Airline bailout

[isee]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8628878.stm

[i] British commercial pilots' union Balpa says the industry will need the same of kind of government rescue as the banks following the eruption, with a number of airlines "staring bankruptcy in the face".

Tim Jeans, managing director of the airline Monarch, said that "clearly you cannot sell a ticket for somebody from say Alicante to London for £60 and pick up a £2000 bill". [/i]

Here we go again... Don't they have insurance for that kind of event?
This bailout mentality needs to end and soon!

[isee]

el stovey said:

isee said:

Here we go again... Don't they have insurance for that kind of event?
This bailout mentality needs to end and soon!

Too right! Let them go bust! They should be prepared for government organisations stopping them earning any money for weeks when they think it's safe to go flying.

Scrounging bds!

Is this meant to be sarcasstic?
Nobody has asked me if I am prepared for a government organisation to increase the road tax and the fuel duty when i think they get plenty enough and when the roads are covered with wheel bursting potholes.

[isee]

DSM2 said:

isee said:

el stovey said:

isee said:

Here we go again... Don't they have insurance for that kind of event?
This bailout mentality needs to end and soon!

Too right! Let them go bust! They should be prepared for government organisations stopping them earning any money for weeks when they think it's safe to go flying.

Scrounging bds!

Is this meant to be sarcasstic?
Nobody has asked me if I am prepared for a government organisation to increase the road tax and the fuel duty when i think they get plenty enough and when the roads are covered with wheel bursting potholes.

Yes it was meant to be ironic, i think.

His point is that many airlines think it is safe to fly, and recent tests back them up.

A government department is stopping them flying, thereby directly hitting them financially.

Personally I would not like a bail out, but they do have a point.

I do tend to think that some health and safety jobsworth out there decided that this must be one of those rare opportunities where they can be seen to be important have adviced some other jobsworht that the whole airspace needs to be closed down and this is how it happened. Now they realise that it is costing the economy an absolute fortune and will probably/hopefull be fired. I see the point of the governing body needlessly endagering a business and costing them money but that is hardly new is it. Airilnes should be taking out insurance on st like that afterall they clearly know how beneficial that is since they keep trying to sell us travel insurance

Edited by isee on Monday 19th April 11:35

[isee]

Tangent Police said:

el stovey said:

DSM2 said:

Yes it was meant to be ironic, i think.

His point is that many airlines think it is safe to fly, and recent tests back them up.

A government department is stopping them flying, thereby directly hitting them financially.

Personally I would not like a bail out, but they do have a point.

1) Government organisation unnecessarily stops your business making any money for long enough to make you go bankrupt.
2) You ask the government for support.
3) Internet 'experts' tell you it's a free market and your business should be left to fail through absolutely no fault of your own.

Are these tests done with particulates of the same concentrations/sizes/hardness?

I for one would not like to have my life put at risk so that someone's company may continue to trade.

If the company wants to run the gauntlet, this puts the responsibility on people who are not directly experienced in the mechanics of jet engines being wapped with sharp, hard, glass!

That leaves it up to me to make the decision to go or not. I look at various pics of abraded turbines and dust concentration projections and these nutters are going to "go for it". By all means, if you can convince the pilot to "go for it" get some freight up there and have a look at the jet engines afterwards. Perhaps do this a few times to get rid of probabilities of a clean-run and then consider flying humans.

If something fks up, there will be hell to pay.

I jsut had a thought: Since the dust wears out the turbine engines and the blades, I assume the damage will not be as extensive as that done to the infamous 747 that flew straight through the plume, losing all 4 engines. Does that mean that they will start flying now, only slightly wearing their engines and then 1-2 months down the line they will start falling out of the sky and nobody will make the connection?

[isee]

As an airline pilot friend of mine said, when asked if knowing how to fly an airliner makes him a more nervous passenger in case the pilot forgot to do something or done something wrong or neglected something:
Airline pilots are not kamikaze and want to live too.