masked/story?id=73616599

The study was conducted on the 767 and 777, older aircraft with less advanced filtration systems.

"In fact, I would tell you that in my observations, and I've flown commercially since the pandemic started, being on a commercial airplane with HEPA filtration is probably one of the safest places that you can be," Lyons said.

There are some qualifiers, Lyons noted. The conditions that yielded positive results, he said, involved aircraft with HEPA filtration and "a very, very high air exchange rate of every two to five minutes or two to three minutes.” But under those conditions, he indicated, particle spread rates were even lower than in a conventional indoor setting.

The air on the A320 series is replaced ever 2-3 mins, and all Airbus passenger aircraft are now fitted with HEPA, so would perform at least as good if not better than these old Boeings.

Aircraft are quite simply an extremely safe place to be when it comes to COVID. I’d encourage you to read up the lessons learned from SARS spreading on an Air China flight years ago, and how the air filtration systems in the industry were totally overhauled as a redult.

Even if you are willing to accept that, the real issue with travel imo is not the travelling aspect per se, but the behaviour of tourists. Tourists generally will have a lot of contacts as they go about their business, eating in restaurants, drinking in pubs and experiencing sights and culture

So if we are saying to the travelling public, that yes flying is safe, but when you arrive you won't be permitted to do the touristy things that you want to do, then why would they come in the first place? Business outside of aviation and tourism/hospitality doesn't really seem to be missing international travel either.

HTCOne

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Even if you are willing to accept that, the real issue with travel imo is not the travelling aspect per se, but the behaviour of tourists. Tourists generally will have a lot of contacts as they go about their business, eating in restaurants, drinking in pubs and experiencing sights and culture

So if we are saying to the travelling public, that yes flying is safe, but when you arrive you won't be permitted to do the touristy things that you want to do, then why would they come in the first place? Business outside of aviation and tourism/hospitality doesn't really seem to be missing international travel either.

Well yes, Hardware shops, hairdressers, are unlikely to miss the tourists, but 1 in 10 people in Ireland work in hospitality, with a further 140k in aviation. There’s businesses you wouldn’t think of being hammered too, like the pharmacies and phone shops in Dublin city center apparently replacing medication / phones etc. I wouldn’t have thought of those but there was a chap on the radio the other week saying his rent for his Pharmacy was 40k per month and he is down more than that from just losing all the shampoo, toothpaste etc sales to the tourists, let alone medicine.

I think it is unfair to assume tourists interacting all over the place in bars and restaurants is a cause of the virus spread; remember we are where we are with zero tourists. Holohan and Varadkar have both been out in the last couple of days stating the current surge is mainly down to home visits, weekend family dinners etc. Earlier in the year it was house parties. The number of clusters in bars and restaurants has been very small throughout the pandemic, because it is in the interest of those business owners to ensure and enforce cleanliness, social distancing etc.

Tenzor07

MrMusician18 wrote: »

So if we are saying to the travelling public, that yes flying is safe, but when you arrive you won't be permitted to do the touristy things that you want to do, then why would they come in the first place? Business outside of aviation and tourism/hospitality doesn't really seem to be missing international travel either.

Most places around Europe this summer kept their doors open, cultural sights, bars/restaurants, shops etc..Ireland didn't.

And to say that business outside aviation didn't miss tourism is not understanding what aviation brings to many parts of the world...
I guess i'll have to explain it to you... Every international traveller spends money on goods and services, which contribute to municipal/general taxes, enabling local Governments in places like the Greek islands to use that money towards local roads, schools, healthcare facilities, preservation of national monuments, environmental improvements all which benefit the people who live there.. Without international travel the end result can cause real poverty for people who rely directly and indirectly on it...