Certainly isn't - and people have their choice. But you try have a factual debate with someone re: the election and i tell you right now the people voting for the conservative or the ones i have had the debate with were quoting lies which were peddled by the Daily Mail, The Scum etc.

I'll stick by my point above - we are acting 3rd world thanks to the nasty scum bags who write crap for their income.

You are out of order. It would be quite easy to point out untruths peddled by the left. But leave this thread for COVID-19. That is concern enough.

Im pointing out why are, the UK, are acting in the 3rd world way we are WHILST China has very much organised a very structured approach to it. Our free press. And i used GE as an example of this. I'm not out of order, i'm highlighting the simple truth.

Read post 287 on this thread. The strategy is quite logical. Not a matter for party political point scoring.

There is much to be said on how the media and different political systems influences how Govt forms policies towards handling pandemics. What works in an authoritarian state with little journalistic freedom doesn't work in a liberal democracy, different societies prioritise human rights in different ways - it's a huge topic for debate... but maybe something for JetBlast ?

The strategy adopted by China, and by its neighbours, has been to use draconian restrictions to throttle the spread of the virus. The trouble is that outside Hubei province very few have been infected, so, as soon as normal activities resume it is likely that the disease will reappear (until a vaccine is developed).
The policy in the UK and I think the rest of Europe is to accept that most people will catch it and it will die out when enough have, and are immune. The focus is on ensuring that we don't all catch it at once, overwhelming the hospitals as has happened in northern Italy.
Which strategy will prove to be correct? Time will tell.
​​​​​​
​​

Now the UK govt talks of banning mass gatherings from next week. This seems curious as, an infectious person can more easily infect those around them - than across a stadium. If you ban mass gatherings it does not stop infected (but asymptomatic) people from infecting numerous people.

But, happily we shall know the answer very shortly, in about three months time...

You are clearly an angry person who hasn’t got over the loss of yet another General Election, which is actually yesterday’s news. People like Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott and John McDonnell were the authors of their own downfall together with a manifesto that made the party unelectable.

Back to the thread. Countries are shutting the door after the horse has bolted but there is an argument that restrictions on entry could still make a difference. This virus can’t be stopped now, most people accept that point so it comes down to controlling the speed of the infection rate to build up the populations immunity in a controlled manner, if that is even possible, and to keep it away from elderly people. When enough people have immunity it will help keep others safe and reduce the impact of further waves of infections hitting the U.K. next winter.

We can see what is happening in Italy where their health service is overwhelmed. This is going to happen to not only the NHS but most health services in Europe so is a frightening prospect as people will die due to a lack of treatment.

It might not happen in America where many Americans would rather die than pay the deductibles which insurance companies charge. Then there is of course those millions of Americans with no insurance who could not even afford the $2000 for a ride in an ambulance let alone any treatment.

It will be interesting to see the final death rates for America compared with Europe with its socialised health care.

Last mention of aviation was ten posts ago - back on topic, please or take it to JetBlast.

Concerning the air traffic, the most radical countries in that regard are at present these in Central-Eastern Europe. For example:

• Czechia is closing all its borders, allowing only its own citizens to return back home. To my understanding, that does not mean ban on flights at the moment
• Slovakia closes all its international airports for passenger traffic as of now
• Poland introduces ban on all international flights from Sunday 15th of March

For an airline that is medium sized or larger (ie 50 aircraft each with 150 seats), does anyone have an idea of how much of the company's costs would be variable (fuel, air nav charges, per-pax airport charges, etc) versus fixed costs (salaries, debt repayment for new aircrafy, rental on office space, etc) ?
Furthermore, how much of these fixed costs can be cut (eg staff redundancies) without the risk of being sued heavily in court (eg by aircraft lessors) ?

I realise that every airline is different and commercial confidentiality mean exact figure are private - but there must be some sort of ballpark ranges for this

Spain is now closed and citizens under effective lockdown

Every airline will be different but as posted day or two ago the 1.) Lease 2.) Payroll 3.) Fuel 4.) Airport / APD / ATC / etc wil likely to be the highest in value terms.

Aircraft lessors will have to take a pragmatic view of rescheduling payments because failing to do that means Airlines start collapsing and there is not a who new range of clients out there will to take aircraft on, hence still owe but instead of paying next quarterly payment (not sure whether it is like property where rent paid 4 times a yr in advance) debt gets parked until can be paid. Lessors taking a hard line will likely find that other airlines / govts etc act against them like banking license etc. Basically everybody in same boat so consistent approach sought.

Employess............. likely to be laid off, Govt will then have to fund via welfare system

Fuel............. not using then not paying and contracts for certain levels will just be rolled over, bearing in mind fuel price halved then oil companies will want airlines held to contracts at €75 a barrel, hence play ball.

Govts etc............... possibly more problematic but can see airlines taking a lot longer to pay, airports which do not have aircraft stationed there and no flights coming in for foreseeable future may not be paid for a long time. Pay those whom you need to pay, rest will pay eventually. Some airports will go bust.

We should also remember the thousands of staff who work in airports, many already on reduced hours and many will lose their jobs.

Bottom line is to manage cash flow now.

LTNman Unfortunately, the virus has already mutated and at least two strains have been identified. Herd immunity is not possible.

All govts are going to print money, unfortunately, as we were on the brink of recession anyway - this will compound the sovereign debt problem.

UK and Ireland to be added to the list of naughty countries by the USA

A good example is airlines that have been hit by long term strikes, sometimes several months. These seem to manage through all these fixed costs with no income without significant subsequent collapse. This happens even through passenger loyalty, once restarted, may have evaporated to other carriers, which is not going to happen here.

So what of the future?

It appear entirely conceivable that there will be some pretty serious failures in the travel and tourism industry in the next 12 months, unless there is to be a new global mantra of "sh1t happens - keep calm and carry on" which isn't the direction of travel at the moment. It is hard to imagine governments (with the possible exception if Italy who have form) bailing out airlines and / or tour operators in the way they bailed out the banks in 2008/9. When it all comes to an end, as it surely will, there'll be aircraft in the hands of leasing companies with nothing to do, and empty hotels with no forward bookings.

Is the whole industry going to rebuild from ground zero, and will there be a return, at least initially to there being a myriad small independent tour operators chartering aircraft and seats off a new generation of smaller charter and scheduled airlines? Are we, in other words, essentially going to be turning the clock back to 1970, at least from a European leisure industry perspective?

Germany has promised substantial assistance to their affected companies.

How about it, Mr Sunak? Mr Shapps?

Although I expect Willie Walsh will turn down any bailout offer for IAG following his comments about assistance for FlyBe. ;-)

I know that is offering assistance to industry across the board as a result of the current crisis, but bail companies out? If that company were to be Volkwagen, Siemens, BMW or another big industrial concern they amy well, subject to whatever state aid rules might apply from Brussels, but bailing out an industry that essentially ships wealth out of the country? Can't see that myself. Assistance is one thing and may help, but unless things change I can't see assistance being enough.

Similar from the UK government? Well unless you're a bank I honestly can't see it, even when we're out of EU transition.

Who will want the exisitng big operators - who they know, and who have a track record - to survive, so will do all they can to make that happen. Seems more likely than a ground zero approach. "a myriad small independent tour operators chartering aircraft and seats off a new generation of smaller charter and scheduled airlines?" - chaos. Scale and experience will be needed.