They say it costs 10 times the amount to find a new customer than it does to keep one. The airline and travel companies are about to find out.

It's a lot different in the northeast - nightly news barrage on death counts (pick your channel), lines at some supermarkets and then one way aisles and blocks to stand on in the stores. Parks closed, but you can walk around the block - many people doing that. And the governor of NY and mayor of NYC are arguing about closing schools for the rest of the calendar year - so I guess you can add cities to the list of who would have to agree.

On the flip side, the shelves in the local super are starting to look full again (except TP). Everyone is teleworking - a completely foreign concept to many employers and employees. That said, I think people are getting somewhat used to it (I home-officed in the 90's and 00's and loved it) and it will reduce the need/urge to travel for business. Try to buy a webcam - you can't. I'm getting a rebate from my auto insurer because of lack of driving and less chance of an accident - unthinkable a couple of months ago.

It will be a slow build up to fill aircraft and increase flights. Even my last trip to the west in late January before Covid restrictions were in place, I was on half full aircraft in deserted main hubs at prime Mon-Fri business travel hours. AA alone has cut flights at the three metro NYC airports from 271 last April to 13 now. I simply don't see a quick recovery regardless of what states or fed or city gov'ts allow/encourage. Some regional airports could lose service completely. Even with low fuel costs, the airlines will be hard pressed to offer inexpensive fares at the outset and many people (small business employees who would have traveled on vacation) simply will not have the funds to take that trip they had planned.

I attended a few on-line briefings last week and the forecast is not that good for a variety of reasons . Most agree that the first rebound is unlikely to restart within 6 months ( meaning October at earliest) and it will likely be with 10-20% of flights schedules last January .A rebound beyond 60% is likely to take up to 2 years. Passenger demand due economic and fear of travel far from home is likely to restrict traffic to domestic in the initial phases .( intra Europe is considered domestic traffic) . During that time there will be many airlines that will either cease to operate , or restrict their size significantly, , and probably new entrants in the market with a different business model.

Another point raised is the maintenance of aircraft parked and the leasing business .
A working group reporting to EASA warned that in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic, there will be a high level of disruption in the leasing aircraft with multiple change of owners and registration , but the disrupted infrastructure will prevent leasing companies and authorities to verify maintenance and maintain airworthiness of a large number of aircraft parked and stored .
Another unknown mentioned is the change in the societal perception of flying . That factor , minimized until now, will be a determining factor in the future .

Another factor that will impact travel is the health of the support structure that get travelers into, through, and out of airports.

I am very optimistic
 

This is unprecedented. Governments are in unchartered territory. However we have a huge advantage: the web. The web allows all of
us to interconnect beyond boundaries hence knowledge can be instantly shared. The biggest advantage, in addition to shared global knowledge, is the possibility to electronically inject money into the economy in real-time. We are basically going to be fine. It is not going to happen overnight. There will be new measures like mandatory KN95 masks for all air travellers and crew however we will back to normal business quite soon. As I said from start the biggest concern is the risk of civil unrest. If governments will keep injecting cash and the unemployed will get assistance the entire system will recover within a year. Significant Government's help is critical. Nothing else will work this time.

There is one up-side. My employer has gone all in on the latest management fad where no one has a desk anymore or any personal space and everyone works crammed into one third the space to save money on leasing costs. I think it is safe to say hot desking and side by seating in totally open plan offices is an idea which is going to go away fast.

I think the biggest threat to airlines is the fact that all the video conferencing programs have a got a huge shot in the arm from virus related restrictions. Lot's of business and government workers, including me, are using them regularly for the first time and which I think will permanent reduce the demand for business travel as was traditionally face to face meetings now will be done remotely. Since business travel is the core money maker for all of the legacy carriers, this has huge implications for their future.

Freight flying however is booming and will IMO, be where there is money to made going forward.

Seems like just yesterday, there was talk about a pilot shortage, and now there is concern that there may not be enough jobs for those who are qualified pilots. Not funny.

In 2018, global passenger trip demand was predicted to be 7 billion annually by 2035. The forecast requirement was for an additional 637,000 additional pilots and 648,000 technicians globally. While Covid-19 is going to put a big dip in upward demand, overall, it will be temporary. I think we are looking at a vaccine or finding an existing or new drug which minimises symptoms before we see travel return to being discretionary. But while the virus kills, it isn't going to impact long term global population growth which is what drives overall demand.

