Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Lizzie Zoom on 30 April 2020, 18:32:20
-
There have been reports today that British Airways is going to shut it's Gatwick operation.
This must be a worrying move for the whole of the airline industry, and our DG, with massive job cuts expected beyond the 12,000 already announced at BA. :'( :'(
It looks like no new runways will now be necessary at either Gatwick or Heathrow, as even there BA and other airlines appear to be ready to shrink their services.
The only winner may be the environment!
-
We have friends that live in Crawley not far from Gatwick several years ago there was virtually no unemployed in that area and the town was booming with a very high percentage of the locals working at the airport things will undoubtedly change , it's dreadful how this virus is going to change peoples lives.
-
Looking for a socialist tax payer bailout perhaps. :)
-
Up until mid March there were more jobs than people :'(
Norwegian will be retreating to Scandinavia and canning their long haul operation if their shareholders agree to a kicking on Monday. If they don't, then that will be the end of them too.
Which will leave EasyJet as the only sizeable carrier at Gatwick. And if Virgin go, the only UKish longhaul operator will be TUI, presuming that they don't go pop in the meantime :-\
Bryan Air will be getting a stonking deal on the ex Norwegian 737 Max orders.
-
Up until mid March there were more jobs than people :'(
Norwegian will be retreating to Scandinavia and canning their long haul operation if their shareholders agree to a kicking on Monday. If they don't, then that will be the end of them too.
Which will leave EasyJet as the only sizeable carrier at Gatwick. And if Virgin go, the only UKish longhaul operator will be TUI, presuming that they don't go pop in the meantime :-\
Bryan Air will be getting a stonking deal on the ex Norwegian 737 Max orders.
That is all terrible news. :'( :'( :'(
As well as the runways expansion plans at either Heathrow or Gatwick being shelved, I wonder what will now happen at the latter and the planned railway station redevelopment? ??? ???
All this is the real bad news in regards to the virus. 100’s of thousands of jobs now in great jeppody! :( :( :(
-
The station should have started already, but the airport has scaled back its development projects.
They've just spent a bucket load moving the A380 stand from Pier 6 to Pier 5, including strengthening the taxiway and stands. They've started redeveloping where the A380 used to go to add another 5/6 gates to Pier 6. Not sure if this is continuing or being made safe, but extending Pier 6 south with a second bridge won't be happening any time soon...
When 9/11 happened, they had started doing the ground work for Pier 6. After that, they threw the utilities in and concreted it over for 18 months, finally finishing it in 2005/6 rather than ready for 2003.
-
The station should have started already, but the airport has scaled back its development projects.
They've just spent a bucket load moving the A380 stand from Pier 6 to Pier 5, including strengthening the taxiway and stands. They've started redeveloping where the A380 used to go to add another 5/6 gates to Pier 6. Not sure if this is continuing or being made safe, but extending Pier 6 south with a second bridge won't be happening any time soon...
When 9/11 happened, they had started doing the ground work for Pier 6. After that, they threw the utilities in and concreted it over for 18 months, finally finishing it in 2005/6 rather than ready for 2003.
I am not surprised they are scaling everything back. But why are they creating so much work for the A380? I understand that Airbus are stopping / have stopped production of that plane as it is now considered not fit for the demands of the airline industry with sales having been very disappointing. They are going the way of Boeing and pulling away from jumbo sized aircraft.
Now that size of aircraft will be even more out of place. I note that BA are saying it will be YEARS before air travel recovers to pre virus levels. It will make the after affects of 9/11 seem like a picnic :'( :'(
-
I note that BA are saying it will be YEARS before air travel recovers to pre virus levels. It will make the after affects of 9/11 seem like a picnic :'( :'(
good, we fly far too easily in modern times,
-
I note that BA are saying it will be YEARS before air travel recovers to pre virus levels. It will make the after affects of 9/11 seem like a picnic :'( :'(
good, we fly far too easily in modern times,
Maybe, but think of the consequences of all this on jobs, like Doctor Gollum’s, the Gatwick and Heathrow staff, the service industry, the aircraft maintenance crews, the aircraft builders, etc, etc!
It is going to be horrendous :'( :'( :'(
We can go green, turn our backs on modernity, but then live through the worst recession the World has ever known with people, including children, starving on the streets. Is that all worth it? :P :P
-
I note that BA are saying it will be YEARS before air travel recovers to pre virus levels. It will make the after affects of 9/11 seem like a picnic :'( :'(
good, we fly far too easily in modern times,
Maybe, but think of the consequences of all this on jobs, like Doctor Gollum’s, the Gatwick and Heathrow staff, the service industry, the aircraft maintenance crews, the aircraft builders, etc, etc!
It is going to be horrendous :'( :'( :'(
We can go green, turn our backs on modernity, but then live through the worst recession the World has ever known with people, including children, starving on the streets. Is that all worth it? :P :P
Last week it was rotting corpse on the streets, now it's starving children. Get a f**king grip.
-
Re the A380...
Short answer: money also the A380 is a fat, heavy pig, so anywhere it touches the ground has to be reinforced over and above the existing weights such as B747/777/787. That's alot of digging up and filling.
When Pier 6 was built, the A380 hadn't flown, they put in a massive heavy duty stand... Gate 110, which is at an angle at the end of the pier. This was the only jetty serviced A380 gate on the airport. (Remote stands, 170's and 200's will all take it).
As it happened only Emirates regularly operates the A380 into Gatwick and it was only licensed for three daily flights... If the run extras, then Emirates have to use other aircraft, usually B777s.
EasyJet growth demanded more gate space, and getting 5-600 people over the bridge for one flight three times daily was eating into gate room space at all three flight waves (they used to use the gate rooms for 109, 110 and 111 for the Emirates, and whilst boarding it on 110, the other two gates could only be used for arrivals, which is limiting as Emirates trumped anything else. Bit of a stand planning headache ;D)
Since 2014, Pier 5 has been undergoing redevelopment, and there's a tricky junction between the old BA domestic gates, 551-557, and the refreshed pier, 559-574. The solution, and probably at Emirates expense/demand, 557-559 was dug up and strengthened along with all the taxiway routes leading to it, a gate redesign with two more jetties and a ground layout redesign for all the shyte that the A380 needs. This opened November last year and work to 'correct' pier 6 and add in a further 5-6 lounge/jetty gates where 110 used to be in line with the rest of the pier. Inside will probably allow for more toilets and another couple of shops.
The only other A380 that regularly visited was the Hifly ex Singapore one that Norwegian used to charter to cover their Dreamliner engine destruction program. Given that they lost £15 on every single seat on it, that didn't happen that often. So as an aircraft, Gatwick can easily service them, but the only customer demand is from a single airline.
One of the benefits of the B777-10 with its folding wing tips (also the A350) is that it will fit onto any stand that the B747 will, and that's over half the jetty serviced gates st Gatwick, so that's the current future covered ;)
-
I note that BA are saying it will be YEARS before air travel recovers to pre virus levels. It will make the after affects of 9/11 seem like a picnic :'( :'(
good, we fly far too easily in modern times,
Maybe, but think of the consequences of all this on jobs, like Doctor Gollum’s, the Gatwick and Heathrow staff, the service industry, the aircraft maintenance crews, the aircraft builders, etc, etc!
It is going to be horrendous :'( :'( :'(
We can go green, turn our backs on modernity, but then live through the worst recession the World has ever known with people, including children, starving on the streets. Is that all worth it? :P :P
Last week it was rotting corpse on the streets, now it's starving children. Get a f**king grip.
They found van's full of rotting corpses in New York! :-X
-
I note that BA are saying it will be YEARS before air travel recovers to pre virus levels. It will make the after affects of 9/11 seem like a picnic :'( :'(
good, we fly far too easily in modern times,
Maybe, but think of the consequences of all this on jobs, like Doctor Gollum’s, the Gatwick and Heathrow staff, the service industry, the aircraft maintenance crews, the aircraft builders, etc, etc!
It is going to be horrendous :'( :'( :'(
We can go green, turn our backs on modernity, but then live through the worst recession the World has ever known with people, including children, starving on the streets. Is that all worth it? :P :P
Last week it was rotting corpse on the streets, now it's starving children. Get a f**king grip.
They found van's full of rotting corpses in New York! :-X
Yes, I read that. That's New York for you, doubt it will happen in old York.
-
I note that BA are saying it will be YEARS before air travel recovers to pre virus levels. It will make the after affects of 9/11 seem like a picnic :'( :'(
good, we fly far too easily in modern times,
Maybe, but think of the consequences of all this on jobs, like Doctor Gollum’s, the Gatwick and Heathrow staff, the service industry, the aircraft maintenance crews, the aircraft builders, etc, etc!
It is going to be horrendous :'( :'( :'(
We can go green, turn our backs on modernity, but then live through the worst recession the World has ever known with people, including children, starving on the streets. Is that all worth it? :P :P
Last week it was rotting corpse on the streets, now it's starving children. Get a f**king grip.
They found van's full of rotting corpses in New York! :-X
Soylent Green opportunity? :)
-
Re the A380...
Short answer: money also the A380 is a fat, heavy pig, so anywhere it touches the ground has to be reinforced over and above the existing weights such as B747/777/787. That's alot of digging up and filling.
When Pier 6 was built, the A380 hadn't flown, they put in a massive heavy duty stand... Gate 110, which is at an angle at the end of the pier. This was the only jetty serviced A380 gate on the airport. (Remote stands, 170's and 200's will all take it).
As it happened only Emirates regularly operates the A380 into Gatwick and it was only licensed for three daily flights... If the run extras, then Emirates have to use other aircraft, usually B777s.
EasyJet growth demanded more gate space, and getting 5-600 people over the bridge for one flight three times daily was eating into gate room space at all three flight waves (they used to use the gate rooms for 109, 110 and 111 for the Emirates, and whilst boarding it on 110, the other two gates could only be used for arrivals, which is limiting as Emirates trumped anything else. Bit of a stand planning headache ;D)
Since 2014, Pier 5 has been undergoing redevelopment, and there's a tricky junction between the old BA domestic gates, 551-557, and the refreshed pier, 559-574. The solution, and probably at Emirates expense/demand, 557-559 was dug up and strengthened along with all the taxiway routes leading to it, a gate redesign with two more jetties and a ground layout redesign for all the shyte that the A380 needs. This opened November last year and work to 'correct' pier 6 and add in a further 5-6 lounge/jetty gates where 110 used to be in line with the rest of the pier. Inside will probably allow for more toilets and another couple of shops.
The only other A380 that regularly visited was the Hifly ex Singapore one that Norwegian used to charter to cover their Dreamliner engine destruction program. Given that they lost £15 on every single seat on it, that didn't happen that often. So as an aircraft, Gatwick can easily service them, but the only customer demand is from a single airline.
One of the benefits of the B777-10 with its folding wing tips (also the A350) is that it will fit onto any stand that the B747 will, and that's over half the jetty serviced gates st Gatwick, so that's the current future covered ;)
Many thanks for that great explanation DG.
It has taught me a lot that I am interested in 8) 8) :y :y
-
I note that BA are saying it will be YEARS before air travel recovers to pre virus levels. It will make the after affects of 9/11 seem like a picnic :'( :'(
good, we fly far too easily in modern times,
Maybe, but think of the consequences of all this on jobs, like Doctor Gollum’s, the Gatwick and Heathrow staff, the service industry, the aircraft maintenance crews, the aircraft builders, etc, etc!
It is going to be horrendous :'( :'( :'(
We can go green, turn our backs on modernity, but then live through the worst recession the World has ever known with people, including children, starving on the streets. Is that all worth it? :P :P
Last week it was rotting corpse on the streets, now it's starving children. Get a f**king grip.
I have got a grip Steve with the knowledge that in distant places, like India, there are already starving kids as the sweat shops, that at least used to pay their employees the local going rate, have shut down due to U.K., and other countries, retailers cancelling orders and not paying the contracted severance money.
Our, Europe’s, and America’s welfare state will support our poorest, made redundant, workers so long, but when the financial situation hits the buffers........already the food banks are overwhelmed...........so yes, even in good old Britain “starving kids” could well be a horrible reality. :'( :'( :'(
If you cannot see that...... ::) ::)
-
It's far from certain that the current problems will favour the smaller jets (B787/A350) over the huge ones (A380).
The idea of the smaller jets is that they can fly smaller numbers of people direct into more diverse airports. The A380 only works on key 'hub' routes where you fly to the nearest hub on an A380 and then change to a smaller jet (A320/B737) to fly the last hour or three to your actual destination.
Now if passenger numbers drop, then the hub/spoke scheme becomes more economic - instead of running 3 B787/A350's into 3 different places from Heathrow (say Las Vegas, San Fransisco & Phoenix), you run one A380 from Heathrow to (say) LAX, and then change connecting PAX onto smaller jets to get to LAS, SFO and PHX.
Passengers prefer direct flights, but the airlines can't run them unless the load factors justify it. If there aren't 250 passengers a day wanting to go from LHR-PHX then the B787/A350 flight won't be viable. However, packing and extra 100 passengers for each of LAS, SFO and PHX onto an already necessary LAX flight means you can keep the A380 full ish, and then use the cheaper short haul jets for those transit passengers to get to their final destination.
I've flown both A380 (SQ) and B787(AA) and would chose the A380 every time. Infact I'll be avoiding B787 in the future (if there is a future!).
-
Your examples don't work from LGW as they are/were tradionally tourist routes operating B772/787s. Boeing built their hanger specifically to service the 777-10, and apart from China Airlines, Cathay was the only daily A350 service into LGW and that route got pulled indefinitely in early March.
It would be good to see someone like Jet2 establish a southern base, but that requires a market and sustainable growth. Neither of which are going to happen anytime soon.
The only A380 operator at Gatwick is very much a hub/spoke one, and that's Emirates. The bulk of their business is flying people to/from the Indian subcontinent via Dubai.
-
Very interesting and thanks, I am learning a lot about the airline industry and what may be to come :'( :'(
Ryan Air have now decided on massive job cuts of 3,000.
The misery is only just starting! :'( :'(
-
It is indeed going to be a very different world when this is over.
-
A question for both DG and LC0112G:
How many other jobs in all the services and support industries, from cabin cleaners to aircraft engineers, through to aircraft builders will be lost per thousand individual airline job cuts please?
Can it be calculated? ??? ??? :y
-
Slightly off topic, but aviation related and interesting nontheless. :y
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/01/how-airlines-found-parking-for-thousands-of-planes-amid-coronavirus.html
-
Slightly off topic, but aviation related and interesting nontheless. :y
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/01/how-airlines-found-parking-for-thousands-of-planes-amid-coronavirus.html
How much is all this aircraft parking costing I wonder? :o :o :)
-
A question for both DG and LC0112G:
How many other jobs in all the services and support industries, from cabin cleaners to aircraft engineers, through to aircraft builders will be lost per thousand individual airline job cuts please?
Can it be calculated? ??? ??? :y
Not in those terms, a few airline jobs wouldn't result in job cuts at service providers.
That said, if a whole airline leaves an airport then the effect is obviously more pronounced.
In the case of British Airways, a company called GGS (Gatwick Ground Services) has a single contract: BA.
They provide all the ground handling and cabin cleaning services to BA and only at Gatwick. At a guess, that's 4-600 people straight out of the door. Their catering is provided by Newrest, again I believe only at Gatwick, so probably another 500-800 people or so. The laundry that cleans the blankets is up at Heathrow so probably won't be too badly affected beyond a drop in production.
BA does its own maintenance, so that will be a combination of redundancy, retirement and moving staff.
Associated services will suffer financially from the loss, for example fewer passengers means fewer customers for the shops/restaurants, but these won't automatically mean job cuts as they require staff to function.
The greatest financial loss out side of the direct airline operation will be to the airport with regards landing fees, and service provision (these charges are publically available on the Gatwick commercial website) such as parking (aircraft and staff), ID issuing, vehicle permits etc.
BA tends to operate its aircraft for 25-30 years, and they're currently mid way through upgrading their long haul fleets with B787, B777, A350.
The A380 is a slow, fat Concorde. A great idea, but a bit of a poisoned chalice. It's simply not a cost effective aircraft... You can't put 800 people in it because people demand a bit of luxury/space, so most are running around at less than two thirds of their potential. Also, they can't actually carry that much freight weight, which rules out freighter conversions.
Hence, for the last couple of years, most A380 operators have started dumping them in favour of more efficient twin engine wide body aircraft. Even Emirates cancelled the last of their orders for the A380, and they're the only airline who actually made it viable (in no small part due the fact theirs have amongst the highest passenger number configuration).
There won't be many left in service, if any by 2025.
-
Slightly off topic, but aviation related and interesting nontheless. :y
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/01/how-airlines-found-parking-for-thousands-of-planes-amid-coronavirus.html
How much is all this aircraft parking costing I wonder? :o :o :)
At Gatwick...
< 50 Metric Tonnes Per 5 minutes of chargeable parking time. £2.50
>= 50 & <= 200 Metric Tonnes Per 5 minutes of chargeable parking time. £5.00
> 200 Metric Tonnes Per 5 minutes of chargeable parking time. £10.00
Notes
(1) Weight category is based on an aircraft’s maximum take-off weight (MTOW).
(2) Parking is free between 22:30 and 04:59 UTC at all times of the year.
(3) A peak charge will apply to an aircraft which occupies a pier served stand between 05:00 and 22:29 UTC
from 1 April to 31 October. During this period of time, each minute will count as three minutes for the purpose
of calculating parking charges.
-
Thanks for all that info DG 8) 8) :y :y :y
Which ever way you look at it, times are going to be very difficult for the airline industry :'( :'(
Your figures certainly confirm what I believed; it is bloody expensive to run an airline and if you do the aim has to be to keep an airliner in the sky as many hours out of each 24 as you can :o :o
-
Your examples don't work from LGW as they are/were tradionally tourist routes operating B772/787s. Boeing built their hanger specifically to service the 777-10, and apart from China Airlines, Cathay was the only daily A350 service into LGW and that route got pulled indefinitely in early March.
It would be good to see someone like Jet2 establish a southern base, but that requires a market and sustainable growth. Neither of which are going to happen anytime soon.
The only A380 operator at Gatwick is very much a hub/spoke one, and that's Emirates. The bulk of their business is flying people to/from the Indian subcontinent via Dubai.
Yes - I agree, but I wasn't in general talking about Gatwick ops with A380. No-one operating A380 will want to fly out of LGW if they can get a slot at LHR instead. In the short term I see LGW reverting to mainly being a Charter and Lo-Co airport, with most scheduled services concentrating on LHR.
-
The only sticking point is that there are only two sustainable tour operators flying their own fleets and one of them already has a base there... Tui.
When I first started in '95, there were at least 10 Charter carriers, plus BA, American, Continental, Emirates, Northwest, US Airways, Virgin, Delta, Avia, Zimbabwe, and several other carriers operating scheduled short-haul. :-\
Ironically, if Thomas Cook had been bailed out, they would have been perfectly positioned for kick starting the tourism industry. Instead, there's unlikely to be the capacity to meet demand... :-\
-
Not about BA or Gatwick but aviation related. :)
An interesting account of travelling from the UK to Israel in Covid times, by Mark Stone who is the Middle East correspondent for Sky News :y
https://threader.app/thread/1257634299072970754
It seems the Israeli's have taken a completely different approach to bio-security at their borders to the UK. ::)
-
Which may go some way to explaining why the UK is second only to the U.S. in death toll figures.
We are an island*, and a relatively small one. We should have used that to our advantage early doors, and shut everything down apart from cargo planes and ships.
* apart from Norn Irn, but the Irish border should have also been closed at the same time. It wasn't ,for reasons of political appeasement and I don't doubt that has cost lives.
There were deaths from the virus in ROI when there were none on the North, so the border could and should have been closed.
-
there is still no imposed quarantine for people flying into the UK
you may say that it would be too late anyway
but the UK is going back to test,track,trace (containment )
Australia is an island but do better checks ,resulting in better stats (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/australia/)
-
A couple of points, the Israelis have a unique take on most things.
Secondly, Australia has always been quite fussy when it comes to letting anything in, so it really isn't news that they have more accurate data than a country that hasn't had an effective border until a couple of months ago. ::)
Also, however unfortunate, 30, 40, or even 100,000 deaths isn't a significant percentage of 70 million or so.
The border point, here at least is a moot one, lock down should have been done when the first whisper was heard.
But it wasn't. Get over it.
-
That reads a touch more abrupt than it sounded in my head...
I've a fairly low tolerance to lefty media fuelled argumentative 'what if' speculator blame slinging :-X
-
That reads a touch more abrupt than it sounded in my head...
I've a fairly low tolerance to lefty media fuelled argumentative 'what if' speculator blame slinging :-X
BUT 'what if' the UK HAD better border control and WAS quite fussy when it comes to letting anything in :-\
Like we was all promised before the BREXIT referendum ;D :D
threat of Virus epidemic and pandemic is not new , I mentioned SARS 2003 before
that was 17 years ago and handled well ::)
-
Neither SARS nor MERS made the blindest tangible difference to life in the UK or anywhere else. If they had, then we, as a globe, might have been better prepared for Batflu.
Foot and mouth made more of an impact, certainly as far as travel is concerned.
To say that governments aren't taking it seriously though must be some sort of delusional joke, because they have all but shut down the global economy for what, even now, amounts to a fraction of a percent of the global population.
Let's assume that 10 million people contract it (current official total is 3.6 million, and 5 million people eventually die from it (currently 255,000). That amounts to everyone in Portugal catching it, and Costa Rica or Norway not existing.
