Covid-19; Impact on the aviation industry

smurfjed

DUBAI: Qatar Airways is planning to cut a significant number of jobs because travel has been disrupted by the coronavirus pandemic, and told cabin crew to prepare for redundancies, according to a company notice seen by Reuters.
The state-owned airline, one of few global carriers still operating scheduled services, said in March it was burning through its cash reserves and would eventually seek government aid.

They haven’t released numbers, but this is one of the few airlines that never stopped flying.

smurfjed

Regardless of the aircrafts load factor, look back at a pre-COVID journey through Dublin airport, the queue at check in, the security queue, the duty free area, the gate area and the boarding process and the baggage claim, how low with the permitted number of passengers have to fall in order to permit the required social distancing within the limited airport area?

My understanding is that the required distance is to protect against coughs and sneezes which may carry droplets, but this is based on people not wearing masks rather than people with masks. I understand that AF/LH have made masks compulsory for all passengers which makes sense. So its time for us to follow suit.

dohouch

I know it's for the birds, but containerisation is the answer, no more SLF

smurfjed

AFAIK, the air in an A320 is recycled through HEPA filters every 3 minutes.

IngazZagni

It will never be possible to fully eliminate the risk of being infected with Covid-19 on an aircraft until there is a vaccine. People will have to make up their own minds on if they want to risk their health by flying just as they'll have to risk it in the barbers when they reopen for example.

At some stage it will come down to personal responsibility and choice. The airline can enforce rules like wearing facemasks but it will be hard to monitor. Cabin crew can't be expected to be babysitters for the passengers.

bk

smurfjed wrote: »

AFAIK, the air in an A320 is recycled through HEPA filters every 3 minutes.

Unfortunately studies have shown that air-conditioning actually helps it to spread.

Air-conditioning systems cause the air to move faster and can result in the droplets being carried further then they might otherwise.

There was a study from Chine of an infected person at a restaurant. The AC air in was at one end of the room, while the Air out was the other end. The people sitting at tables behind the infected person, along the path of the airflow got it, while those to the side didn't.

An aircraft being a long cylinder seems like it would be a nightmare in this regard.

basill

Are you referring to EASA/FAA approved studies or generic ones in the Daily rags referring to domestic and commercial air conditioning systems?

EASA issued SIB 2020-02 dealing with these issues and making various recommendations concerning spacing of passengers, cabin ventilation and use of APU on the ground etc.

Icepick

First, nobody with a temperature or other symptoms is allowed near the airport. Second , mandatory face and nose coverings in airports and on planes and alcohol-based sanitizers or soap and running water everywhere, especially when you need to touch the mask before passport control.
Then we can talk about other measures.

bk

basill wrote: »

Are you referring to EASA/FAA approved studies or generic ones in the Daily rags referring to domestic and commercial air conditioning systems?

EASA issued SIB 2020-02 dealing with these issues and making various recommendations concerning spacing of passengers, cabin ventilation and use of APU on the ground etc.

I'm talking about studies carried out about health authorities in Asia. Obviously a restaurant isn't an aircraft. But airflow is airflow. Doesn't matter if the air is filtered every three minutes. All it takes is one uncovered sneeze for droplets to be injected into the air up to 8 meters.

Tenger

Using the A320 example above.
The A/C filters are HEPA, similar yo operating theatres. The intake is on floor level and the outlet is in the ceiling.
So it's not like a restaurant with the air flowing through the area, in an aircraft its top to bottom.

But would 100% agree that the behaviour of the individuals is the weak point.
One person sneezing openly or covering their face butnot wiping their hand completely negates the HEPA filter. The filter only works if the particles get into the floor level intake.

Mandatory masks on any public vehicle and inside public buildings would help to reduce community spread.

smurfjed

All it takes is one uncovered sneeze for droplets to be injected into the air up to 8 meters.

Using that figure, aviation is finished as there is no possible way of keeping people 8 meters apart.

So what’s PLAN B?

