Loading Notifications...

Ryanair will sell most seats on planes

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 The Lemming 12 May 2020

Looks like Ryanair wants to get back to normal as soon as possible by filling their planes as much as possible during each flight. Either money really is more valuable than human life, or the CEO knows more about the spread of the Corona Virus than anybody else in the world and it will be safe to fly again.

3
 profitofdoom 12 May 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

> Looks like Ryanair wants to get back to normal as soon as possible by filling their planes as much as possible during each flight. Either money really is more valuable than human life.....

I understand your points, Lemming, but a half-full plane can't make money unless the fares are raised significantly (which is not Ryanair's business model I think) - so they wouldn't fly at all unless full - it's a really tough one, stuck between the devil and the deep blue sea. Unless government mandates half-full planes to give more distance between passengers, I guess it's up to airlines to choose how many seats to fill

In my opinion one empty seat in the middle wouldn't make the slightest difference to the chances of catching Covid-19 anyway

 Tom V 12 May 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

I can't see much point singling out Ryanair when KLM are apparently still packing passengers in without spacing.

 girlymonkey 12 May 2020
In reply to profitofdoom:

Surely stopping travelling internationally for a while would be the best way of eventually stamping out the virus. All passenger flights and ferries should have been banned months ago, and we wouldn't be in nearly such a bad state as we are now. 

If we had actually locked down in the first place, like banning international travel except for repatriations (and properly quarantined those) then we would probably be in the position now where we could have had far fewer restrictions to normal life. Why can't we get over our obsession with flying? We can't drive 10 mins to walk a dog but we can fly in from across the world? Madness!

9
 Flinticus 12 May 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

> Looks like Ryanair wants to get back to normal as soon as possible by filling their planes as much as possible during each flight. Either money really is more valuable than human life, or the CEO knows more about the spread of the Corona Virus than anybody else in the world and it will be safe to fly again.

I don't get your point. No-one is forced to fly with Ryanair to my knowledge. Its the passenger making the decision to fly.

I sometime use Ryanair to get 'home' to see my dad but whether I fly or what airline I use has always been my choice. I have no idea when I will next fly: I think risk will exist on all flights and at the airport at either end, as well as whatever means of transport you use on leaving the airport.

In reply to girlymonkey:

Interesting case in point in NZ. We have mandatory quarantining of all arrivals from overseas for 2 weeks - there's plenty of quite nice hotel space that is going cheap and the government seem happy to pay as an investment.

A US traveller refused screening and (I believe) quarantine, and ended up being jailed for 10 days under Section 70 of the Health Act (refusing a medical examination). She was released into community quarantine when she agreed to be swabbed - and the swab was indeed positive. 

So in this case, the risk to others appears to have been successfully reduced and the enforcement of quarantine was strict  - for good reasons. It's tempting to think of all sorts of back stories as to why quarantine or assessment was refused, but ultimately it shows potential effectiveness quite well.

Still - we have been doing this for 7 weeks now. We get about 4 million visitors a year, with a population of about 6 million. As a country, we don't have much money. But it worked for us - 21 deaths so far, and still fewer that 1500 cases. 

b

 fred99 12 May 2020
In reply to Flinticus:

> I don't get your point. No-one is forced to fly with Ryanair to my knowledge. Its the passenger making the decision to fly.

The problem isn't necessarily for the passenger who has chosen to fly sat cheek by jowl with around 180 other people, and also handle luggage which is even closer packed.

The problem is for the people that said passengers (all 180 plus plane crew now ?) meet afterwards. After arriving they travel onward, and that is where you and I, who haven't flown anywhere, meet these people - maybe in the supermarket when they get that milk for the cuppa they need after all that travel.

1
In reply to Flinticus:

It's about enablement of dangerous behaviour, I think. O'Leary is quite happy to go against the (admittedly confused) advice for the betterment of his profits. Doing so increases risk of virus transmission, but the "it won't work so I won't bother trying" is self-fulfilling. 

b

1
 jkarran 12 May 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

I see it as a signal to investors, business partners and potential consumers that there is a future for them. I'm not sure I agree but it's his job to keep the company (and sector) alive and working back toward profit if possible.

Frankly I don't see half empty holiday flights being a thing. It makes little economic sense especially for the low cost high throughput model, it makes no ecological sense whatsoever and I can't see it supporting many airlines, routes or associated operations other than between business hubs. Then again having been forced to transition that kind of business is going on ok now by wire, will they really switch back en masse especially if there is still perceived to be a real risk or inconvenience, that jolly to the far east to sign papers or attend a conference may not be quite so appealing.

Maybe that model is dead, maybe we can't bridge the gap from here back to there so instead now we fly less, stay longer like we used to but the travel industry is then awash with un-needed staff and cripplingly expensive assets, the shock of disposing of them will be hard to survive for most and once they end up in complicated acrimoniously contested ownership bringing them back into service over the coming years gets harder and costlier.

As we settle into the living with it phase it's not credible that mass market holiday flights resume without it both being (from a PH perspective) and being perceived to be (from a consumer perspective) safe to cross borders by air. Spacing the seats out and asking to toilet (ffs!) won't do it, the risk isn't being on the plane, it's the whole journey from an individual perspective and it's importing a mobile spreader less able and or willing to access healthcare or quarantine than someone at home from a population perspective. Think what we have done to control the hijack/bomb risk. That means pre-flight screening, possibly a post flight check and the vast majority of flights being between virus progression/response alike and closely cooperating nations.

jk

2
 girlymonkey 12 May 2020
In reply to ben b:

Yep, it has to have been less harmful to the economy than our half hearted "lockdown". Dealing with this virus is going to harm all economies, but those who took clear, decisive action early on will almost certainly come out better. The UK's lack of effort is an unmitigated disaster!

14
 The Lemming 12 May 2020
In reply to Flinticus:

> I sometime use Ryanair to get 'home' to see my dad but whether I fly or what airline I use has always been my choice. I have no idea when I will next fly: I think risk will exist on all flights and at the airport at either end, as well as whatever means of transport you use on leaving the airport.

Yep, times have changed. Are people happy to fly in a pressurised cigar tube with a highly contagious virus floating around. If you wanted a high viral load then there is a prime example right there.

By all means, start the airline industry. However we are an island, and I hate to say this but we should enforce quarantine on all people flying into the country.

That is unless airlines can test and differentiate between healthy travellers people and asymptomatic carriers?

I would not be happy to take a flight at the moment now that Corona virus is in the world and I could become an unwitting carrier of that virus to my family members when I return.

2
 profitofdoom 12 May 2020
In reply to jkarran:

> Maybe that model is dead..... it's not credible that mass market holiday flights resume.....

Don't be too sure, domestic flights are recovering well in China and it's only going to increase:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/willhorton1/2020/04/30/china-eastern-airlines-plans-to-resume-70-80-of-flights-by-june-in-coronavirus-recovery-push/#7ffd6b412875

China air travel is a massive market

 Eric9Points 12 May 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

We, like any other country can insist on self isolation on arrival in our country. I believe that is the situation in 120 countries now.

Alternatively if there was enough test capacity I guess all arrivals could be tested for C19 and not allowed out of the airport until the test comes back negative.

So Leary can do wtf he wants to but the countries his airline flies between will effectively dictate what happens.

Personally I have no intention of getting on another plane until I'm vaccinated though that may prove difficult in practice.

Post edited at 12:23
In reply to The Lemming:

I will play Devil's Advocate here. What O'Leary seems to be doing is what he can to save the business. That is, running flights as allowed by the current rules. Those rules are frankly wrong. If the governments actually pull the heads out and sort them, RyanAir will follow suit and might even be able to claim on business interruption insurance. As it stands, we're expecting a company to risk becoming a non-entity by holding itself to a higher moral standard than the law requires and than all of its competitors. That is unrealistic.

1
 toad 12 May 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

His choice, but he wont be selling them to me!

2
In reply to The Lemming:

In a shared circulated air system..  keeping a seat free here and there is pointless. Good hand hygiene and a face mask would likely lower the risk to the same level as a trip to Tescos. 

3
In reply to The Lemming:

Air travel as we knew it is dead, just the corpse is still twitching.  Still given how bad it is for the environment I'm not sure that's a bad thing.

(Disclaimer - I have not done my usual self-censoring and mollifying on this post as I am short on time and felt like a provocative statement.  After all what's UKC without some rhetorical fist fights?)

3
 Toerag 12 May 2020
In reply to ben b:

> Interesting case in point in NZ. We have mandatory quarantining of all arrivals from overseas for 2 weeks <snip> Still - we have been doing this for 7 weeks now. We get about 4 million visitors a year, with a population of about 6 million. As a country, we don't have much money. But it worked for us - 21 deaths so far, and still fewer that 1500 cases. 

Same here in Guernsey, although it was self-isolation rather than monitored quarantine. We peaked at ~160 live cases all seeded from about 8 initial people returning from ski trips and are now down to 9 live cases. Enforced quarantine would have been even better.  To me it would appear that the writing is on the wall for the rest of the world - eradication IS a viable strategy because you can't restrict the population enough to keep the virus & deaths down whilst keeping the economy going. If you can eradicate within an area with strict border controls you are going to have a much smaller sector of the economy to bail out (pure tourism). If the virus gets in you contact trace and target your restrictions to control it.

In reply to Bobling:

And with furlough tapering off until October it's going to be a slow death for many Industries. Might be better to be a little selective and cull them early, putting more funds towards green tech and carbon neutral industries, so they can get going quicker afterwards. 

Edit. Trump might be gone by Xmas and climate change could be back on the agenda again. 

Post edited at 17:02
3
 fred99 12 May 2020
In reply to summo:

> Edit. Trump might be gone by Xmas and climate change could be back on the agenda again. 

Don't bet your house on it. The little sh*t is doing his best to ensure that actually getting out to vote is made difficult, which will help his chances. Remember he's stacked the Supreme Court with his lackeys to ensure they back him.

1
In reply to The Lemming:

> Looks like Ryanair wants to get back to normal as soon as possible by filling their planes as much as possible during each flight. Either money really is more valuable than human life, or the CEO knows more about the spread of the Corona Virus than anybody else in the world and it will be safe to fly again.

He is a mad b*stard.   I could see  it if we were down at the levels of infection in China or New Zealand and the flights were only within 'safe' countries which had it suppressed.  Maybe if there was a really fast and really reliable test and they could check everyone before they got on the plane.

Packed flights with the levels of infection in the UK just now and without pre-testing are a recipe for disaster but it will be self limiting.  The cabin crew will catch it, there will be a couple of scandals after it becomes clear a ton of people on the same flight as a carrier now have it and it will get stopped.

1
 Darron 12 May 2020
In reply to Alkis:

RyanAir will follow suit and might even be able to claim on business interruption insurance. 

If that happens I look forward to the insurance company offering vouchers redeemable against future premiums.😉

 jkarran 12 May 2020
In reply to profitofdoom:

> Don't be too sure, domestic flights are recovering well in China and it's only going to increase:

Yes but it appears China has their CV problem well under control. We don't and don't look set to any time soon.

jk

2
 jkarran 12 May 2020
In reply to Toerag:

> Same here in Guernsey, although it was self-isolation rather than monitored quarantine. We peaked at ~160 live cases all seeded from about 8 initial people returning from ski trips and are now down to 9 live cases. Enforced quarantine would have been even better.

They tried that in the Isle of Man. One rule for actually sick people at home (self isolation at home), another for returnees (£1k bill, police escort to an alarmed and guarded hotel room for 2 weeks). Blatantly absurd political theatre to appease a few shouty authoritarians. I hear it hasn't done anything for public trust in the response.

> To me it would appear that the writing is on the wall for the rest of the world - eradication IS a viable strategy because you can't restrict the population enough to keep the virus & deaths down whilst keeping the economy going. If you can eradicate within an area with strict border controls you are going to have a much smaller sector of the economy to bail out (pure tourism). If the virus gets in you contact trace and target your restrictions to control it.

Yep. Waiting for the penny to drop here. Don't expect it will in time before we squander all the remaining public support and confidence with a second wobble and another weak lockdown.

jk

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

The test turn around time is about 3hrs30 on our machines. So not far from what used to be advised check in time!

False negative rate of tests is still higher than desired though. Arguably false negatives are possibly less infective to others however. 

b
 

 Roadrunner6 12 May 2020
In reply to Tom V:

> I can't see much point singling out Ryanair when KLM are apparently still packing passengers in without spacing.

Because it is an easy target.

An empty seat won't make much difference.

TBH as a frequent flyer my main concern would be in the airport and all the close proximity queues. once sat on a plane, breathing calmly wearing a mask, the risk of transmission shouldn't be too bad. Hopefully soon they can test everyone before going actually onto the plane.

The economy has to get going. But Lemming has a job. It's easy for people like those of us with stable employment to say nothing should start up yet but the reality is this cannot wait forever. And yes we put a price on lives, it's largely what NICE does.

 Roadrunner6 12 May 2020
In reply to ben b:

Did you see the tests the White House tests, 13 minute turnaround tests but with a 15% false negative. You'd have time to retest a false negative.

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-white-house-test-staff-kits-accused-false-negatives-2020-5

 wintertree 12 May 2020
In reply to ben b:

As I keep telling a friend in NZ, you may have done all the right things and it may have worked, but your weather isn’t half crap, I don’t know how you all cope...  It’ll be interesting to see how much lobbying business interest wields over quarantine and tourism in NZ come the antipodean summer.  

 wintertree 12 May 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

He could make a fortune charging people to access guaranteed virus free air from the overhead masks...

1
 marsbar 12 May 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

There is no guarantee a false negative would show positive the same day if re-tested.  There is no reason to suppost that the false negative results are randomly distributed, it seems more likely that the false negatives are down to testing too early.   

 Roadrunner6 12 May 2020
In reply to marsbar:

It depends on why the false negative occurred. Some tests are just inaccurate. Sometimes, if swabbing, the swab isn't deep enough or the sample is stored badly, or its early days in the infection. 

But those people are presumably therefore less infectious for the flight.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86047

Any rapid test will likely be pretty inaccurate. But if we can get quick cheap testing we can test more, just healthy people travel, minimize risks in a pragmatic manner. It's about all we can do for the next 1-2 years. As schools and transport open another wave is pretty much inevitable anyway.

In reply to wintertree:

> As I keep telling a friend in NZ, you may have done all the right things and it may have worked, but your weather isn’t half crap, I don’t know how you all cope...  

Beautiful autumnal day here on the Riviera of the Antarctic.

>  It’ll be interesting to see how much lobbying business interest wields over quarantine and tourism in NZ come the antipodean summer.  

There's still broad support for ongoing quarantine and lockdown, interestingly. Last survey I heard had the "too restrictive, need to open up faster" camp on about 8%. Possibly wit an Australian travel agreement there will be a commercial ski season this year but with far fewer people... might be quite nice!

b

 profitofdoom 12 May 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> ....TBH as a frequent flyer my main concern would be in the airport and all the close proximity queues. once sat on a plane, breathing calmly wearing a mask, the risk of transmission shouldn't be too bad......

Sorry, but I don't get your logic there.... in the airport and in queues you can keep away from people. Sat on a plane, you will be very, very close to people for the whole flight, and not just the ones next to you but much too close to loads of passengers in the rows behind you and in front of you 

 jkarran 12 May 2020
In reply to marsbar:

> There is no guarantee a false negative would show positive the same day if re-tested.  There is no reason to suppost that the false negative results are randomly distributed, it seems more likely that the false negatives are down to testing too early.   

