Ash cloud
Not wanting to suggest that I would fly thru an ash cloud at all, but did the rocket scientists running this goat @#ck think about flying UNDER it...the ash cloud from what I understand sits in the stratosphere between around 20 - 30000'?Nicely caught in jetstreams until it decends down the line.
So why not fly under it?
In fact has any one noticed that all the pictures of the closed airports looks cavok to me??
so just fly under or around it - so what if it costs more gas/reduced payload..jets dont have to fly at 35000'!!
As long as you can get over the hills etc what is wrong with flying at low level ie sub 20k ... oh ....thats right too much fuel.
If would be called a low- hi - low mission in a previous life...
If I am wrong about it then I retract the idea, but that is what the meteorologists say... I see that Qantas wont back down with their cancelled flights - on the news in OZ today someone asked why they did not get their pax to DXB and then at least they could maybe get closer to destinations... to wit spokesman replied " we dont fly to DXB'... sounds like some flexibility would have been a good idea to mitigate the losses.. but I guess that once folks commence the journey the liability for hotels etc commences whereas, if they stay at home the losses are mitigated...
of course I dont quite get how they think they have lost so much money... most folks have already paid for their tickets a long time ago and it will just mean better seat loads when flying commences.. and they can ...as usual gouge the passengers more... or add a volcano surcharge!!
WJA