KLM resumes daily flights from Amsterdam to Madrid,Barcelona and Rome.

[jthg]

Originally Posted by FreemaninHK

I am.

My friends are. Many are now planning next holidays. There is very little ‘fear’ in my cohort; mostly frustration at why 99.9% of us need to suffer social and economically for the welfare of the weakest 1%

In case nobody has ever raised this previously you should be conscious that you couldn’t sound more like a sociopath.

and innumerate which is an interesting combination.

Are you the health secretary?

[bookmark]

Originally Posted by calypso

Have you ever been to Italy?

Yes
And where exactly have you been in italy?

[ATC Watcher]

Originally Posted by golfyankeesierra

I guess northern Italy is a very safe to go this summer/autumn. Immunity will be among highest in Europe, and the Italians will be both cautious and disciplined in social distancing.
The question is will the Italian government allow you to visit?

and bookmark :

And where exactly have you been in italy?

Are you referring to Sud Tyrol or Lombardia ? That is where the first epicenter and origin of the vast majority of cases that started to spread and infected the rest of Europe . Going on holidays there would be equivalent to go to visit Wuhan. Maybe be safe but not really a first choice for destination I would say ...

[the_stranger]

Originally Posted by Nightstop

I should imagine the resumption of flights by KLM is partly due to Dutch government's temporary emergency employment bridging scheme.

I highly doubt that.

Unless those flights make a profit (or will wake that after a slow ramp up), it is cheaper for KLM not to fly. (as in it minimizes loss).

As you said, KLM (and any other Dutch company which aplies) gets a maximum of 90% of the paycosts compensated (with a max, which is below some senior pilots, bit in this scheme KLM has to pay full wages, even those above the maximum compensation).
This 90% is based on no turnover at all, and like you said, scales down with increasing turnover. If they start flying without eventually turning a profit, it will create some turnover therefore reducing the amount of money KLM gets from the government.
Costs have stayed the same or have risen due to the new flights, so KLM is losing.

​​​​​​KLM has always been looking for profits, especially with the current CEO, they have been quite proactive in trying to expand the income. They might not always have succeeded and made some dumb mistakes, but within the deadlock of a growth capped airport, increasing noise and enviromental complaints and struggles with France, they made record profits the last couple of years.

So these flights must have a profit reason, most probably to feed the (few) long haul flights, either allready or in the (close) future.

[cats_five]

Originally Posted by FreemaninHK

I am.

My friends are. Many are now planning next holidays. There is very little ‘fear’ in my cohort; mostly frustration at why 99.9% of us need to suffer social and economically for the welfare of the weakest 1%

Good to see the milk of human kindness runs rich in your world. We'll remember that when you or your immediate family are old and/or infirm.

[Herod]

Freemaninhk: From one of your earlier posts.

my wife and I contracted in Bangkok in 1st week March. I was poorly for 4-5 days, she had some actually breathing issues requiring O2.

I don’t take this lightly but neither do I take my being able to pay my mortgage or put my two kids though school.

I call it acceptable loss.

Presumably that means you would be happy living in your house and bringing up your kids ALONE? I wonder what your wife thinks of that attitude.

[exfocx]

Originally Posted by FreemaninHK

Still 1%.

and yes.. my wife and I contracted in Bangkok in 1st week March. I was poorly for 4-5 days, she had some actually breathing issues requiring O2.

I don’t take this lightly but neither do I take my being able to pay my mortgage or put my two kids though school.

I call it acceptable loss. The earth is over populated, we are straining its resources.
Are less people a bad thing? The vast majority of those dying had a strong underlying conditions.

Some of you recoil at that, but I am allowed my opinion.

If I was Captain of a sinking ship with 100 pax and 98 life bests am I not going to hand out the 98 I have? All we can do is do our best for the greater good.

My .02

OMG, where do you start with this piece? I guess backwards, like the thinking!
If I was Captain of a sinking ship with 100 pax and 98 life bests am I not going to hand out the 98 I have? All we can do is do our best for the greater good. Bloody poor analogy as we are not stuck with that choice of there being insufficient health care (life jackets), unless we're to do as you think the world should have done. Under your direction we won't be doing our best, we'd be doing NOTHING!

I call it acceptable loss. The earth is over populated, we are straining its resources.
Are less people a bad thing? The vast majority of those dying had a strong underlying conditions. Basically the law of the jungle, be careful what you wish for as some people have a different idea how that "law" works in practice. Do you know anyone who has a child or infant with heart issues that would be seriously at risk, do you know anyone that is undergoing chemo to fight cancer or those who have had transplants and are required to stay on anti-immune drugs for life.; you're basically condemning anyone in one of those situations.

So you think the way to tackle over population is just to needlessly allow people to die, rather than tackle the issue via politically means. I'm glad you're not a Dr and I'd be curious what your nurse-wife thinks of these views. Haven't met a nurse yet who I think would agree with them.

We haven't even started to work out how we may rework our lives and society as yet, and you want to throw these people on the bonfire.so you can go to the shops because 6 weeks has been really tough on you. Very weak of you!

and yes.. my wife and I contracted in Bangkok in 1st week March. I was poorly for 4-5 days, she had some actually breathing issues requiring O2.
I don't believe a word of that, your thinking is that of someone very selfish.

[FreemaninHK]

Originally Posted by Herod

Freemaninhk: From one of your earlier posts.



Presumably that means you would be happy living in your house and bringing up your kids ALONE? I wonder what your wife thinks of that attitude.

She is worried about her mother back in Spain and wishes she could fly their to see her. She lived through it and would like to go back to her life now.

She further hopes my corporate owner doesn’t ditch the jet and us as he can’t fly anywhere for who knows when and is worried about or finances.


Thank you for your question.

[Vendee]

Originally Posted by FreemaninHK

if you have a underlying issue why are we spending excessive resource to keep you alive at the expense at others?

Perhaps because they have paid into the healthcare system for all their working lives and now expect that system to look after them?

[DingerX]

We'll see how KLM does. Good for them.
A few points: in addition to the facts that mortality is much lower when the health care system is not overwhelmed, and when experience reveals the most effective treatments, we're dealing with an unknown disease here. The focus right now is on the worst outcome - immediate death. But what about everyone who will have lung issues for years? What about the liver? Did you lose your sense of taste and smell? Maybe you lost something else upstairs. Maybe we'll get lucky and there'll be minimal long term consequences. That's another bet to take.
So how much do you want to bet the economy? By the way, we learned already that those countries that took the strictest measures early are already doing better. Maybe the worst you can do is try to keep things open and running.

[Livesinafield]

Its nice to see things starting to return to normal, people able to earn incomes again and pay for their family to live, 1% or less is fatality affected by this, yet the economic effects of these measures will for sure affect many many more, and yes some will be fatal. Its vital that the world gets back to work and carries on, protect the vulnerable and the healthy need to work.

Covid19 has had me out of work now for a few months with zero prospect of earning enough money to keep my life running, and feeding my young family which right now I'm more concerned about than a virus, so the quicker we all get back to work the better

[ShotOne]

The solution may have to be toleration, combined with sensible mitigations. And before a raft of posts telling us how this will “cost lives”, this is the approach we currently employ for most other diseases which kill vastly more of us than covid.

[the_stranger]

Originally Posted by ShotOne

The solution may have to be toleration, combined with sensible mitigations. And before a raft of posts telling us how this will “cost lives”, this is the approach we currently employ for most other diseases which kill vastly more of us than covid.

True.

While covid19 isn't directly comparable with other diseases, we do have to live with it, like all other afflictions.

If there will be a vaccin, it will not be here within a year, unless we are (very) lucky.
Keeping the planet locked up for that time is desastreus for the economy.
And while the economy isn't alle there is, it does drive everythinf else.
No economy means no income for countries/citizens. No income means no healthcare, no education, no services.
However too many covid patients means also no healthcare for the rest, no services, etc.

So we have to find a middle ground, even if that means people will will have a higher chance of dying, as keeping everything locked up will also result in a higher chance, just a different cause.

[PilotLZ]

I read a very sobering study yesterday, saying that all this mess and the number of missed tuberculosis vaccines because of it can lead to upwards of 5 million tuberculosis deaths in the next 5 years. Just put that into perspective. That's only one possible implication of keeping everything locked down ad infinitum. Not to mention all the premature deaths of those who don't get timely treatment for their conditions because they are considered as "non-urgent" and not treated or because of being too scared of contagion to seek medical help.

Loss of life is always a tragedy, regardless the case. The scary thing is that while we're trying to prevent deaths from COVID-19, we can incur lots of unnecessary deaths from other causes which wouldn't have happened otherwise. It's a very fine balance and I absolutely don't envy those who have to get it right and make the difficult decisions.

[passportstamp]

Originally Posted by FreemaninHK

I am.

My friends are. Many are now planning next holidays. There is very little ‘fear’ in my cohort; mostly frustration at why 99.9% of us need to suffer social and economically for the welfare of the weakest 1%

I'm suffering just reading this post tbh

[Herod]

For those who think this is "just like the 'flu", Obama57 posted this in #53

Here’s the thing.... health care workers aren’t going to die treating my heart attack, lung cancer, broken bones, crushed skulls.

.Very good point

To which I would ask how many health care workers die from treating people with the 'flu? In the UK alone, over 100 health care workers have died, treating people suffering with covid.

IT IS NOT JUST LIKE THE 'FLU

[Radgirl]

In the UK alone, over 100 health care workers have died, treating people suffering with covid.

The Government is bandying about the mid 50s but the media claims 159 so around 100 is about right. The NHS alone employs 1.4m. Compare that with agriculture employing 360,000 which suffers 33 deaths every year. Slightly less for fishing and mining.....so the risk for an NHS employee is no worse than working on a farm, and the risk only applies to perhaps a couple of months in a 40 year career. I dont hear farm labourers called heroes......

That is the real issue aviation is facing.... getting the general public to understand risk. The excess deaths from untreated cancer and other illnesses will clearly exceed Covid-19 deaths but the vast majority of the public are terrified of this plague, not helped by an incompetent government that did too little too late and so is faced with an extended lockdown and no quick resolution. Handled properly aviation would still have taken a hit but the state wouldnt be paying 1 in 4 of the population and could properly support aviation as other industries work normally

[vikingivesterled]

Originally Posted by Radgirl

That is the real issue aviation is facing.... getting the general public to understand risk. The excess deaths from untreated cancer and other illnesses will clearly exceed Covid-19 deaths but the vast majority of the public are terrified of this plague, not helped by an incompetent government that did too little too late and so is faced with an extended lockdown and no quick resolution. Handled properly aviation would still have taken a hit but the state wouldnt be paying 1 in 4 of the population and could properly support aviation as other industries work normally

Poltiticians and the airline's potential customers problem is to get the airline industry to understand the riks of the disease.
It is still early days with CoVid19. IT's like the early days of HIV, now your chance of survival is much better, even without a vaccine. The more we learn about a disease the greater our chance, Example now we know not to go right to intubation. Btw have you got your oxymeter yet so you know when you will need oxygen. For most that is a no because they come from China and airfreight out of China is still heavily impaired. At least we should know why people without underlying, and the young, conditions sometimes sucumb and die. Some of us needs to get into better health for a better chance. This will take time and requires patience and slow moves.

The Airline industry have attracted its fare share of people that would gladly send its tenants off to the new world in coffin ships if they then could use the land and make money. Many of them have not yet been shocked into enough action to safeguard their passengers to the best of their ability, Even if that include taking some radical measures for a while, and even adjust normal procedures and what profitable numbers look like. Some are simply still just having hissy fits like a crying baby on the floor in front of the chocolate stand. Bothering society with their personal grieveances and hobbyhorses even in a time of crisis. Showing responsible politicians that they are not the leaders of aviation to be trusted to have an input in how and when international travel should be opened up again.

[ATC Watcher]

vikingivesterled : you do not post often in 13 years , but when you do it is worth reading .. Your last paragraph is spot on I would say .

[the_stranger]

Originally Posted by vikingivesterled

Even if that include taking some radical measures for a while, and even adjust normal procedures and what profitable numbers look like.

While in a way I do agree with you, what would you have them do though?

Couple of days ago there was a parlementary session discussing the support KLM would recieve.
While the French already have a finalised package, nothing is arranged yet for KLM, the amount of money is not even certain.
Besides that, it was painfully clear many politicians would rather erase KLM sooner than later and let foreign carriers take over whichever routes they want.

Barring that, they demanded a smaller KLM which (somehow) has to make a profit as soon as possible to pay back the yet to be determined support (which will be loans, no gifts). Furthermore, there were demands no jobs would be lost, unless it is a pilot, they can go, heavy restrictions in number of flights and times of flights, etc.

Fortunately, the major party is a little more sensible, but still has to cater to the rest of the parties. It is clear KLM has to do it in its own, burdened by both high interest loans and restrictions on how to operate.

If they do not start up as soon as possible, they will be bankrupt, They simply can't sit back and wait for covid to be gone (whichever way), because they will be gone a lot sooner.