Thing is it doesn't have to be perfect, just good. If there isn't much virus about and we can cope with the odd flare-up then single digit % false negatives would probably do. If there's 200k arrivals per day which is broadly UK norm, 0.05% of those are infected on any given day (that's a guess, if we're assuming 5% of us have been infected, most over ~5 weeks at peak, again very rough then it's broadly a 20 fold reduction from the peak which seems a modest drop, we can hope for better with careful management) and 10% of them get false negatives (a guess) then 10 carriers get through the first line of screening every day. Is that a problem, would a second line of screening a day or two later drop that to 1 undetected arrival per day? Obviously the 9 will have seeded cases but they can be traced and isolated. Perhaps that becomes a brief period of quarantine with departure and quarantine release screening rather than 14 days, I'm sure the details can be fine-tuned to weigh the risks against the benefits of practical, convenient travel.

I doubt we get back to half that air traffic within two years anyway. Other than that I have no idea if the other numbers are broadly reasonable or problematic. It seems better than spacing seats out and doing not much else, less good than quarantine for disease control but far more practical as a medium term solution if we are willing to get the base rate of infection way down.

jk

Post edited at 23:54
 Roadrunner6 13 May 2020
In reply to profitofdoom:

> Sorry, but I don't get your logic there.... in the airport and in queues you can keep away from people. Sat on a plane, you will be very, very close to people for the whole flight, and not just the ones next to you but much too close to loads of passengers in the rows behind you and in front of you 

Not really.

Estimates for spaces in queues say we will need miles of queues if 6 feet spaced, if we are not then that's dragging things and twisting and turning, talking. Nowadays for a transatalntc flight you queue for baggage and then often twice for security and once to get on the plane. When queueing that air is just sat around you not being exchanged.

If we are all sat in our seats, calmly, wearing a mask and the air is being filtered.. (see below). Assuming we don't fly with symptoms, pass tests, wear a mask and breath in circulated filtered air, I'd feel much safer on a plane than I would surrounded by people queueing. I'd not eat on a flight during this. Contact transmission would of course be a risk. 

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/air-travel-advice

"Research has shown that there is little risk of any communicable disease being transmitted on board an aircraft.

The quality of aircraft cabin air is carefully controlled. Ventilation provides a total change of air 20–30 times per hour. Most modern aircraft have recirculation systems, which recycle up to 50% of cabin air. The recirculated air is usually passed through high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters of the type used in hospital operating theatres and intensive care units, which trap dust particles, bacteria, fungi and viruses.

Transmission of infection may occur between passengers who are seated in the same area of an aircraft, usually as a result of the infected individual coughing or sneezing or by touch (direct contact or surfaces that other passengers touch). This is no different from any other situation in which people are close to each other, such as on a train or bus or in a theatre. Highly contagious conditions, such as influenza, are more likely to be spread to other passengers in situations where the aircraft ventilation system is not operating."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/columnist/cox/2020/05/07/coronavirus-jets-hepa-filters-capable-removing-particulates/5175787002/

There's plenty of articles on it. Once we are sat down on a plane, especially wearing a mask to stop larger droplets I'd feel OK.

 profitofdoom 13 May 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> Not really.......... Once we are sat down on a plane, especially wearing a mask to stop larger droplets I'd feel OK.

Thanks a lot for your reply - useful

I just hope people are screened in some way before boarding a flight

 Blanche DuBois 13 May 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

> TBH as a frequent flyer my main concern would be in the airport and all the close proximity queues. once sat on a plane, breathing calmly wearing a mask, the risk of transmission shouldn't be too bad.

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've seen on this website this year (which is an almost admirable achievement in its own right).  Closely followed by your laughable defense of it a few posts later on. 

8
 Roadrunner6 13 May 2020
In reply to Blanche DuBois:

Thanks. Appreciated. Care to point to cases of spread from onboard airplanes? So far there’s one possible one. There’s 3 scientific articles on this matter. But your analytical reply was superb. It’s just not a high risk area.