JohnC.

Icepick wrote: »

First, nobody with a temperature or other symptoms is allowed near the airport. Second , mandatory face and nose coverings in airports and on planes and alcohol-based sanitizers or soap and running water everywhere, especially when you need to touch the mask before passport control.
Then we can talk about other measures.

Temperature is a really bad way to screen for it. It would be nothing more than theatrics. People with it may not have a temperature (certainly won't in some stages of it) and people who do have a temperature are more likely to have it for some other reason. The same problems were proven with SARS, bird flu and others.

donkey balls

Not looking good for JET 2 was sent message 400 plus flight crew 1500 CC with a total of just over 3000 to be made redundant.

sherology

Tenger wrote: »

Using the A320 example above.
The A/C filters are HEPA, similar yo operating theatres. The intake is on floor level and the outlet is in the ceiling.
So it's not like a restaurant with the air flowing through the area, in an aircraft its top to bottom.

But would 100% agree that the behaviour of the individuals is the weak point.
One person sneezing openly or covering their face butnot wiping their hand completely negates the HEPA filter. The filter only works if the particles get into the floor level intake.

Mandatory masks on any public vehicle and inside public buildings would help to reduce community spread.

Ah... Real science. I agree and all you stated is true. What should also be done is passengers can cancel their flights for free and receive credit (not a refund) IF THEY FEEL SICK in the days coming up to a flight. I have to say, even I would fly sick'ish if I thought I was going to lose a packet. Same should happen for hotels etc. No more 'no refund' fares or room bookings unless you just don't turn up or miss the flight. It'll give people a way out, and importantly a 'way in/way back' to travel.

Make it so!!!

WishUWereHere

smurfjed wrote: »

They haven’t released numbers, but this is one of the few airlines that never stopped flying.

Yes, I wonder where it will end?Frightening times ahead, I think.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-52555046

Icepick

JohnC. wrote: »

Temperature is a really bad way to screen for it. It would be nothing more than theatrics. People with it may not have a temperature (certainly won't in some stages of it) and people who do have a temperature are more likely to have it for some other reason. The same problems were proven with SARS, bird flu and others.

The role of temperature and other symptoms control is two-fold.
1, filters out some cases
2, more importantly it makes people aware that they are responsible for their health and behavior and their impact on others

Cookiemunster

Icepick wrote: »

The role of temperature and other symptoms control is two-fold.
1, filters out some cases
2, more importantly it makes people aware that they are responsible for their health and behavior and their impact on others

Not much use with the estimated 50% of people who are completely asymptomatic. If that many people never show any symptoms then it's a waste of time and money temp checking everyone. Which is basically why the WHO and NPHET here in Ireland haven't recommended their use in airports.

goingnowhere

This is the new security theatre...

50% is a big number, so you can stop 50% of cases, thats 50% better than none, using proven tech which for the most part can be invisible and if used correctly adds no delay.

Anyone with a temperature is not flying

Add a question at check in, do you have a cough...

Apply basic logic of 14 days gap from travel in a 'red' country, concept already applied for other nasty bugs, try entering India without a yellow fever vaccination if coming from Brazil.

Wear masks

And you get to a cumulative effect of removing all the high risk and bear in mind 6 billion live on this lump of rock, infections 3 million

If you have a temperature you shouldn't be flying regardless, tin can 8,000 pressure altitude its not a place to be if you are anyway unwell.

Temperature checks at airports are far from new, every single passenger entering Japan by air goes through the system and has done for years.

There is a bigger picture here, better hygiene standards, hand washing, cough and sneezing etiquette, stay at home if you have a persistent cough, temperature etc not only deals with COVID-19 its applicable to a whole pile of nasty bugs

JohnC.

goingnowhere wrote: »

This is the new security theatre...

50% is a big number, so you can stop 50% of cases, thats 50% better than none, using proven tech which for the most part can be invisible and if used correctly adds no delay.

But it doesn't work. You call it proven tech. Yes, it's proven to not work. It's there to make people feel like something is being done. Many people have passed through these and later been ill. People who are not ill have been prevented from travelling.

Cookiemunster

goingnowhere wrote: »

This is the new security theatre...

50% is a big number, so you can stop 50% of cases,

You can't stop 50%. Of those who do get a temp, they will have had the virus and be spreading it for between 5 and 14 days before they show any symptoms. So they wouldn't even have a cough to report if asked. Way more than 50% will slip through.

Nijmegen

I've been watching some interesting explanations of social distancing and its role in slowing a virus spreading. There's quite a few good ones out there. Bouncing balls all over the place. I guess a key point hammered home again and again is that small changes take out an infection here and an infection there, which over time takes out lot of the oomph of the spread of a virus. The steps taken in air travel are like that I suspect - small, won't remove all infection, but will help slow down the spread.

Taking the attitude of "It'll solve nothing, so do nothing" I think will be counter productive. Airlines that will have any hope of getting pax onboard will be those that have some form of social distancing. I hear MOL making noises about the govt paying for the empty middle seat if that's what they want, but that's just him being a savvy businessman ala talking down the virus when it was plain it was gonna be a big deal. The question is who will pay for it - the pax in increased fares, govt in subsidies or some middle ground between the two.

All that being said, I think we're just going around the edges here anyway. Until there's a vaccine there probably won't be any consumer demand to speak of at scale anyway and the folks who will travel will either really, really need to and will be insensitive to price or will be subsidised to travel, eg the Spanish or Irish govt helping to pay for a ticket to come and fill the hotels etc.

PommieBast

Nijmegen wrote: »

The question is who will pay for it - the pax in increased fares, govt in subsidies or some middle ground between the two.

Maybe we might see more business class only plane configurations.

bk

Unfortunately what has helped make this virus so infectious is that it seems from all the evidence so far, that people are most infectious when they are asymptomatic, pre-symptomatic or suffering only very mild symptoms.

It seems people can be highly infectious for 2 - 3 days before they develop any symptoms.

Also it now seems that even very sick patients don't develop a fever. This seems to be particularly true for the elderly. That seemed to catch the HSE out badly, they were only testing elderly people with fevers, but turns out many of them actually had it, but without fever. This is why a week ago the HSE changed their policy and now are testing all elderly people in care homes regardless of symptoms.

Personally I think the only useful measure that can be taken in crowded locations is face masks. Of course that isn't perfect either, but it does seem to be the cheapest and easiest way to reduce the spread from what I've seen in other countries.

goingnowhere wrote: »

This is the new security theatre...

Well the term "security theatre" applies to procedures that make the public feel safer, but don't actually work in reality.

In this case I don't think that is good enough. The problem that airlines and airports will face is that they aren't just trying to convince the ill informed public that it is safe to travel with this sort of "health security theatre", they also need to convince health authorities and governments.

That means convincing medical doctors, public health experts, scientists and professors. They will want to see real measures being taken, with real effectiveness behind them. "security theatre" won't fool them.

Having said that I agree with a lot of what you said. The public health steps taken to fight the spread this disease are cumulative. No one step on it's own is a silver bullet solution. But many steps taken together help greatly reduce the spread.

smurfjed

WishUWereHere wrote: »

Yes, I wonder where it will end?Frightening times ahead, I think.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/business-52555046

Right now, FR24 shows a returning conga line of 15 Qatar airliners heading back south into Doha, that appears to be a lot of people to dump in the airport at one time, unless of course they are all cargo flights.

Chris_5339762

goingnowhere wrote: »

This is the new security theatre...

50% is a big number, so you can stop 50% of cases, thats 50% better than none, using proven tech which for the most part can be invisible and if used correctly adds no delay.

Anyone with a temperature is not flying

Add a question at check in, do you have a cough...

Apply basic logic of 14 days gap from travel in a 'red' country, concept already applied for other nasty bugs, try entering India without a yellow fever vaccination if coming from Brazil.

Wear masks

And you get to a cumulative effect of removing all the high risk and bear in mind 6 billion live on this lump of rock, infections 3 million

If you have a temperature you shouldn't be flying regardless, tin can 8,000 pressure altitude its not a place to be if you are anyway unwell.

Temperature checks at airports are far from new, every single passenger entering Japan by air goes through the system and has done for years.

There is a bigger picture here, better hygiene standards, hand washing, cough and sneezing etiquette, stay at home if you have a persistent cough, temperature etc not only deals with COVID-19 its applicable to a whole pile of nasty bugs

Absolutely, but unless every aspect of the holiday is 100% refundable (which will never be the case), then people will lie, cheat and steal to take their holiday. If that means travelling while sick and lieing about it, then people will do that. Because its their family holiday and their hard earned money. There'll need to be some check of some sort.


That said, flights don't seem to be a hotbed of infection like cruise ships so I do feel the lack of social distancing on planes isn't as much of a big deal as its made out to be. Moreso the restaurants at the destination, the pubs, things like that.

California Dreamer

smurfjed wrote: »

Right now, FR24 shows a returning conga line of 15 Qatar airliners heading back south into Doha, that appears to be a lot of people to dump in the airport at one time, unless of course they are all cargo flights.

HA! Hilarious! 15 aircraft into Doha? Out of a fleet of 200+

QR are still operating albeit with a 90% reduction in flights.

Nijmegen

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

That said, flights don't seem to be a hotbed of infection like cruise ships so I do feel the lack of social distancing on planes isn't as much of a big deal as its made out to be.

I’m not sure there’s any basis in fact for that assertion. In fairness to it, we don’t have huge amounts of reliable data parsed into peer reviewed studies about how the virus spreads, but we know that it is highly infectious and have seen early data points to suggest that crowded settings are a good breeding ground. And bear in mind for the virus to stop spreading you need to get the person to person infection rate below 1, so a traveller on a plane with the virus doesn’t need to infect the whole aircraft to help create a statistically relevant contribution to the spread of the disease.

We also have informal stories about infections and deaths in the airline industry.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-20/coronavirus-deaths-airline-industry-airplanes-flying

There have been some suggestions that either (a) it’s not a problem on airplanes or (b) you can’t contain it on airplanes, so why bother. To be honest I’m not sure either approach is appropriate in terms of the duty of care towards staff and customers or likely to pass muster with public health officials. And I’d be very surprised if when all of this is over studies don’t show that either assertion was correct - and I’m open to being quoted on that a year or two down the line and being incorrect, but that’s a strong feeling based on the information I’ve seen to date.

I think some folks with chips in the aviation game are trying to square the round peg on this one rather than looking at the realistic ways that this will have to reshape the industry to fit. Both short to medium term (pre vaccine, please god) and long term. Pandemics are possibly now a more likely than 1 per 100 years event given how they develop in a 7bn person interconnected world and I think some of the changes to the air travel industry are going to end up being permanent just so airlines can actually manage their risk in these scenarios.

WishUWereHere

Not sure how much, if any, of this is related to CV 19 though. If in the wrong thread Mods, feel free to move as You please:

https://www.anna.aero/2020/05/05/south-african-airways-to-end-true-independence-clean-balance-sheet-crucial-for-new-airline/

On another note regarding the above article, crazy time to be launching a new airline IMHO.

And then I also see links to Kenyan airways also being in trouble.

I am from Newbridge, and we used to see lots of planes overhead ( always assumed they were heading across the Atlantic ) Now, hardly anything moving, only saw 1 yesterday, and that was way up in the sky, with the trail of smoke visible with the good weather.

billyhead

Any update on the redundancy packages with Ryanair and Air Lingus? Will it be offered to those near retirement?

Tenger

Saw info from IAG on their quarterly financial results.
They estimate that traffic won’t return to 2019 levels until 2023.
That’s bleak.