[Closed] Social distancing on aircraft ?

I'm not getting on one until I've had the jab

I thought the air was filtered and actually pretty clean so I suppose if you can stagger the seating (no middle seat passenger, or maybe one row per family group?), not let people people squeeze past and come up with a better way of boarding that avoids the chaos of locker loading then it might be possible. Not 100% but its all about reduction of risk, not eradication.

In the future* you likely won't get onto a plane until your implantable chip containing your biological passport declares you fit to fly.

*next week

I'm making some assumptions here, and am willing to be shot down!.

CV19 is not airborne (obvious exceptions are sneezing and coughing in vicinity of others, obviously) so won't pass around via air con, or most offices in the country would be the same.

I don't think missing out the middle seat is a goer tbh, this means you're about 50cm from person in same row, and probably even less between aisles.

So, if we limited to one person for every 3 seats, I'm not sure airlines would bother, unless you pay 3x the price of a ticket, as it won't be cost effective to them anyway.

They are not the germ boxes that you might think, air is filtered pretty rapidly and viruses are removed, I’ve flown upwards of 100 times in the last 2 years, had one cold I think and no other illnesses, don’t cough without covering mouth, don’t touch face.

No, planes = death.

(Hopefully everyone would take that chain of thought so I can have a plane all to myself).

On a more serious note, as Nobeer says its not airbourne so you'd only get infected if someone decided to cough and sneeze all over you/infect something and you pick it up and lick your hands afterwards, the droplets are too large to be picked up and carried around.

Theres going to be a lot of fear even once lockdown measures are reduced and in some instances rightly so, the fear will help reduce the level of transmission to a degree.

I'd go on a plane so long as theres controls in place to seriously minimise transmission or health screening such as testing passengers prior to getting on the plan.

So, if we limited to one person for every 3 seats, I’m not sure airlines would bother, unless you pay 3x the price of a ticket, as it won’t be cost effective to them anyway.

That's the problem isn't it? If you offer people the choice of not flying, paying 9x the price (if you want 3 seats in every direction) or squeezing in and taking a chance then quite a few will opt for the last one or be angry if only the first two are available. What we really need is measures at each end that reduce the risk of infected people travelling in the first place, then spreading the virus if they do travel.

So, if we limited to one person for every 3 seats, I’m not sure airlines would bother, unless you pay 3x the price of a ticket, as it won’t be cost effective to them anyway.

I think this is probably going to be the reality.

The interesting thing will be will the airlines remain shut or will they re-open and basically say it's your funeral. If you're fit and healthy and you trust everyone else to be fit and healthy or you've had a vaccine or antibodies are shown to offer immunity then crack on, otherwise how much do you really want to be present in that meeting................

Even under normal conditions, ALL cabin air is entirely replaced every 2 mins and when doing so is passed through 2 high energy particle filters in series. Under extreme conditions, air cycling can be dramatically increased, but this decreases the air temperature as more outside air is needed to cycle the system and it places increased demands on the air conditioners, requiring more fuel. This decrease in temperature is also a good thing (apart from a comfort point of view) as warm air holds more moisture than cold air and thus can hold suspended mucus particles better, thus cold air is better.

Plans are afoot to change cabin materials to make them self-disinfecting and to decrease the centrality of the air movement systems in the cabin to dramatically increase the rate at which air from a passengers mouth is evacuated from the cabin. The target is <5 seconds for air evacuation and <30 mins for surface decontamination without active intervention.

@daffy, don't come in here with your well-reasoned and articulated responses. We want STW arguments!

Surface contamination is still likely to be an issue. Maybe the longest flights will be dictated by the capacity of the human bladder.

Aircraft are MUCH safer (in viral terms) than buses, trains and cruise ships as they have forced, positive pressure ventilation of filtered air, everywhere. The systems are designed to make sure that all areas of the aircraft receive fresh air within a fixed period. The problem is that the perceived risk is still high and we (Airbus) must do everything possible to further reduce both the real and perceived risk, by adapting the aircraft and demonstrating to the public that the Aircraft is safe.