So in that context trying to criticise the response is a completely and utterly pointless excercise. Would you or I have done things differently? Possibly, probably even. But we each actively chose not to be in the position to do so.
-
That reads a touch more abrupt than it sounded in my head...
I've a fairly low tolerance to lefty media fuelled argumentative 'what if' speculator blame slinging :-X
No, that sounds just right for you. Narky old bastard ;D
-
:P
-
Meanwhile, in other news, Virgin is pulling out of Gatwick...
At any other time, that would make for a witty soundbite :-\
-
Neither SARS nor MERS made the blindest tangible difference to life in the UK or anywhere else. If they had, then we, as a globe, might have been better prepared for Batflu.
Foot and mouth made more of an impact, certainly as far as travel is concerned.
To say that governments aren't taking it seriously though must be some sort of delusional joke, because they have all but shut down the global economy for what, even now, amounts to a fraction of a percent of the global population.
Let's assume that 10 million people contract it (current official total is 3.6 million, and 5 million people eventually die from it (currently 255,000). That amounts to everyone in Portugal catching it, and Costa Rica or Norway not existing.
So in that context trying to criticise the response is a completely and utterly pointless exercise. Would you or I have done things differently? Possibly, probably even. But we each actively chose not to be in the position to do so.
Yes, indeed. Not for the first time I will remind everyone, if they can possibly forget it, that the Spanish Flue of 1918-19 cost over 50 million people; the First World War and the Second one killed something like 65 million+, so what we face now is not much at all in the scheme of things, but if you have lost someone your World is far from good now. For instance, if WW3 transpires, our problems would be very significantly worse!
And again, absolutely right, as I also have pointed out, if you have no responsibility on your shoulders, it is all too easy to criticise from a nice comfy armchair, especially after the fact!! ::) ::)
In my book our Boris (who I was a staunch critic of) along with the team of highly qualified medical and scientific experts, plus financial advisors to give an indication of the effect of it all on the economy, have actually done a bloody good job in the circumstances.
Yes, later historians will be critical of certain decisions, specific 'war' plans, but they are with Churchill over many decisions taken in WW2. But they were not there, they did not have the huge responsibility on their shoulders, and deal with an enemy that was strong, very strong and determined, but with Covid-19 invisible as well! ::) ::) ;)
-
Lastest:
Virgin Alantic announces 3,000 jobs to go, and they will also pull out of Gatwick :'( :'( :'( :'(
Sorry DG! :'( :'( :'(
EDIT: DG beat me too it as I was writing!! :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
-
Neither SARS nor MERS made the blindest tangible difference to life in the UK or anywhere else. If they had, then we, as a globe, might have been better prepared for Batflu.
Foot and mouth made more of an impact, certainly as far as travel is concerned.
To say that governments aren't taking it seriously though must be some sort of delusional joke, because they have all but shut down the global economy for what, even now, amounts to a fraction of a percent of the global population.
Let's assume that 10 million people contract it (current official total is 3.6 million, and 5 million people eventually die from it (currently 255,000). That amounts to everyone in Portugal catching it, and Costa Rica or Norway not existing.
So in that context trying to criticise the response is a completely and utterly pointless excercise. Would you or I have done things differently? Possibly, probably even. But we each actively chose not to be in the position to do so.
I remember SARS Ebola etc being on TV ::)
Governments should have taken it seriously sooner ,is the point
the W.H.O told all member states about WN-CoV coronavirus on 4th /5th Jan
11th Jan W.H.O gave comprehensive information to member states about symptoms,testing,management etc
by 25th Jan (3 weeks later) coronavirus was on mainstream TV
30th Jan Chief Medical Officers in the UK raise risk to the public from low to moderate.
31st Jan first 2 cases of coronavirus confirmed in UK
28 days later or so ;D
1st March ,despite the UK having it's thunb up it's arse :-X we have shat our pot full :(
2nd March for Coronavirus guidance for clinicians and NHS managers,time to order some PPE :o oh dear :-[
3rd Mar UK Gov announces one in five people off work and cancellation of operations etc ,because "Herd immunity"
2 months later :-\ where trying to test, track, trace, and isolate
So in that context trying to criticise the response is a completely and utterly justified excercise. :P
-
A couple of points, the Israelis have a unique take on most things.
Secondly, Australia has always been quite fussy when it comes to letting anything in, so it really isn't news that they have more accurate data than a country that hasn't had an effective border until a couple of months ago. ::)
Also, however unfortunate, 30, 40, or even 100,000 deaths isn't a significant percentage of 70 million or so.
The border point, here at least is a moot one, lock down should have been done when the first whisper was heard.
But it wasn't. Get over it.
Effective border? Are you kidding? :o ::)
There's a steady stream of illegals motoring across the Dover Straights in small boats and if they are spotted by our 'Border Force' Taxi Service they get a free ride into Dover! ::)
If they don't get spotted, they beach up and disappear off into the countryside. :-\
-
Neither SARS nor MERS made the blindest tangible difference to life in the UK or anywhere else. If they had, then we, as a globe, might have been better prepared for Batflu.
Foot and mouth made more of an impact, certainly as far as travel is concerned.
To say that governments aren't taking it seriously though must be some sort of delusional joke, because they have all but shut down the global economy for what, even now, amounts to a fraction of a percent of the global population.
Let's assume that 10 million people contract it (current official total is 3.6 million, and 5 million people eventually die from it (currently 255,000). That amounts to everyone in Portugal catching it, and Costa Rica or Norway not existing.
So in that context trying to criticise the response is a completely and utterly pointless excercise. Would you or I have done things differently? Possibly, probably even. But we each actively chose not to be in the position to do so.
This is not true. I have friends who were living in Singapore during the SARS outbreak and it made a significant difference to their lives at the time. Ironically they are now back in Singapore and he said that the preventative measures are similar to the SARS but more severe.
I flew into Kuala Lumper in 2009 when the H1N1 bird flu outbreak was on and we all had temp checks disembarking from the plane by officials fully suited up in what we now call PPE, and were checked again embarking on the way out. :y
I think that because none of these outbreaks, SARS, MERS, H1N1, Ebola etc seriously effected the UK, it has made our officials and politicians complacent. :(
As you say though, no point in crying about spilt milk..... :-\
-
I note that BA are saying it will be YEARS before air travel recovers to pre virus levels. It will make the after affects of 9/11 seem like a picnic :'( :'(
good, we fly far too easily in modern times,
Maybe, but think of the consequences of all this on jobs, like Doctor Gollum’s, the Gatwick and Heathrow staff, the service industry, the aircraft maintenance crews, the aircraft builders, etc, etc!
It is going to be horrendous :'( :'( :'(
We can go green, turn our backs on modernity, but then live through the worst recession the World has ever known with people, including children, starving on the streets. Is that all worth it? :P :P
Last week it was rotting corpse on the streets, now it's starving children. Get a f**king grip.
I have got a grip Steve with the knowledge that in distant places, like India, there are already starving kids as the sweat shops, that at least used to pay their employees the local going rate, have shut down due to U.K., and other countries, retailers cancelling orders and not paying the contracted severance money.
Our, Europe’s, and America’s welfare state will support our poorest, made redundant, workers so long, but when the financial situation hits the buffers........already the food banks are overwhelmed...........so yes, even in good old Britain “starving kids” could well be a horrible reality. :'( :'( :'(
If you cannot see that...... ::) ::)
If not starving, locally we have kids going hungry before all of this kicked off. Lower paid, working single parent families have suffered as wages fall behind living costs.
Really struggled to find enough food to put on the table & turning to food banks to top up meager rations.
-
The border point was slightly tongue in cheek, point being that it is laughable to compare our border with Australia on the basis that we're both islands... Australia requires significantly more effort to get to, legally or otherwise.
Dave, that is all as it may be, but what does jumping up and down about it achieve? That's right, nothing.
I appreciate that you have concerns with family members working in the care industry, but you're saying very little about the lack of preparation regarding distancing and ppe from care management. Unless that is also the government's fault...
-
Australia did have a problem of illegals arriving a few years ago. They announced that in future every single one would be sent back from whence they came as soon as they arrived. They stopped coming overnight.
It isn't rocket science.
-
Unfortunately, having been part of the EU, Schengen zone or not, the UK may as well not have had a border.
-
I appreciate that you have concerns with family members working in the care industry, but you're saying very little about the lack of preparation regarding distancing and ppe from care management. Unless that is also the government's fault...
1st March ,despite the UK having it's thunb up it's arse :-X we have shat our pot full :(
2nd March for Coronavirus guidance for clinicians and NHS managers,time to order some PPE :o oh dear :-[
Masks, visors ,and washable (at the care home) uniforms all sorted long ago for my daughter
not NHS approved one use and throw away items ,but things can be washed / sanitized
P.H.E etc should inform care homes or other care sectors ,including dentists etc of possible need to buy such items as soon as information is available (11th January then ::) )
-
Matt Hancock's dad Tony didn't bother with masks/PPE either ,so is Tony to blame :-\ ;D
(http://www.tonyhancock.org.uk/uploads/images/rotating-images/rotate1.jpg)
-
Unfortunately, having been part of the EU, Schengen zone or not, the UK may as well not have had a border.
True, but our glorious leaders don't have that excuse for not controlling borders any more. They are still arriving on the south coast every day, and apparently the camps in France are being hit hard with Covid 19. Pritti said she was going to put a stop to it as soon as she took office, but she is just a pound shop Margaret Thatcher. She talks the talk, but talk is cheap.
-
Technically they've only been able to do that since Feb 1st, and it might be argued that most governments have been some what distracted.
Also, what we have been told publicly is probably somewhat different to anything that may or may not have been done as Batflu developed. The time will come for questions and lessons, but now is not it.
-
Technically they've only been able to do that since Feb 1st, and it might be argued that most governments have been some what distracted.
Also, what we have been told publicly is probably somewhat different to anything that may or may not have been done as Batflu developed. The time will come for questions and lessons, but now is not it.
Why not? ???
A competent government should be able to multi task! ::)
-
Do you not think that they have enough to be getting on with?
-
Technically they've only been able to do that since Feb 1st, and it might be argued that most governments have been some what distracted.
Also, what we have been told publicly is probably somewhat different to anything that may or may not have been done as Batflu developed. The time will come for questions and lessons, but now is not it.
Why not? ???
A competent government should be able to multi task! ::)
they are a bit busy, catching up on stuff they should have done months ago :-X :P ;D
but we can take the mickey in the mean time ,till they have chance to cover it all up ;)
-
I reckon Virgin are just stamping their foot because a bailout is not forthcoming. See how much we will cost you if you don't come across.
-
They don't tend to play that game :-\ besides their Gatwick operation is 100% holiday travel, and there ain't going to be much of that going on any time soon.
No word yet from whether Norwegian will keep their base their now that they have had their bailout approved...
-
Must say i'm a bit disappointed about Virgin pulling out of Gatwick.
When I stay there with work, I use the same Premier Inn as most the staff :D :D :D
-
I ain't going on no plane Hannibal 😀😄😃
-
Must say i'm a bit disappointed about Virgin pulling out of Gatwick.
When I stay there with work, I use the same Premier Inn as most the staff :D :D :D
That use to be the bonus of doing deliveries around Gatwick,, admiring the scenery in red ;)
-
One of the sadder side effects of that particular news, is they have quietly decided to scrap all their 747s :'(
True, they were gradually doing that anyways, but that's that.
Also in response to Stemos suggestion about it being a ruse to call the governments bluff...
It's not.
http://mediacentre.gatwickairport.com/press-releases/all/20_05_05_virgin_leaving.aspx
-
One of the sadder side effects of that particular news, is they have quietly decided to scrap all their 747s :'(
True, they were gradually doing that anyways, but that's that.
Also in response to Stemos suggestion about it being a ruse to call the governments bluff...
It's not.
http://mediacentre.gatwickairport.com/press-releases/all/20_05_05_virgin_leaving.aspx
Yeah, I got a Flying Club email today saying they were moving to the'greenest fleet in the sky' I guessed that meant they were getting rid of the big birds :(
I don't care for travelling on them, but they're such an icon, they'll be sadly missed
-
We've already decided no flying for us for a few years if ever again ,the whole thing for me has been ruined by queues and being hustled around like livestock, it will be holidays in the UK from now on have no intentions of returning to work after my 12 weeks isolation so when the weather is good off we will go, seen plenty of other countries to last me out.
-
If I ever get on an aeroplane again it might well be a one way trip! ::)
-
One of the sadder side effects of that particular news, is they have quietly decided to scrap all their 747s :'(
True, they were gradually doing that anyways, but that's that.
Also in response to Stemos suggestion about it being a ruse to call the governments bluff...
It's not.
http://mediacentre.gatwickairport.com/press-releases/all/20_05_05_virgin_leaving.aspx
Yeah, I got a Flying Club email today saying they were moving to the'greenest fleet in the sky' I guessed that meant they were getting rid of the big birds :(
I don't care for travelling on them, but they're such an icon, they'll be sadly missed
Ironically, the 747 was their testbed for using veggie fuel ::)
But yes, their longterm plan has been wide body twins for a while now. The A340s make the 747 look almost economical :D