Rico.

I think there is a point when airlines begin to question whether it is correct to consider operating. BMI turned an aircraft around one day recently. I know that on the night the Gulf War (1) started BA had a 767 en route to Saudi which turned around somewhere over Egypt. They have to consider the safety of passengers, crew and the aircraft.

But... they are in business and when situations like Egypt and Tunisia occur there is business to be had and suprisingly it's two way. We've heard a lot in the UK about our citizens trying to get home. There have been a couple of stories about high profile individuals who have gone home to Egypt and there will be many less public people who will have gone home to Egypt and how do you think all the journalists we see (with their support crews, security men etc) reporting live got to Egypt?

Quite often demonstrations are surprisingly localised. For instance when the students had their day in London recently, or even the Poll Tax riot all those years ago, Heathrow, Gatwick etc didn't close. The same seems to be true in Egypt at the moment. The airport continues to operate.

Believe me, the airlines aren't going to take silly risks. The potential cost is too high.

Hartington-I see what you're saying. I guess even during war there will always be transport-just glad to see that sometimes airlines do stop and think.

Regards Rico

West Lakes

Incorrect, the flight was scheduled London Kuwait Madras KL.

JdS

Thanks for that, I was confused by this paragraph in the newspaper report

But then again newspapers are not known for accuracy

I think Hartington's points are moving the thread in the right direction.

Schedule carriers are not simply taking people from the UK to somewhere else and then bringing them home once they have finished. It is a two way business. Airlines don't just sell the few seats left over by the Brits, in fact many routes have much bigger sales the other way round. CAI is one of those routes. I work for bmi and can assure you that the seats sold in Egypt is vast. The airline might be based in the UK, their passengers aren't, that's why the airline alliances are such big business.

Quite a few Egyptians wanted to get home to their families.

If there are more people wanting to leave the country than there are seats on the scheduled carriers then it's fantastic that the FO get them an aircraft. Those who opt to use it should pay for it.

6

No. Not at all. Plenty of other people live sheltered lives too. :ok:

Are you offering? :E

Now please cue in comment about how Foreign Office (and their equivalents in other countries) issue politically motivated announcements, and how many areas you are probably familiar with are objectively speaking far less safer than the places you see on the news (e.g. a significant part of Latin America for a start). One also has to have in mind that not everyone who travels is going on a holiday--some of us have to take a plane to go to work too, riots or no riots, war or no war. Then you have people like journalists and others who have to go to unstable places precisely because they have become unstable--how are they supposed to get there? rowboat?

In short, yes it is big and dangerous out there, and a bit of a riot is hardly the end of the world. :rolleyes: