ExXB
S76, I disagree and I take my clue from the silence from the airlines themselves. Not a peep from Cryan or Squeezy, let alone the network airlines. They cannot be happy - expenses through the roof and refunds flowing out the door - but they aren't going to risk the reputations, their employees, or their expensive aeroplanes just because someone hasn't proved its unsafe
Let me tell how does it look from airline office:
1. We have no idea how danger it is really. All we know is similar to what Joe Public knows (like BA009 story). We are neither educated nor qualified to quantify the risk in the way like "BA009 was 100 km from volcano and it is ended up badly, so we should be ok if we are at least 200, 400 or 500 km from there".
2. We have spoken to local MET office. Actully they have no clue either. All they know is what you can read on internet. Not a big suprise, given most European countries are active volcano-free.
3. We don't want to get a bad
PR from the press, who will say "airline XXX is putting revenue on top of safety and asking a clearance to resume the flights".
4. Neither we want
PR like "airline XXX forced pilots to depart VFR and low level to boost the revenues".