Commercial reality will, mean that there will be rationalisation within the airline industry. The weak will go to the wall. There will be less choice, for a while anyway. We will necessarily end up with Government intervention and part nationalisation of some airlines until the market recovers and Governments can offload their shareholdings for a profit. Some pilots will have flown their last flights. Most will fly again. Market forces will be tough on our terms and conditions in the short term.

I am no expert, but this makes sense to me. Airlines will fly again in my opinion, but it may take some time to fly across borders. Why then are most people stating that state operated companies will be around, including Singapore? I wouldn't expect them to do much flying and they do not fly domestically surely, but am very willing to be proven wrong.

What airlines are actually most likely to still be here in 1 to 2 years? (I hope they all do, but we need to be realistic).

Not who, but HOW
 

Reconsidering the question as how individuals and operators will survive would provide ideas for meaningful activity opposed to guess work about the future of a very uncertain world.

How can the current uncertainty be managed.

The world has changed, unlikely to return to anything like the normality that we had in the short term. Thus how far ahead; 6 months will be a transition at best, more likely mopping up and fighting rearguard actions.

How to exist until a favourable situation evolves; how is 'favourable' to be defined.

Nor sure which ones will still be there 2 years from now , but some States have already indicated that they will nationalize their National carriers ( e.g. France with AF and Italy with Alitalia ) I can guess similar statements have been or will be made for others like Singapore Airlines or Emirates, Qatar, etc.. as those States basic economic model is based on their national airline. Which size they will still be is of course another question .

It is also conceivable that large Countries with little developed modern mass ground transportation infrastructure ( e.g , USA, Russia, Norway ,even Canada ) will be able to restart domestic operations on a larger scale quicker than others,

Certain flag carriers will be helped through this period. Expect to return to the 70’s.
Question is: What about all those low cost carriers?

ATC, you suggest that states will nationalise; possibly, but to do what, what need.

No country can pay out for 'nothing'; thus for what value - people, skill, economy. What is the relative cost / effectiveness of airlines vs railways, or different areas of manufacture, what will be the new economic future - existence to begin with, manufacturing, trade, but trade what with whom, then transport - plane or 'sail'.
The 'green card', individual adaptation, new norms, communication, travel, leisure. Food, well being, security.

Very difficult, 'big call' situation; no simple answer, if any. Thus be flexible be prepared to adapt, individual, operator, country.

fox niner, no return to the past, only an uncertain future.

Some Airlines will be declared an essential public service . For France it is mainly because of the so called " territorial continuity" between the mainland and the numerous islands, territories and departments it has spread over the globe , From Corsica to Tahiti , passing by Guyana , Martinique/Guadeloupe, , Reunion, New Caledonia..etc.. Frequent Air Liaisons are essential for the State maintain its governance.and it does not have its own State aircraft fleet to do that anymore.
Keeping jobs and expertise during this crisis will also be a major consideration for a centralized State. .
For other States it might be that the "national" airline is part of the Defense system in case of crisis/war.

Many years ago when KLM was in financial trouble and could not find a partner to buy them , I was told that the State was considering nationalizing part of the airline because transporting troops in case of crisis was one of the tasks the airline still had signed with the Dutch Military , (which did not have any large transport aircraft at the time). I do not know if this is still the case. . But there are many reasons a State wants to nationalize its airline other than for a pure business case.

That I also agree fully .

Between reduced personal discretional spending money for many in the near future, more emphasis on "staycation" holidays, much easier video conferencing for business, and heightened climate awareness, I opine that there will be a reduced demand for low cost carriers for a long time to come.

"reduced personal discretional spending money for many in the near future, more emphasis on "staycation" holidays, much easier video conferencing for business, and heightened climate awareness, I opine that there will be a reduced demand for low cost carriers for a long time to come"

A large number of LCC passengers don't do video conferencing for business and most don't give a fig about climate change. All they want is to get drunk in the sun and shag anything that has a pulse. It's their right innit. I think two LCCs in Europe should be ok.

Do you mean in the sense that the ground transport substitutes domestic flights, or that it spreads infection?

Very few countries have so little ground infrastructure that journeys by land or indeed by sea for island nations would become simply impossible. In most cases, it's a question of what multiple the end to end journey time would be, possibly starting with about 0.75 where high speed rail exists between city centres, but air is still attractive for people living in the wider hinterland, or for onward connections. For that reason, CDG & ORY to LYS has continued to exist as a route, despite the TGv, which afaik takes about 90-95% of the combined air-rail market.

Norway for one has an excellent road network, but distances are vast between the outlying cities and the roads are still going through mountainous terrain.

Of the most populous nations, Brazil perhaps has the least developed major inter-urban road network, although the most popular sectors are still a much shorter hop between Rio & SP. Brazil is rare in having almost zero inter-urban without being an island group like the Phillipines.

We had our first family video chat today for Easter. Uptake has no doubt shot through the roof in the last few weeks but we all agreed it's not the same as actually meeting up.

A lot of the LCCs are moving people between different countries/cities for short term work contracts as well as for leisure travel. The work still needs to be done, but obviously the ability to fulfil any such job becomes radically different if the flight costs 4x as much.

The French Air Force has the number of aircraft for the State to "maintain its governance" (about A340, A330, KC135, A310, Falcons.... without counting the A400Ms and Hercules). Moreover, if Air France disappeared, there would be French operators able to do this job.
35 years ago, the State missions during the events in New Caledonia, i.e. mainly transport of policemen, had almost all been done by UTA then privately owned (Air France had not yet been bought by UTA, immediately re-branded Air France).

Nationalizing Air France is a French local political case, nothing more. And it looks like many French people do not appreciate too much that the State could grant 4.1 billions EUR to AFR when the yearly budget of Health is only 1.4 billions...

.

Do you really think that the French state only spends €1.4billion a year on healthcare?

Central European budget carrier Wizz Air is cutting 1,000 personnel, nearly one-fifth of its staff, after its operation was reduced to a bare minimum by the coronavirus crisis.

The airline says it has been forced to take the “difficult step” to make workers redundant, adding that it has also carried out additional short-term furlough of staff.

Wizz Air has a fleet of Airbus jets and is planning to return 32 older aircraft by the end of 2022-23 as their leases expire, as part of its measures to trim costs and improve liquidity.

It states that its balance sheet is still “very strong” with “excellent” liquidity including €1.5 billion in cash.

A quick internet search (not enough posts to give the link) came up with a French government web site that gave the total cost of healthcare in 2018 as 203.5 billion euros with 78.1% paid by the state.

"@ jabird : I meant Countries that rely intensively to air to link their population centers, those are likely to restore traffic earlier . So far air transportation spread the Covid-19 globally and much quicker than trains .
@Bidule : Maintaining governance and territorial continuity is transporting essential goods and staff every day .The French air force is not equipped for that .
Their Estrerel squadron is only 5 aircraft ( 3 A310s and 2 A340) the 6 Flacons are only VIPs seating and the 2 A330 MRT are used for other tasks. The Transalls, Hercules and A400M do not have a transatlantic or trans pacific range . On the other Air France has over 100 long range transport aircraft at its disposal, (70 B777s 15 A330s , plus 18 A380 and B787 ) and is already performing this task. The other small private French airlines ( what is left of them ) are too small to be of significance in this .
Yes UTA was heavily used by the French military in the 70s and ,80s ,and not only for carrying troops .They also paid a heavy price for it in 1984 and 1989 :(. As to UTA buying Air France in 1990 , I like the humor but UTA in 1990 was only 13 aircraft ..
The " secu" cost figure was already corrected, but for info the AF rescue package or re- nationalization costs are not yet fixed. Anyway it will be virtual money.. we can agree on that .

UK Chancellor talking about painful days ahead, economically.

Here in the UK we are bracing for a 35% reduction in the economy and a doubling of unemployment to 2 000 000.

I hope not.

We’ve also got some big spending issues to face: CV19 Universal Credit; HS2 Rail; Trident; “Levelling up the UK pledge”... and BREXIT. No deal yet.

Crises like the one we are seeing now with COVID19 sometimes brings out the worst in humanity. It also often brings out the best. I don’t know how much readers here are following the massive leaps being made in research and trials, not only for a vaccine, but also for treatments of moderate and severe symptoms of COVID19.

It’s very hard, impossible, to predict how the next 6-24 months will look like for our industry and the wider economy. Having said that, I‘m
very optimistic that we will have meaningful treatment options on the table in the next 3-6 months which will give a massive boost to the markets and the general public. it will also help us manage a likely second wave of the virus later this year. These treatments will make a huge difference until we have a vaccine available.

Captain, spot on. Totally agree. I would add "mandatory face masks" in confined spaces, combined with anti viral treatments/solutions this will allow us to move around again & travel until the vaccine will fix it for ever.
The global response to the next pandemic will be much more effective, everything will change in this area.
In the end COVID19 will fix a few aberrations of the previous system.

We can but hope. These things have a very nasty habit of mutating.

But don't forget that vaccines are not 100% effective for everyone. Before Covid there were still many "normal" flu deaths of which a fair percentage included people who had had their annual flu jab.

A bit of research on Wikipedia on Coronaviruses is not very encouraging . common cold has some coronavirus variants , for which no vaccine exists , and as immunity is concerned , you can get it back multiple times during the same year, some kids up to 7 times per winter...
The good news is that now every laboratory in the world is working on it, as there is serious money to be made, some even do cooperate with one another, and there is serious hope we can get one for wide public use in the next 12-18 months.
What the aviation situation will be then and who will be eager to travel after the economic impact is basically the subject of this discussion.

Speaking as a physician, while the annual formulations of flu vaccines is far from perfect at preventing influenza infections, those who have been vaccinated are far more likely to have mild cases not requiring hospital care, and dramatically less likely to die.

A future COVID19 vaccine with the same efficiency as the normal flu vaccine only requires about 40% of the population to be vaccinated to give sufficient reliable protection against a pandemic influenza. This requires people in high risk groups to be monitored, take extra precautions, and confirmed cases to be quarantined much as we are doing now in most parts of the world. If no extra measures like these are taken at least 80% of the population needs to be vaccinated to get the same protection.

But, from what I have just read, of those 40% vaccinated the vaccine will only be effective for an average of 45% when taking all age groups into account. It will be most effective for the young (65% average apparently) and least effective for the elderly (16% was quoted in the paper I read). Those figures, which I was never aware of previously, don't comfort me. I guess ignorance (on my part) was bliss. :)

It is my understanding that today’s flu vaccines have efficiencies way higher than that, around 70-80%. Vaccination is also not only to protect the vaccinated people from getting the virus, especially when we are talking about a pandemic, but to actually stop the virus from spreading in a population. That’s achieved by vaccinating 40/80%, depending on whether or not additional measurements (see above) are also rolled out.

People here are not comparing like with like. The influenza virus mutates far more rapidly than coronaviruses. The only reason we have no vaccines against coronaviruses is that none of them - before this - was dangerous enough to make it worthwhile.

Will Titan Airways survive this downturn in the industry.

The airlines that deserve to survive are those who have looked after their passengers during this crisis. Not those who cut and run as soon as possible and then have used the funds from cancelled flights as interest free loans from their passengers. They should remember that most of us have long memories and will be very selective in the future and look very carefully at the small print on the booking conditions. And yes before everyone bounces up and down I do note the argument from IATA concerning the problems concerning refunds viz a viz a promise of a possible flight in the future with a piece of paper called a flight credit. I wish I could use the same logic with my bank!

Yep, incredibly strong management tram that looks after each and every staff member since I first encoutered them in March of '89 when the 404's were parked next to LFC and the new fuel farm :)

If this really applied to " the most of is", Ryanair et al. would not have existed, United would have no customers, etc.

If air travel starts up again, most of us will just go for the lowest fare, regardless of present or future behaviour of the airline.

And most of us, most of the time, don't have a choice who to fly with. I do for flying to London, though that dictated which airport I went to. I don't for other UK internal flights.

Correct. And that solidifies the vaccination case discussed above even further.

In the news today concerning treatments of severe COVID19 symptoms:

“Early impressions from a study at the University of Chicago Medicine were reported by Stat news, a healthcare industry publication, showing rapid recoveries in almost all of the more than a hundred severely ill patients.”

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.f...6-55250cbbbaff

Keep an eye on major indices today.