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-map-how-colds-flu-spread-through-aeroplanes

read this, thats with no preflight testing or masks.

here’s the paper:

https://www.pnas.org/content/115/14/3623

again though I appreciate your informative analytical answer. It’s always better to trust ignorance over science.

Post edited at 12:40
 HansStuttgart 13 May 2020
In reply to Roadrunner6:

Good point. If I think of my standard trip, after the flying time I'd spent at least the same amount of time in public city transport. And there the persons next to me change all the time -> higher risk.

 BnB 13 May 2020
In reply to ben b:

> It's about enablement of dangerous behaviour, I think. O'Leary is quite happy to go against the (admittedly confused) advice for the betterment of his profits. Doing so increases risk of virus transmission, but the "it won't work so I won't bother trying" is self-fulfilling. 

> b

I don't think it's the profits he's thinking of. It's whether Ryanair will exist at all in a few months time. The profits be damned. And before everyone agrees that O'Leary can go stuff himself (I admit it's tempting), that's a lot of families of his employees dependent on the next pay cheque.

 Roadrunner6 13 May 2020
In reply to BnB:

> I don't think it's the profits he's thinking of. It's whether Ryanair will exist at all in a few months time. The profits be damned. And before everyone agrees that O'Leary can go stuff himself (I admit it's tempting), that's a lot of families of his employees dependent on the next pay cheque.

And then further down the line more people. If we get longterm unemployment of 20-25% we're (almost) all feeling this - no doubt there will be winners somewhere. 

I'm a teacher at an independent school. I think we'll be OK next year, it will be the year after we will feel it.

 Tim Davies 13 May 2020
In reply to BnB: they’ll be here next month, next year and in ten years time as long as the average fare is €39. 

In the Uk the employees are largely on TLOA and not getting anything from the company above that. Cost to company zero. Many employees work as contractors, so are self employed; no work, no pay. Cost to company zero  Fuel is at $20 a barrel, Boeing can’t deliver the 737Max. I can’t believe for one second they’re not getting significant compensation for not flying planes they don’t fly and never paid for. 

Competition goes to the wall, no need to improve working terms and conditions. 
 

And it’s not your fault. 
 

what’s not to like? 
 

3
 JackM92 13 May 2020
In reply to The Lemming:

Here’s an idea - if you don’t like it, don’t fly with Ryanair

In reply to The Lemming:

I think it is wishful thinking on O'Leary's part. I don't think the passengers are going to be there in sufficient numbers to support his minimal cost, high volume business model. 

The one part of air travel that may resume soon is essential international travel in business and first class, possibly with each passenger in an enclosed booth - but at a cost. These planes may only have those two classes on board, paying premium fares. (It was like that forty years ago, flying to Arabia with Gulf Air, so there is a precedent.) 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

There are a *lot* of caveats in that paper.  They couldn't model the air conditioning system and they didn't find any viruses in their sampling, presumably because there weren't any sick people shedding them on the planes they happened to choose.  Without any viruses their sampling can't say much about how they spread so all they have is applying flu models to their documentation of how people move about on a plane.

Whether this work applies to Covid is not proven.

Also 3% risk of catching flu on *one flight* is pretty damn high if you are cabin crew or a frequent flyer.

Post edited at 06:27
 profitofdoom 14 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> There are a *lot* of caveats in that paper.... > Also 3% risk of catching flu on *one flight* is pretty damn high if you are cabin crew or a frequent flyer.

I haven't read the paper. But just to say, about your comment, 3% risk of catching flu on *one flight* is very high even if you are a one-and-only-time passenger. In my opinion

 Trangia 14 May 2020
In reply to girlymonkey:

> Surely stopping travelling internationally for a while would be the best way of eventually stamping out the virus. All passenger flights and ferries should have been banned months ago, and we wouldn't be in nearly such a bad state as we are now. 

Ferries are a problem because freight lorries use them. Without imports of food continuing we would be starving. We don't produce enough food to be self sufficient. I think this is why ferry passengers have been exempt from quarantine so far. However lorry drivers are probably significant spreaders.

 Roadrunner6 14 May 2020
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

But that’s not wearing a mask. Plus rapid testing. Covid isn’t that contagious when you compare to measles or others.

we don’t take precautions with the flu because it isn’t that serious.

Im a teacher and will be expected to be back in the classroom in the fall. I’m far more worried about being in a classroom than I would be with the odd flight.

Post edited at 12:53
 Toerag 14 May 2020
In reply to Trangia:

> Ferries are a problem because freight lorries use them. Without imports of food continuing we would be starving. We don't produce enough food to be self sufficient. I think this is why ferry passengers have been exempt from quarantine so far. However lorry drivers are probably significant spreaders.

No passenger ferry services to the Channel islands since our lockdown at the end of March, all the freight trailers are coming over without cabs (as most do normally - driver leaves the trailer in a marshalling yard at the port, the stevedores use their cabs to drive it onto the boat, process is reversed at the far end). It's certainly doable to have freight movements without needing drivers to cross borders.  If the UK had any sense they'd split the country up into chunks with borders between them and travel restrictions to allow parts of the country to come out of lockdown as necessary instead of the advanced parts having to wait for the slower parts and the slower parts coming out of lockdown too soon. Once adjoining parts reach the same state the border between them is dropped until the whole country is back to normal.

 Roadrunner6 14 May 2020
In reply to Toerag:

I think that is unenforceable in the UK.

This will last until 2021. This isn't a 8-12 week thing.

Colleges are now closing here in the fall, Cal State just closed today and have said they don't think they will open until possibly fall 2021.

It'll just be keeping the R value low. 

TBH I think its laughable the UK and the US are now going on about closing borders when they are the ones who should be stopped at the borders. We won't rid these countries of the disease when its likely 5-10's of millions are already affected. This will only go away once we have a treatment that cuts the fatality rate or a vaccine.

In reply to John Stainforth:

when all i read about that man is negative, how does he even has a business? all i seem to read about him paint him as some callous greedy man. I would never use the services of anybody that nasty in any capacity. why the hell do people fly on his airline? i am not a frequent flyer, once a year for annual vacation is all. i hope one outcome of this pandemic is an end to cheap flights and companies like his.

In reply to andrew breckill:

>  Why the hell do people fly on his airline? 

In order to get from A to B at a very affordable price. I've flown with Ryanair lots of times and never had any cause for complaint.

 Tom V 16 May 2020
In reply to andrew breckill:

I hope you're wrong.  I dislike the man almost as much as I despise Clarkson but his company provides a useful service.

 HansStuttgart 16 May 2020
In reply to andrew breckill:

> when all i read about that man is negative, how does he even has a business? all i seem to read about him paint him as some callous greedy man. I would never use the services of anybody that nasty in any capacity. why the hell do people fly on his airline? i am not a frequent flyer, once a year for annual vacation is all. i hope one outcome of this pandemic is an end to cheap flights and companies like his.

In the words of the man himself: "Ryanair planes are full of people who swore never to fly Ryanair again."

In reply to HansStuttgart:

I am/was a frequent flyer who only flew with Ryanair once! Easyjet always seemed the much better option.

 HansStuttgart 16 May 2020
In reply to John Stainforth:

Personally I don't like em and am very happy that they don't fly much from Stuttgart, so they are almost never an option. But, to be fair, I choose airlines on a mix of price and the convenience of the timeslot, so in case Ryanair can get me somewhere more conveniently than the others, I'd fly with them.

In reply to HansStuttgart:

i can well believe it Hans, we are shallow beings when it suits us. I do hope this cheap flight thing ends will this pandemic, yes i know lots of people want them, use them etc. plus the jobs it creates will go. i have never though along these lines before, and i do like my tin boxes, but, maybe it is time to truly reappraise everything?

1

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.