Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

TUI Zante to Cardiff - Covid

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

TUI Zante to Cardiff - Covid

Old 3rd Sep 2020, 14:47
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,931
Restricted capacity on a bus, so thatís two metres then? 😂 Not even one! And if someone takes their mask off what do the crew do about it...oh wait, thereís no crew. So no need to keep front page free then.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2020, 15:04
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 132
SLF3

That 'air conditioned tube' as you call it is by far the safest form of public transport for avoiding virus infection. You are far more likely to be infected in that shop than on a flight. Australia has been using contact tracing to investigate Covid transmission on hundreds of flights, and has found that while infected people got on aeroplanes, nobody got infected on an aeroplane.
NoelEvans is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2020, 15:15
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7
Originally Posted by SLF3 View Post
Less than 10% of virus transmission is from surfaces, 90% by inhaling contaminated air.
Thatís a really interesting statistic; do you know where this research came from? I had always assumed touching surfaces would be the main offender.
flypaddy is online now  
Old 3rd Sep 2020, 15:57
  #64 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 366
From an interview with Christian Drosten, a virologist and principal advisor to Angela Merkel on COVID who works at the Charite hospital in Berlin. He is a heavyweight. Here is an interview with him in English:


If you get past the dreadful introduction and the chummy Americanisms its really very interesting. And he gives very detailed and nuanced answers to good questions.
SLF3 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2020, 16:37
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,300
NoelEvans

The most recent study that I've seen (August 2020), from MIT, calculated that the odds of contracting Covid on a 2-hour US domestic flight range from 1:4300 to 1:7700. The latter figure is for a flight with middle seats left empty.

So low, but not zero.

Covid-19 Risk Among Airline Passengers: Should the Middle Seat Stay Empty?

Last edited by DaveReidUK; 3rd Sep 2020 at 16:57.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2020, 17:41
  #66 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 366
is that assuming there is someone on the flight with Covid, or does it factor in the probability that the flight is Covid free? Likely the latter, because On the Zante flight 3% boarded with it and 4.5% got it somewhere during the journey. Further, for cash, leaving the centre seat empty halves the risk. Which takes us back to coaches and long distance trains where every other seat is blocked.... I do not understand why KN95 masks are not mandatory on flights.
SLF3 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2020, 18:10
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: The EU
Posts: 371
Originally Posted by SLF3 View Post
On the Zante flight 3% boarded with it and 4.5% got it somewhere during the journey.
Did they? How do you know they didnít catch it at their local BP the next day? Or is that what The Sun said so it must be true?

Interesting that you decided to ignore NoelEvansí post.

Vokes55 is online now  
Old 3rd Sep 2020, 18:22
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South East
Posts: 48
Originally Posted by SLF3 View Post
On the Zante flight 3% boarded with it and 4.5% got it somewhere during the journey.
How do you know 4.5% caught it during their journey? They are far more likely to have contracted it during their 2 weeks on the island than in 3 hours sitting in the highly filtered air of the aircraft cabin, mostly it would seem, wearing masks. There have been 6 UK clusters linked to Zante now, I suspect the common link is not the journey but the destination.
Downwind_Left is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2020, 22:07
  #69 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 366
Go back to the start of the thread. The inference that seven were contagious when they boarded and nine caught it during the journey was from the Welsh public health authorities.

Air may be effectively filtered entering the cabin but CFD modelling shows it moves around quite a lot before exiting. Google it.

I haven’t ignored the Quantas post: I’m just not sure I understand it or what it is telling me.

The public health authorities obviously think you can catch Covid travelling by air: otherwise they wouldn’t have quarantined 186 passengers and the crew. And even if you don’t believe Covid is transmissible in flight the idea that if you are on a flight where someone has it you will have to quarantine for 14 days means the consequence is pretty much the same.

I don’t think the fig leaf masks currently required make a material difference in the context of a flight, so mask compliance (and getting up to go to the toilet) is not the real issue.

I know this view is not popular: but the validity of the message is not changed by shooting at the messenger. The industry is in denial, in a world of pain but self harming. It needs to eliminate queueing (end to end), improve terminal layouts, minimise contact, improve staff PPE compliance, take sanitation seriously, issue higher specification masks and ensure they are worn. What I see right now (limited sample, but particularly in the UK) is lip service and bluster.

SLF3 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2020, 23:50
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,300
Originally Posted by SLF3 View Post
Go back to the start of the thread. The inference that seven were contagious when they boarded and nine caught it during the journey was from the Welsh public health authorities.
Neither of the reports that you linked to quote any evidence for that inference.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2020, 05:19
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 43
3% of 186 = 5 pax
4.5% of 186 = 8 pax.

So, based upon those figures you provided, ‘supposedly’ 3 contracted the virus during the flight... not 9. And I expect they picked it up in resort, not on the aeroplane where a few people weren’t adhering to mask policy and of which are given far thorough cleaning between flights now than your prized buses/trains, I don’t think they get sanitised at every stop! And what’s more, I’ve travelled by train twice since lockdown and people are ignoring the policy there too. Staff aren’t allowed to enforce it there either... Want to stop everyone travelling and watch the travel industry fail for the sake of the disrespectful few?

I feel sorry for you - you’re clearly watching/reading too many scaremongering news sources and have been sucked in by all the hype. COVID-19 exists, yes. It’s beyond unpleasant for some, yes. It’s life-threatening for a few, yes. But it isn’t floating all around us 24/7, waiting to pounce. Most wont even know they’ve had it. Those unfortunate enough to be vulnerable should mitigate their risk by continuing to shield and let the other 99%, within the current hygiene framework and whilst ‘doing their bit to help’, get on with their lives. There are far worse things out there. I recommend you go and get yourself a hobby (other than being glued to the news and a keyboard) and take that opportunity to calm down a bit.
AirUK is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2020, 09:07
  #72 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 366
There were (early reports, numbers may have changed) a total of 16. 7 boarded with it, 9 likely got to the airport without it, had it shortly after landing.

I appreciate the mentoring, but don't worry - I have hobbies (trains and buses are not on the list) and don't need you to feel sorry for me!

What I have seen does not encourage me to fly, although I would like to: I repeat my point, the airline industry is paying lip service to Covid and self harming by doing so.
SLF3 is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2020, 09:13
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 12,300
More unsupported assertions.

Please cite some evidence that those 9 people were clear of infection when they got on the flight.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2020, 09:32
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up north
Posts: 292
There seems to be quite a lot of views that are basically following a logic of " situation in aviation may not be OK, but it's not OK on other forms of transport, therefore sitaution in aviation is OK". In my world, two wrongs don't make a right.
Hipennine is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2020, 09:52
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 521
Well, we also need to be looking into how far it is practical and reasonable to go. Perhaps a full lockdown could reduce the number of cases, but, given the enormous collateral damage it causes, can it be a sustainable option? No way. The combination of those and their effects might eventually end up killing far more people than the virus.

Masks are a reasonable compromise between enhancing safety and keeping the world going. And a sustainable one. However, they will only work if their wearing is enforced properly. It should be as non-negotiable as emptying your pockets at security.

And, for those craving an empty middle seat, Eurowings have got the right fix for that. They offer an option to book the middle seat at a reduced cost (i.e. the air fare only, without all the handling fees and taxes which would be part of the ticket price for a passenger but would not go to the airline). In this way, whoever is concerned with sitting next to a stranger can alleviate their concerns at a not-so-large extra cost - and the airline is not flying with a number of unsold seats which can only pave the road towards insolvency.
PilotLZ is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2020, 10:34
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Derby
Posts: 42
I find it interesting that despite the publicity this incident attracted, as far as I can see in the various media reports only one person has actually complained about the behaviour of the crew and passengers on this flight. There were at least another 185 people on board who didnít think it was an issue worth raising. I know the level of acceptance of the new rules by passengers can vary by flight and destination and we can only encourage people to follow the rules. However, you also have to realise there are loop-holes in the rules. Some people are exempt from wearing a mask and how do you deal with a person who is continually sipping the bottle of water they brought on board or taking an age to eat their sandwich.
However, this is a real opportunity to test the effectiveness of the aeroplane air systems. If somebody can be bothered to the research it should be possible to identify where everybody involved was infected. This would help show whether air travel is safe in the current environment.
double-oscar is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2020, 11:45
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Costa del Swanwick
Posts: 816
Why are airlines flying from what are deemed to be high risk areas by the govt allowed to operate at anything but normal social distancing rules? It would seem there is no difference coming back from say, Spain (high risk ) as there is coming back from Germany (low).
250 kts is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2020, 12:12
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London
Posts: 59
Its only in the news because it’s involves aviation. Using the same social distancing arguments we should be closing all the pubs again because there have been more outbreaks In pubs than on aircraft.

We really need to get a grip and start returning to normality again.
STN Ramp Rat is offline  
Old 4th Sep 2020, 13:57
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: The EU
Posts: 371
Originally Posted by SLF3 View Post
There were (early reports, numbers may have changed) a total of 16. 7 boarded with it, 9 likely got to the airport without it, had it shortly after landing.

I appreciate the mentoring, but don't worry - I have hobbies (trains and buses are not on the list) and don't need you to feel sorry for me!

What I have seen does not encourage me to fly, although I would like to: I repeat my point, the airline industry is paying lip service to Covid and self harming by doing so.

Where's the evidence that they're able to detect within a 3 hour time frame when people contracted COVID-19? Last I heard the incubation period was 2-14 days.

If it doesn't encourage you to fly then don't fly. But just because you don't want to, doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't. Typical 2020 attitude: I have an opinion and if yours is different it must be wrong.

From my experience, the silent majority of people want life to return to normal and believe the continued global obsession with this virus is an overreaction that's causing far more damage than the virus itself. The majority will wear a mask on a flight because they have to, not because they think it "keeps them safe" or stops them spreading illnesses. Of course you won't read that in The Sun so you probably won't be aware of that.
Vokes55 is online now  
Old 4th Sep 2020, 14:06
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: London
Posts: 275
Having flown through CWL twice recently I can say that Border Force are extremely zealous in checking your PLF is completed properly (a bit over zealous but I guess that is better than not bothering).
TOM100 is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.