What difference does leaving the middle seat free make?

The air in the cabin is a mixture of fresh air taken from the compressors on the engines, conditioned through the air packs and then mixed with existing cabin air and pumped throughout the cabin by the recirculation fans.

It wouldn't matter if there were only two people sat on the plane, at opposite ends of the cabin; they would both still be breathing in the same air

Its not only about the air but also about touching something wich your hand another persons hand just has touched, the armrest. Or rubbing shoulders. One thing is to handsanatize your hands after boarding. A different thing is to do it between every time you touch the armrest and your face on a 2 hour flight. If no one in the middel seat you can clean the armrests with a disinfectant wipe when you board and you are then the only one touching both of them.
And lets hope the airline have the sense to use more fresh air than existing air in their mix these days. Even though the HEPA filters should do a good job on the reused part.

Both Boeing and airbus advise against turn off the recirc portion of the airconditioning.
Using only fresh air will drastically reduce airflow and increases the chance airborne droplets (with virus) will float further away from the source.

With the recirculation added to the mix, air flow is mostly vertical (coming from the ceiling and exiting via the floor directory below it) keeping the droplets close to the source.
And with a 99%+ capture rate of the filters, you might end up with more clean air in a certain amount of time.

It is a very interesting debate.

On one hand, there is this crazy race, in which biotechnology companies around the world are throwing everything on the table to find a treatment/vaccine. With the FDA sometimes expediting processes that, under normal circumstances, would take considerably more time to accomplish.

And then we have got this almost delusional idea that many western countries seem to push into their citizens: We will win the war against the virus. No, we won't. For decades we have been oblivious to the true reality of humans. Super advanced society, too busy traveling, staring at LED screens, and being warm and comfortable after pressing a switch at home. The virus will keep killing and, unfortunately, the weakest will suffer the most part.

At some point I want to believe that governments will say "kids, here's the deal: life sucks, nature is a b***". The same way we take cancer deaths, tobacco deaths, road accident deaths, diabetes deaths, cardiovascular deaths, etc. as normal.

Take a combination of Swedish+S.Korean approach, and let life continue.

It is interesting to see wide range of experts who compare some numbers and find conclusion followed by solutions to problem . 😊😀😁😂😂
Numbers- do you really believe in numbers provided by South European countries? 😍😍
And than according to those "relevant" numbers "experts" conclude that is worst ever virus and we have to close life- particular stop aviation.
It seems that not only Balkans reserved for debil politician but Western Europe as well.

The more we know about the virus the better, the longer it takes before you get it the better chance of survival.
Early in New York you had a 1 in 3 chance of survival if you where intubated. Now they know to wait as long as you can before intubation.
A month ago there was no drug they could give you to help. Now they have 1, and more will likely come on stream as time progresses.
By autumn they might have the deathrate down to flulike proportions, Hopefully before the normal flu season starts again in the western world. Then we can go back to normal.
But with some you can't win. If you keep much open and many dies, like Sweden, you didn do enough to limit suffering. If you lock everything down people are concluding that since not enough died it is not so serious so why do they have to suffer economically.

In the meantime airlines can do their outmost to not become the new hotbed of contamination. Just like every other business have to. Why should airlines be allowed to cram them in when restaurants, bars, supermarkets and hirdressers aren't allowed to. They all also would make (more) money if they could carry on as before.

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

How about today's revelations from France? It turned out that there was a COVID-19 case as early as 27 December 2019, well and by far before lockdown. Who knows, maybe there were other cases even earlier. Also, what can explain the abnormally high number of pneumonia cases in other countries in the last months of 2019? All sorts of numerical data analysis follow one simple rule - crap in, crap out. When you don't have good input data, you can't draw meaningful conclusions. A couple of months into the havoc we still don't know what exactly we don't know.

The gradual opening up that's happening throughout Europe now seems to be more of a necessity than of something that was concluded on the basis of facts and figures. We need to somehow get the wheels turning to stay that side of the grass for as long as possible. Otherwise, the social crisis will take its own victims in huge numbers. Unduly harsh? Maybe. But that's how it's been ever since.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....029233f080.jpg
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.liv...dds-dying.html

https://videos.utahgunexchange.com/w...Xl8R4EHcf.html

Granted its a few years old, but dying from COVID-19 and dying from an accident have roughly the same probability, let's all stay at home to avoid accidents. (And don't say accidents can be avoided, that's why they are called accidents!) Watch the video that is the second link.

Air Baltic will immediately start flying from Riga on 13th May after emergency state is over.
Only 17 people died in Latvia from COVID till today, no new cases for last 2 days and also less than 10 new cases per day are registered in neighboring Estonia and Lithuania during last week.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8282865/Passengers-slam-airlines-lack-social-distancing-crammed-like-sardines.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-52539141

Flightradar24 right now is fairly busy!

Building anger on the BBC UK News site.

But good luck KLM.

Yes the BBC are having a field day on knocking the aviation industry. They disgust me - alongside most Western TV news outlets I hasten to add.

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

Fortunately most people think your opinion is up your own bottom. Joe bloggs is not going to fly anywhere if they haven't had it. I watched the footfall die on my lots planning prog day on day before lockdown. We were cutting routes way before the lockdown. You opinions will not get people flying.

the percentage is totally irrelevant. The families of your 28734 dead are still grieving.

Why are everybody comparing the Covid19 deathrates with annual death rates for other stuff. We are only in the beginning og this but some are already toting up the totals like if a year has gone and it was all over.
About 1% of the population in different countries has been confirmed with the virus. Nromally 1/3 are naturally immune to a disease and 1/3 for seome reason or another don't get it. Then we shall need to get up to 33%. And with all the easing of lockdowns that will accelerate now. So take all your covid numbers and multiply with 33, or a litle bit less as we learn more and lower the deathrates as we go along.

This still have a long way to run and in the meantime we need to find new smart ways to save our industry. Social separation, either by distancing or other means of physical separation, like masks, walls or curtains, is the current model.
Maybe we will get charters to gated holliday resorts with time. If they can be conducted in a manner that both the paying public and governements are happy with.
Rushing to normality is the dream of some politicians and many airline CEO's but it will have a high, maybe not purely monetary, cost.
Setting up a few stuffed flights is however not going to entice many of those that pay their fare themselves to fly, or visit neither Spain nor Italy this year.

The numbers provided by South European countries are at least as reliable than those provided by UK for instance....

Would it be better to visit France, UK?

.

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?

Have you ever been to Italy?

The white swans fly again
 

I should imagine the resumption of flights by KLM is partly due to Dutch government's temporary emergency employment bridging scheme. It is based on the percentage of turnover lost due to the pandemic. With 100% of turnover lost, the government subsidises 90% of the wage sum for 3 months. The main conditions for eligibility to the scheme are that the company in question does not apply for any redundancies for economic reasons during the 3 months and that all wages continue to be paid in full. The Dutch government has said it will likely extend the measure for another period if necessary, possibly with additional conditions. During the scheme employees can work, so it is not a (partial) unemployment scheme. If turnover rises, the wage subsidy is adapted accordingly. The Dutch government has budgeted 10 billion euros for the scheme, which could go on for 9 months.

Credits: with thanks to my Dutch Ppruning colleagues for providing me with the above information.

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?

Yes
And where exactly have you been in italy?

and bookmark :
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 ...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

I'm suffering just reading this post tbh

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

.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

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

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.

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 .

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.