But, and as highlighted above, the real problem is at either end. Are you virus free when you leave? Are you Virus free when you return...how do you know? 100000 tests a day wouldn't come close to meeting passenger demand if air travel were at full strength.

As for proper social distancing in either the short or long term. The former is, potentially feasible by checkerboarding the cabin seating and charging more, but is everyone essentially willing to pay business class pricing? In the longer term, assuming that 75% of previous travelers are willing to pay the cost, we'd need 25-30% MORE aircraft...

Nick
Subscriber
They are not the germ boxes that you might think, air is filtered pretty rapidly and viruses are removed

Daffy
Subscriber
Even under normal conditions, ALL cabin air is entirely replaced every 2 mins and when doing so is passed through 2 high energy particle filters in series

really, never knew that i thought it was pretty much basic hepa type filters and that's it, which wont get rid of a virus hepa will remove 0.3micron and the covid is 0.125micron.

That aside, i fly quite a lot with work, and it's only when i've recently been on a short haul fliht that i might feel a bit groggy for my 1-2 times a year man illness.

side note, does anyone else get a massive amount of dry bogies on planes?

scotroutes
Subscriber
Surface contamination is still likely to be an issue. Maybe the longest flights will be dictated by the capacity of the human bladder.

As above - plans are afoot to replace cabin materials and systems to make them self-disinfecting. The problem is cost and weight. The new materials cannot be significantly more costly either directly or in terms of performance (weight, maintenance, etc) or airlines simply won't buy them, they'll run the risk instead. Wherever possible, Airbus want the new systems/materials to be a non-optional part of the aircraft in order to increase the resilience of the industry at a fundamental level, outside the purview of the bean counters.

We obviously cannot do anything about the virus itself or lockdowns and their effects on travel, but we can try to ensure a safe return to flight operations at the earliest opportunity with a public which is confident in the aircraft as a safe place to be.

and to convince the public that the Aircraft is safe.

I kinds hope that this is a turning point and businesses stop trying to be present in every meeting.

I've sat through bid presentations where the contractor's turned up mob handed with 40+ people and TBH all the breakout meetings they generated/attended could have been resolved remotely. There's just a culture among sales/marketing that they have to be present and that more people being present is better. And each one then thinks they have to be there otherwise they're not as important as the next one so no one want's to be the one who dials in on skype.

Thanks daffy that's really useful. I am waiting to fly so following with interest. A mate of mine has limited immunity so always wore a face mask on cheap flights, now I see him as a bit of a pioneer. Any testing pre and post flight would need to be replicated on buses and trains, seems a bit pointless getting off a clean plane and onto a packed train.

side note, does anyone else get a massive amount of dry bogies on planes?

The air on an aircraft is heavily conditioned and has incredibly low humidity in order to protect the both the passengers and the aircraft itself.

Surface contamination is still likely to be an issue

Let's all queue up at the security checkpoints for our turn to touch those lovely trays while piling our belongings into them. Ooh, and maybe a patdown from the guy that has touched dozens of people before your turn.

thisisnotaspoon
Subscriber

I kinds hope that this is a turning point and businesses stop trying to be present in every meeting.

I genuinely believe that it will be. I honestly believe that 50-80% of business travel will no longer happen, at least for the next 3-5 years. Businesses will point to the fact that they saved $$$ and were still able to function during this period as a reason to keep travel costs down. BUT, i think the old guard, the higher-ups, will return to form ASAP and slowly, their example will filter down and percolate back into the industry.

The problem for aviation is that for example with BA, over 80% of their revenue is generated from business travel, but accounts for less than 20% of their passengers. This is why many of the older carriers are now in trouble. Ironically, airlines such as Jet2, Thomson and, to a lesser extent Easyjet and Ryanair will recover faster. People still want to travel and many people, regardless of risk are absolutely jonesing for their next holiday.

AFAIK The Air quality on aircraft is generally crap, but it's a cost saving measure. They can make it better, it just costs more fuel. It's said that the air quality has gotten worse since they banned smoking because it gave them an opportunity to save money.

Again, I'm no expert but to ensure the same sort of social distancing they're aiming for in super markets on a low-cost flight they'd need to give each passenger (or each couple) their own row of seats and leave the row in front and behind empty. It would also mean it could take 5x as long to load and unload a 3rd of the passengers they can now. They'd also have to somehow enforce everyone actually stays in their seat when it lands.

I can't see it being financially viable to run aircraft like that, not unless we're all willing to pay 3x the current cost, it would be cheaper to cancel and refund flight instead of burning the fuel.

I think the way the wind is blowing they'll come up with new processes - I suspect they'll screen temps / symptoms in the airport and provide gloves and face masks for passengers. The science will be vague because there isn't any other kind at the moment and passengers will have to decide if the risks are worth it.

Let’s all queue up at the security checkpoints for our turn to touch those lovely trays while piling our belongings into them. Ooh, and maybe a patdown from the guy that has touched dozens of people before your turn.

The supermarkets seem to be able to keep trolleys safe by spraying them between use, I'm sure airports can manage.

I genuinely believe that it will be. I honestly believe that 50-80% of business travel will no longer happen,

Agreed, Business Travel has been in the decline for decades. Massive sweeping statement, but it's only the old boys in sales now who want to "see the whites of their eyes" and they're slowly retiring. Most of the reps who used to drop in on us for a "cuppa and a chat" don't bother anymore. I spend about £200k a month with various suppliers, there's only 1 that wants to send a Rep in, and he's a pain. I've got Reps in the US, India, Japan and Malaysia. As much as I'd like to, I'm not flying off to Miami for a couple of Days, down to Las Vegas for a conference and them onto Malaysia for a meeting. I'm sat in Drizzly Wales with my fake ultra chic apartment background.

The work we've done with clients over the last 7 weeks won't be in vain when lock-down ends. The move to video conferencing was glacial before Covid, then rapid. I don't see many managers signing off hundreds in expenses and hours lost in travel time again.

I'll go as far as getting the channel tunnel train using a contactless system... but anything that involves other humans in close proximity, nah, not for me thanks.

Interesting point about business travel being massively reduced. So does that mean HS2 should stop and the funds diverted to more pressing needs?

I’ll go as far as getting the channel tunnel train using a contactless system… but anything that involves other humans in close proximity, nah, not for me thanks.

That's our thoughts. Although we've been exposed to Covid at home and had very mild symptoms.

So does that mean HS2 should stop and the funds diverted to more pressing needs?

And the new runway at Heathrow? Or will that still go ahead 'to be ready when flying returns'.

Interesting point about business travel being massively reduced. So does that mean HS2 should stop and the funds diverted to more pressing needs?

Possibly worth a post-Covid review. It's become a political thing though so who knows.

London may be the biggest loser in all this. Post Credit Crunch a lot of large employers closed their London HQs and moved out of the city, but still stayed within commuting distance (the the standard of a hellish London commute) to keep their workforce.

Large cities might start looking very old fashioned soon.

Maybe the answer is for combined passenger/cargo flights with more emphasis on heavy cargo so the lighter humans can occupy more volume.

I stopped flying because I find it's excruciating being locked into a cramped seat for hours on end, so more space for passengers would be a good thing.

I'd be more worried about the terminal environment.

As flight crew, I'm painfully aware of the impact on the industry, however screening at departure is probably too late if you've already sneezed on someone.

IMHO Quarantine is needed for everyone, including crew if you want air travel to continue.

So either you accept flights are going to be minimal/freight only, or you have to accept your holiday will be +2 weeks and that you'll have to employ lots of crew. And they're not going to do that right now.

So, basically air travel is screwed until vaccine available and antibody screening widely available.

Just my opinion.

I would imagine that the biggest risk with air travel is all the stuff you end up touching in the airport, because of the numbers of people from all over the world who've also touched them. That, and as said, the time you spend at your destination.

Interesting point about business travel being massively reduced. So does that mean HS2 should stop and the funds diverted to more pressing needs?

I dunno, that sort of infrastructure has always been a very long term thing. And I can see the arguments now.....................

"You're not going to commute as much you don't need a train. But we still want the money spent on the trans Pennine links instead because............... reasons".

"And you won't be flying so you can scrap that 3rd Heathrow runway. But we want Leeds to have an international hub airport so we want it there"

Maybe the answer is for combined passenger/cargo flights with more emphasis on heavy cargo so the lighter humans can occupy more volume.

Most passenger flights only use 20% of the cargo capacity for actual passenger baggage, the other 80% is commercial cargo to supplement the cost of the flight.

To answer the OP's question; social distancing is theoretically possible on planes but passenger capacities will be massively reduced - using the same modelling as the Pub & Beer Association have done based on finite space and 2mtr spacing in all directions, the reduction will be c70%.
Progress through airports will become even slower; too many surfaces to clean properly; reduced demand - both business and leisure.
Airlines will have no choice other than significant price hikes which will, in turn , further dampen demand.
Will be another sector to exemplify Warren Buffet....it's only when the tide goes out you see who's being swimming naked.

Dahhhhh. Having spent £5k on EZY and Jet2 shares this morning, this thread is making me very uneasy 🙂

using the same modelling as the Pub & Beer Association have done based on finite space and 2mtr spacing in all directions, the reduction will be c70%.

Surprised it's not reduced more than that TBH. If you think how crammed in people are in the security queue etc.
In smaller airports the scrum when the plane arrives already spills over into adjacent gates, suddenly that becomes a queue 1-200 metres long.

The more this gets thought through and the more I see the statistics the more I think that long term social distancing is just a non starter. I think I would be more in favour of locking down and locking down hard all those who are properly vulnerable and the rest of us going back to life as was as far as possible. So everyone over the national retirement age and everyone with a medical condition (you could argue that includes obesity) stays properly out of reach and there rest of us do the graft like worker bees. Those of us statistically most robust just have to take our chances (there will be casualties) plus also take a hit (either financial or voluntary work) to support those locked down.

Schools, transport, many forms of work - I just don't see social distancing being the solution.

AFAIK The Air quality on aircraft is generally crap, but it’s a cost saving measure. They can make it better, it just costs more fuel. It’s said that the air quality has gotten worse since they banned smoking because it gave them an opportunity to save money.

Just incorrect on every level i'm afraid.

The air in the cabin is recirculated and very highly filtered so clean as anything.

Air is dryer on an aircraft as the aircraft is pressurised to a higher altitude than sea level - typically 8,000 ft altitude or 6,000ft on the latest generation of aircraft. Lower pressure air contains less moisture so yes, especially on the aircraft pressurised to 8k ft the air does feel dry and a lot of the feeling of 'crapness' you get on long haul flights is due to that (and most people don't sleep well and probably have a few too many drinks).

The air is pressurised to relive stresses on the airframe and an increase fatigue life of the airframe. Modern aircraft are pressurised to lower altitudes due to use of carbon fibre which has no fatigue life, so can improve the comfort for passengers. At 6k feet altitude the density of the air is near as makes no difference the same as at sea level as far as we can tell.

So nothing to do with saving money..the systems on the aircraft remain unchanged since the days of smoking so no fiddling with the system to 'worsen the air quality' after smoking ban to save money.

You're safer on the aircraft with social distancing in place than you are in the airport terminal or on the train or bus going to the airport if that is the transport you take to the airport.

The ticket price is clearly a challenge. Airlines made bugger all money even when they were filling aircraft, so some pretty heavy duty government support is going to be needed. Most of the global air freight is transported as under-belly freight on passenger aircraft, so important for global trade to get aircraft flying and prices of all goods on our shelves. so likely passenger tickets will go up and the price of air freight so higher prices in the shops for all.

Dahhhhh. Having spent £5k on EZY and Jet2 shares this morning, this thread is making me very uneasy 🙂

brave move! there's going to be some airlines going bust as a result of this. EZY will prob be ok, not too sure about jet2.

After escaping the ship by helicopter, 16 of us had this to ourselves for our flight from Guyana to LHR...
[url= https://i.postimg.cc/y8tS48yR/5-F36-FA23-66-B1-4-A46-9-B0-F-BDA4-F37-CDB69.jp g" target="_blank">https://i.postimg.cc/y8tS48yR/5-F36-FA23-66-B1-4-A46-9-B0-F-BDA4-F37-CDB69.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
Still no upgrade, all in economy due to weight distribution, premium too small for us to be suitably distanced, and business used by the alternate crew who were getting rest.

Special charter flight arranged by the company who are hiring the ship.

really, never knew that i thought it was pretty much basic hepa type filters and that’s it, which wont get rid of a virus hepa will remove 0.3micron and the covid is 0.125micron.

Both Airbus and Boeing say that the HEPA filters in their aircraft will remove COVID-19. Airflow is from ceiling to floor, vertically, and is then either dumped into the cargo holds to be vented overboard or passed back through the filters. If you're going to catch a virus from a flight it's either going to be from the person sat directly next to you or across the aisle, or from a surface you touch.

Airbus say that a 0.3 micron filter is, for some reason, better at catching virus particles.

Pre-departure screening via swab or finger-prick test is the way to go in this, assuming that a test becomes available that can deliver reasonably accurate results in a short time.

All interesting stuff.

So being on the aircraft itself may not be too bad.

Getting on to the aircraft itself may be interesting.

The economics don’t stack up in any way.

Hopefully it will mean reduced flights in the future

The airlines will be fine, just not the staff. It is no longer a Covid crisis, but an opportunity to smash what Ts&Cs were still remaining.

so some pretty heavy duty government support is going to be needed.

I think that as things go back to something like normal and furlough ends and we all end up paying 10% more in tax to pay it off even if our companies manged to work through it or just laid off staff.

There is going to be zero appetite for bailing anyone out. Especially those that are seen as being a bit too tax efficient or polluting.

brave move! there’s going to be some airlines going bust as a result of this. EZY will prob be ok, not too sure about jet2.

Jet2 are probably quite well placed as they own almost all of their fleet, have little to no business travel, perform lots of their own maintenance and have few bases.

Lower pressure air contains less moisture so yes, especially on the aircraft pressurised to 8k ft the air does feel dry and a lot of the feeling of ‘crapness’ you get on long haul flights is due to that

I've also heard that the dryness dries out your nasal lining which in turn makes it more susceptible to infection. I used to feel terrible on the transatlantic family-visiting flights we did, my nose would be a dried up mess and I'd always feel really parched and grim for the following few days. Either dryness, infection or a side effect of travel sickness medicine. However since flying way more for work, this has eased up and I can fly with impunity now. So I've either built up a tolerance to the dry air or the medicine, air quality is better than 10 years ago, or my immune system is now that good that I can deal with international bugs.

Airbus say that a 0.3 micron filter is, for some reason, better at catching virus particles.

Isn't it the moisture droplets that are the issue not the virus itself?

There is going to be zero appetite for bailing anyone out. Especially those that are seen as being a bit too tax efficient or polluting.

Classic case of the general public not understanding the industry and it's contribution to everyone's day to day lives. If you're referring to Branson in the tax efficiency stakes then that too was a ridiculous story. Branson has almost zero to do with the airline these days and Virgin Group is a minority share holder...it certainly is not his airline or controlled by him or the Virgin Group. Also take into account the hundreds of billions of pounds of orders the airline has with Airbus and Rolls-Royce for brand new super efficient aircraft it should be greatly the UK's interests to bail out Virgin terms of the tax take for the UK government from Airbus, Rolls-Royce and all the tens of thousands of well paid employees working for Airbus and RR...much more so than other British airlines that have gone bust recently who chose US airframes and engines. Governments are going to have to support most sectors of our economy...we have a diversified economy, and the airlien industry is a significant enabler of the way the economy works. Also the government bail outs being discussed are coming with 'green strings' where airlines have to commit to reducing their CO2 and emissions if they were to be bailed out...even though aircraft only contribute about 3% of CO2.

If the airlines 'make so little money as it is', then how could Easy Jet afford to pay out £172 million to shareholders middle of last month? [including £60 million to Stelios personally]

A week later they asked the government for a £600 million bail out.

Yes that's true, I heard a full low cost short haul flight was costing 50gbp per seat at 100% occupancy. The last few years I have flown at off peak times at c 25 GBP per journey, with no extras. So was being subsidised by the others and as o Leary said this morning, summer is where his profit is.

I just can't see social distancing on planes working, most times at Manchester passport control there isn't space for the queue if everyone was 2m apart, we d be queuing all round the perimeter fence.

So flight related question....

Daughter and her gymnastics team should have been going to Iceland this summer for EuroGym, but now cancelled, obviously.

The event is being rescheduled for next year. The airline have apparently agreed to just transfer the booking on for them.

I'm wondering what sort of guarantee there is that the airline will still exist next year, and whether the club shouldn't be angling for a refund?

The more people ask for a refund, the less likely it is that the airline will exist. Same as payign your nursery or your cleaners.

Fair point. Suspect the flight is a relatively small part of the cost of the week!

Pre-departure screening via swab or finger-prick test is the way to go in this, assuming that a test becomes available that can deliver reasonably accurate results in a short time.

How would that work in practice? A family of four turn up for departure. One tests positive. Are they still liable for the cost of the flight and of any accommodation they've booked? It's not like they're going to get travel insurance.

And what happens if you test positive before your flight home?

If a vaccine becomes available then I can see it being like yellow fever. If you are coming from or through an at risk country you need documentation to travel.

There’s a blood test coming out in the US that might allow very quick testing. It is also able to detect the virus before it becomes infectious apparently.

The air on well maintained modern aircraft is hepa filtered. In fact, the best air to breathe would be straight out of the nozzle!

The far bigger issue is the huge movement activity, unclean surfaces and human interaction going on from check-in to leaving their airport at the other end.

We're flying back to the UK as a family in July. Going to be an odd experience! Hopefully plenty of spaces on the plane....

How would that work in practice? A family of four turn up for departure. One tests positive. Are they still liable for the cost of the flight and of any accommodation they’ve booked? It’s not like they’re going to get travel insurance.

And what happens if you test positive before your flight home?

If this becomes the scenario I imagine insurance companies will be queueing up to offer policies. They might be relatively expensive, and they might need to be underwritten by the government initially to offset this, but there's a huge gap in the market which will be filled.

How would that work in practice? A family of four turn up for departure. One tests positive. Are they still liable for the cost of the flight and of any accommodation they’ve booked? It’s not like they’re going to get travel insurance.

Bit like the situation where a family turns up and someone has forgotten their passport or it's run out, they don't get on the flight. Whilst it's pretty crap the family lose their holiday, potentially infecting others and continuing to spread the virus is not an acceptable price to pay so they can still go on holiday.

They're already expecting business travel take a big hit, provided resorts reopen I would expect an increase in holidays next year when the current situation is more of a memorary. Or at least I would expect that, but by this time next year that other vile infection this country has, Brexit will be in full swing so while everyone else is slowly getting back to prosperity will be smashing our economy to death, but hey, you know flags and stuff.

I can't help but hope it will be the end of cheap mass aviation.

Bit like the situation where a family turns up and someone has forgotten their passport or it’s run out, they don’t get on the flight. Whilst it’s pretty crap the family lose their holiday, potentially infecting others and continuing to spread the virus is not an acceptable price to pay so they can still go on holiday.

Yep. So how many will take the risk of a last-minute test fail and book on that basis?

I imagine insurance companies will be queueing up to offer policies. They might be relatively expensive, and they might need to be underwritten by the government initially

Well, they can **** right of with using my taxes to underwrite the insurance industry.

I can’t help but hope it will be the end of cheap mass aviation.

Nah, apparently we're all going to subsidise the airlines, insurance companies, aircraft manufacturers and oil companies.

most times at Manchester passport control

I reckon they are going to seize the opportunity to build out on their existing winning customer service model. Queue up at security for the standard Covid-19 service where the staff will now breath in your face while they rummage through your belongings, or £10 for the face mask queue. You can't bring that bottle of hand sanitizer through sir, it's the rules.

Well, they can **** right of with using my taxes to underwrite the insurance industry.

Would be an interesting world if we could decide what we spent our taxes on.

I assume you'd be perfectly happy paying more tax provided it went on benefits to support the 250,000 unemployed workers in the sector?

The reality is that your taxes aren't thrown away when you pay them, nor do you get any say on where they go other than by voting for your MP. Could you imagine what life would be like if the Brexit Brigade got to determine what their taxes were spent on?

Caveat here is that if an airline / airport / bank etc receives a government bailout beyond the furlough scheme they should be banned from making dividend payments to shareholders along with a ban on executive share options and bonuses until it's paid back.

Not just the airline industry though is it. Rolls Royce are considering redundancies, thats a lot of well paid, skilled jobs and proper future apprenticeships going.

Doubt the insurance industry will want to underwrite that risk, in fact I can see Covid-19 being excluded from new policies. Be plenty of people who will assume it won't happen to them anyway, same people who don't have travel insurance and kick off when the government doesn't rescue them from whatever mess they've gotten themselves into.

Agree about Manchester airport, one of the worst airports for arrogant and inefficient customer service.

fatmountain
Member
I can’t help but hope it will be the end of cheap mass aviation.

@fatmountain - why?

like millions of others i live right under a very busy flightpath in a poor area with a dense population very few of whom can afford to fly. it has been wonderful being able to hear birdsong/ have peace and quiet and not to be woken up at 5.30am. that's why.

Millions of people don’t live under airport flight paths at all. Not even close. A small number of thousands at the most in the UK. Millions live by busy roads and it’s been proven that the noise from a busy road is worse to live near that an airport. And it’s the ‘poor’ who make up the vast majority of passengers on flights. They won’t be able to fly post COVID probably as flying might become something those with money can do In the future anyway just like in the olden days at the beginning of passenger aviation.

The tax payer is going to pay either way. And pay big. Aviation is a big industry and well paid so lots of tax pounds going into the coffers and paying for the nhs. Also knock on affect of other businesses and industries and lack of flying and increased cost of what flying remains will hamper their competitiveness and access to global markets so other businesses and industries set to shrink with inevitable redundancies. All this will be picked up by the tax payer one way or another.

The thing is the industry doesn’t need to be bailed out. It just needs sensible measures to enable people to return to flying. The average Brit is not going to want to swap their annual pilgrimage to the costa del sol for a caravan in a rainy field in the UK any time soon. They might do without for one year but they’ll soon break.

why?

Yea, I can't think of any reason why we might not want shitloads of planes constantly consuming vast quantities of fossil fuel.

Should probably start with shipping or cars if you're worried about overall emissions, no?

Should probably start with shipping or cars if you’re worried about overall emissions, no?

Or an even bigger contributor, meat consumption....😊

Should probably start with shipping or cars if you’re worried about overall emissions, no?

No, we should start everywhere.

Doubt the insurance industry will want to underwrite that risk

A friend of mine hold a senior position in a multi national insurer.  They are flooded with work, and he said they are very busy working out how to protect their balance sheets whilst re-wording future policies.  So, more expensive and harder to benefit the policies will be.

I admit I was estimating but I just did some research, a bit riled by what I felt was a dismissive attitude to the experiences of others, and it looks like millions is right. 1.6m would have been affected just by the new run way at Heathrow. Not all of those people are poor but many of the worst hit areas are -remarkably- areas of social deprivation. I don't know what poor with quote marks around it means. Probably some way of separating the speaker of the word from the reality it signifies.