Airline bailout
Discussion
10 Pence Short said:
Does that mean John Prescott could be brought in as the Government's 'Volcano Tsar'? After all, he could understand better than most the volcano's ability to blow their top with only the mildest of provocation.
Jackie Smith has more experience when it comes to spewing out volumes of pyroclastic, toxic muck though. Mr Whippy said:
Is there a point where airlines will prefer to take a risk and hedge their bets on compensation, than not do business at all?
Ie, lets fly, and 1 in 1000 jets fails over the next X days of this eruption, and the cost of compensation is cheaper than the loss of revenue?!
Dave
There obviously is a point as crashing is always a risk. It would probably have to be significantly smaller than 1/1000 as nothing like this number of flights crashes normally. Ie, lets fly, and 1 in 1000 jets fails over the next X days of this eruption, and the cost of compensation is cheaper than the loss of revenue?!
Dave
How about a volcano bailout? Clog the tops of the volcanoes up with 20GBP notes and make sure nothing like this ever happens again. Come on Gordon, we know you want to.
Aren't the environmentalists missing a trick here too? Surely volcanic activity is directly linked to building houses in Iceland? Or, something?
cs02rm0 said:
Now imagine you run RyanAir...
Who say it is a sham that BA who were having financial troubles use this as an excuse for a way to get compensation.But does want money to be paid by someone else for the passengers staying overseas IE food and accommodation.
So he means he does want compo, but just with a different ID tag to BAs.
While i'm sort of in agreement with stovey's point of view on this, can I stress that NATS is not a 'government department'. It used to be, but now the government just own the majority share in what is (as I understand it) a contractor for air navigation service provision.
I don't understand why it is NATS's decision to make (which isn't to say I disagree with what they've done - I don't understand enough about what ICAO requires to make that judgement). However, usually, ATC have no authority to act as 'police'. If it is snowing and an airport company hasn't taken the decision to close a runway, all we do is pass on the reported conditions and let the aircraft operator make the decision whether to fly or not.
If there's a thunderstorm hovering over the climbout path, you can pass weather data or advise crews, but you can't deny a clearance on the basis it could be hazardous to flight. Approaching below the aerodrome minima? You'll get told you'll be reported on, but we won't prevent you from landing. Even when an airline goes bust and the aircraft are repossessed, you inform the crew of the court order, and then if they want to continue, you carry on as normal.
So why it is left up to the ANSP to 'close' airspace for VA baffles me. What about the regulator? Did the government not want the responsibility or something? Either way, I think they've been put in an unenviable position where either scenario will draw scorn.
P.S. There are some radar returns over the UK now, so at least something's airbourne
I don't understand why it is NATS's decision to make (which isn't to say I disagree with what they've done - I don't understand enough about what ICAO requires to make that judgement). However, usually, ATC have no authority to act as 'police'. If it is snowing and an airport company hasn't taken the decision to close a runway, all we do is pass on the reported conditions and let the aircraft operator make the decision whether to fly or not.
If there's a thunderstorm hovering over the climbout path, you can pass weather data or advise crews, but you can't deny a clearance on the basis it could be hazardous to flight. Approaching below the aerodrome minima? You'll get told you'll be reported on, but we won't prevent you from landing. Even when an airline goes bust and the aircraft are repossessed, you inform the crew of the court order, and then if they want to continue, you carry on as normal.
So why it is left up to the ANSP to 'close' airspace for VA baffles me. What about the regulator? Did the government not want the responsibility or something? Either way, I think they've been put in an unenviable position where either scenario will draw scorn.
P.S. There are some radar returns over the UK now, so at least something's airbourne
Edited by RDE on Tuesday 20th April 10:38
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.
A handful of 'successful' test flights proves jack sHis 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.
t. Have BA stripped the engines down and ran boroscopes over the parts. Fact is BA - despite the CEO's showboating - don't really know that much about the ash. How does it impact on wear that is hard to see? Does it increase MTBF's. Does it require more frequent engine rebuilds? Lots of questions. Might those engines which are 'ok' go bang in 6 months (prematurely) unless serviced more frequently.Besides there have been encounters with denser clouds of ash including a research aircraft and some NATO jets.
SmoothRB 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.
A handful of 'successful' test flights proves jack sHis 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.
t. Have BA stripped the engines down and ran boroscopes over the parts. Fact is BA - despite the CEO's showboating - don't really know that much about the ash. How does it impact on wear that is hard to see? Does it increase MTBF's. Does it require more frequent engine rebuilds? Lots of questions. Might those engines which are 'ok' go bang in 6 months (prematurely) unless serviced more frequently.Besides there have been encounters with denser clouds of ash including a research aircraft and some NATO jets.
I'm sure BA know plenty about engines, considering they have flown JET AIRCRAFT FOR 40 ODD YEARS. I'm figuring in that 40 years they picked something up!
And considering most engines are dropped once a month (iirc) for servicing, I'm sure the servicing will pick something up if there is anything, and I'm sure that the servicing in the next few months will be looking for increased wear as a precaution anyway.
This debate consists of 2 halves.
1/2 People who understand the need to err on the side of caution with this particular and not generic dust cloud, they need evidence to see that it is safe from an economic/mechanical point and a public safety point.
2/2 People who are gung ho and quite frankly, with that degree of recklessness/generalisation shouldn't be able to make descisions in light of insufficient data.
We are not in Indonesia, or S America. The ash cloud is different and the fact that it is circulating in a particular way around a very specific set of circumstances needs closer inspection of the way engines behave in these densities/particulate properties before anyone does anything.
The only people who should say anything are either the people with the gear to positively see that the threat has gone, in light of the data gained from proper scientists doing proper experiments with these sorts of particles.
Since there is little data available, they need to err on the side of caution due to:-
1. Planes dropping out of the sky.
2. A shortage of parts when everyone needs new engines next month.
It seems a far few people on here cannot tell their arses from their armpits.
1/2 People who understand the need to err on the side of caution with this particular and not generic dust cloud, they need evidence to see that it is safe from an economic/mechanical point and a public safety point.
2/2 People who are gung ho and quite frankly, with that degree of recklessness/generalisation shouldn't be able to make descisions in light of insufficient data.
We are not in Indonesia, or S America. The ash cloud is different and the fact that it is circulating in a particular way around a very specific set of circumstances needs closer inspection of the way engines behave in these densities/particulate properties before anyone does anything.
The only people who should say anything are either the people with the gear to positively see that the threat has gone, in light of the data gained from proper scientists doing proper experiments with these sorts of particles.
Since there is little data available, they need to err on the side of caution due to:-
1. Planes dropping out of the sky.
2. A shortage of parts when everyone needs new engines next month.
It seems a far few people on here cannot tell their arses from their armpits.
Tangent Police said:
This debate consists of 2 halves.
1/2 People who understand the need to err on the side of caution with this particular and not generic dust cloud, they need evidence to see that it is safe from an economic/mechanical point and a public safety point.
And who better than the airlines themselves?1/2 People who understand the need to err on the side of caution with this particular and not generic dust cloud, they need evidence to see that it is safe from an economic/mechanical point and a public safety point.
Course they aren't going to risk putting planes up there if its unsafe, and no pilot is going to fly if he has a doubt either.
Pilots have families too!
Tangent Police said:
This debate consists of 2 halves.
1/2 People who understand the need to err on the side of caution with this particular and not generic dust cloud, they need evidence to see that it is safe from an economic/mechanical point and a public safety point.
2/2 People who are gung ho and quite frankly, with that degree of recklessness/generalisation shouldn't be able to make descisions in light of insufficient data.
1/2 People who understand the need to err on the side of caution with this particular and not generic dust cloud, they need evidence to see that it is safe from an economic/mechanical point and a public safety point.
2/2 People who are gung ho and quite frankly, with that degree of recklessness/generalisation shouldn't be able to make descisions in light of insufficient data.
get you!
tinman0 said:
SmoothRB 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.
A handful of 'successful' test flights proves jack sHis 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.
t. Have BA stripped the engines down and ran boroscopes over the parts. Fact is BA - despite the CEO's showboating - don't really know that much about the ash. How does it impact on wear that is hard to see? Does it increase MTBF's. Does it require more frequent engine rebuilds? Lots of questions. Might those engines which are 'ok' go bang in 6 months (prematurely) unless serviced more frequently.Besides there have been encounters with denser clouds of ash including a research aircraft and some NATO jets.
I'm sure BA know plenty about engines, considering they have flown JET AIRCRAFT FOR 40 ODD YEARS. I'm figuring in that 40 years they picked something up!
And considering most engines are dropped once a month (iirc) for servicing, I'm sure the servicing will pick something up if there is anything, and I'm sure that the servicing in the next few months will be looking for increased wear as a precaution anyway.
tinman0 said:
Tangent Police said:
This debate consists of 2 halves.
1/2 People who understand the need to err on the side of caution with this particular and not generic dust cloud, they need evidence to see that it is safe from an economic/mechanical point and a public safety point.
And who better than the airlines themselves?1/2 People who understand the need to err on the side of caution with this particular and not generic dust cloud, they need evidence to see that it is safe from an economic/mechanical point and a public safety point.
Course they aren't going to risk putting planes up there if its unsafe, and no pilot is going to fly if he has a doubt either.
Pilots have families too!
Hence why we have a lot of independent regulation of the aviation industry.
SmoothRB said:
tinman0 said:
Tangent Police said:
This debate consists of 2 halves.
1/2 People who understand the need to err on the side of caution with this particular and not generic dust cloud, they need evidence to see that it is safe from an economic/mechanical point and a public safety point.
And who better than the airlines themselves?1/2 People who understand the need to err on the side of caution with this particular and not generic dust cloud, they need evidence to see that it is safe from an economic/mechanical point and a public safety point.
Course they aren't going to risk putting planes up there if its unsafe, and no pilot is going to fly if he has a doubt either.
Pilots have families too!
Hence why we have a lot of independent regulation of the aviation industry.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff