CRJ5000 wrote:

The US-EU travel ban may be the final nail in the coffin...

Looks like it, but I hope not

enilria wrote:

mcg wrote:

enilria wrote:

Another way to look at it, is that UA won't allow the "value" differential to get large enough to break their loyalty. UA will make sure they are close enough to their fare to prevent that. This is how you drive out competition and jack up fares afterward to teach customers a lessen for their lack of loyalty and make back the cost of driving them out. The irony is that consumers will pay for the cost of driving out the competitor that tried to offer them lower fares. Thus, why we can't have nice things.

What's the appropriate thing for UA to do; more less match DY's fare to maintain the loyalty of their customers, perhaps forcing DY out of the market; or, not match DY and allow themselves to be forced out?

That's a difficult question. The govt should not allow selling below cost. That would mean that DY could offer a fare that they could prove could be offered profitably, probably a little more than what they are now charging. It would also mean that UA could not match DY if the fare was below their cost. Essentially these are the laws now, but there isn't even a framework to enforce it, much less any attempt *AT* enforcement. When you allow loss-leading, you invite cross-subsidization which gives massive benefit to bigger companies. This effect is why we have fewer and fewer airlines, particularly coupled with bankruptcy policy which is basically "who cares about LCCs and small airlines, but legacies are too big to fail".

Fair answer, but I'd argue that UA in Denver hasn't offered fares below cost, they've simply unbundled their offer so that passengers can choose the overall value proposition they prefer (I really want premier qualifying points and an e+ seat, so I choose appropriately). And UA only competes with DY in the basic economy segment, so what's UA cost, really? (the cost to transform an unused economy seat into an occupied basic economy seat is pretty small). And what about customers in places like Missoula and Fago, UA serves them, DY dies not. It's a competitive world and I can't really see UA to simply walk away from their customers. I suspect you'll see this response as slightly cynical, but that is how I see it.

CRJ5000 wrote:

The US-EU travel ban may be the final nail in the coffin...

I’d be surprised if we don’t see an administration announcement within the next 60 days. They have been burning the candle at both ends so to speak with ‘growing to profitability‘ and now rapidly shrinking and axing flights. All while tossing cash in the fire.

And I enjoy them. Although if I were to compare experiences on long haul low cost, I feel that wow both had the better product for the long haul low cost market and imho I enjoyed them more. It has been repeatedly discussed that the #1 mistake at wow was ordering the A330 (too big a plane), and that wow had a good thing going when it was SLOWLY expanding into TATL.

I hope I am wrong, but I think we will see history repeat itself and have the 787 be the wrong plane for Norwegian (has also been discussed here) and that they obviously expanded too rapidly.

With the recent news in the US, this might be the actual end for Norwegian

SoEWR wrote:

With the recent news in the US, this might be the actual end for Norwegian

I think the next 24 hours will tell.

I don't see how DY can stay in business after POTUS announcement. Even with LGW technically open, the costs associated with mainland Europe will be the demise.

CRJ5000 wrote:

The US-EU travel ban may be the final nail in the coffin...

Maybe, maybe not. The Norwegian government has announced that it will financially support norwegian airlines during this crisis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN20Y1LG

This is now getting to be so severe that it may be the start of renationalising the airlines. Just a couple of months ago people would think you were on crack for suggesting that but surely that’ll happen before every major international airline goes to the wall? After all governments have to think about a time after this has all ended.

AirPacific747 wrote:

CRJ5000 wrote:

The US-EU travel ban may be the final nail in the coffin...

Maybe, maybe not. The Norwegian government has announced that it will financially support norwegian airlines during this crisis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN20Y1LG

But would that help extend to Norwegian UK and the various others? Or strictly to the Norwegian based, Norwegian operated part of Norwegian?

AirPacific747 wrote:

CRJ5000 wrote:

The US-EU travel ban may be the final nail in the coffin...

Maybe, maybe not. The Norwegian government has announced that it will financially support norwegian airlines during this crisis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN20Y1LG

The article you present does not actually suggest that, nor does it suggest what airlines it is going to help during this time. Very few details have been released as to what this “help” is.

Norwegian is down a further 33% today - it has lost 85% of its valuation within a month.

AirPacific747 wrote:

CRJ5000 wrote:

The US-EU travel ban may be the final nail in the coffin...

Maybe, maybe not. The Norwegian government has announced that it will financially support norwegian airlines during this crisis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN20Y1LG

Only a bit of Norwegian is actually Norwegian , a lot of it is Irish and U.K. and no rational government will throw good money after bad if the underlining business model is failing

Ryga wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

CRJ5000 wrote:

The US-EU travel ban may be the final nail in the coffin...

Maybe, maybe not. The Norwegian government has announced that it will financially support norwegian airlines during this crisis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN20Y1LG

The article you present does not actually suggest that, nor does it suggest what airlines it is going to help during this time. Very few details have been released as to what this “help” is.

If you read the article all the way to the bottom, you would know that details will be shared during Friday, and regarding the airlines, perhaps even later than that. You’re welcome.

Galwayman wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

CRJ5000 wrote:

The US-EU travel ban may be the final nail in the coffin...

Maybe, maybe not. The Norwegian government has announced that it will financially support norwegian airlines during this crisis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN20Y1LG

Only a bit of Norwegian is actually Norwegian , a lot of it is Irish and U.K. and no rational government will throw good money after bad if the underlining business model is failing

They were actually expecting a profit in 2020 if it wasn’t for the corona virus with a lot of measures implemented over the last 1,5 years. So the model isn’t “failing”.

It has nothing to do with Norwegians business model that the Trent 1000 engines have been causing ongoing troubles. Neither is it Norwegians fault that the 737 max has been grounded for so long.

But on a positive note, at least a lot of aircraft were already grounded because of the engines that would have been grounded anyway due to the corona virus now and Norwegian might still receive future compensation from both Boeing and RR and rumor has it that compensation from Boeing is ready but that Norwegian is cautious about accepting during the current terms as that would mean that they won’t be able to claim further compensation in the future. But if they are really cash strapped, they can still choose to accept the current offer.

AirPacific747 wrote:

Ryga wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. The Norwegian government has announced that it will financially support norwegian airlines during this crisis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN20Y1LG

The article you present does not actually suggest that, nor does it suggest what airlines it is going to help during this time. Very few details have been released as to what this “help” is.

If you read the article all the way to the bottom, you would know that details will be shared during Friday, and regarding the airlines, perhaps even later than that. You’re welcome.

Thank you for pointing out that I am correct in what I said, if details are coming Friday, and today is Thursday You or I do not have tomorrow’s information.
And like you said,
“...although the more specific help for airlines and the tourism industry will likely come later...”

You are also Welcome.

mattyfitzg wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

CRJ5000 wrote:

The US-EU travel ban may be the final nail in the coffin...

Maybe, maybe not. The Norwegian government has announced that it will financially support norwegian airlines during this crisis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN20Y1LG

But would that help extend to Norwegian UK and the various others? Or strictly to the Norwegian based, Norwegian operated part of Norwegian?

As a Norwegian taxpayer I sincerely hope it's just the Norwegian operated part of Norwegian.

Kiwirob wrote:

mattyfitzg wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. The Norwegian government has announced that it will financially support norwegian airlines during this crisis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN20Y1LG

But would that help extend to Norwegian UK and the various others? Or strictly to the Norwegian based, Norwegian operated part of Norwegian?

As a Norwegian taxpayer I sincerely hope it's just the Norwegian operated part of Norwegian.

So the Norwegian tax payers are also funding the oil fund? Interesting.

Ryga wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Ryga wrote:

The article you present does not actually suggest that, nor does it suggest what airlines it is going to help during this time. Very few details have been released as to what this “help” is.

If you read the article all the way to the bottom, you would know that details will be shared during Friday, and regarding the airlines, perhaps even later than that. You’re welcome.

Thank you for pointing out that I am correct in what I said, if details are coming Friday, and today is Thursday You or I do not have tomorrow’s information.
And like you said,
“...although the more specific help for airlines and the tourism industry will likely come later...”

You are also Welcome.

Which is why I carefully wrote “maybe, maybe not” in my initial post.

You’re welcome once again.

AirPacific747 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Maybe, maybe not. The Norwegian government has announced that it will financially support norwegian airlines during this crisis.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN20Y1LG

Only a bit of Norwegian is actually Norwegian , a lot of it is Irish and U.K. and no rational government will throw good money after bad if the underlining business model is failing

They were actually expecting a profit in 2020 if it wasn’t for the corona virus with a lot of measures implemented over the last 1,5 years. So the model isn’t “failing”.

It has nothing to do with Norwegians business model that the Trent 1000 engines have been causing ongoing troubles. Neither is it Norwegians fault that the 737 max has been grounded for so long.

But on a positive note, at least a lot of aircraft were already grounded because of the engines that would have been grounded anyway due to the corona virus now and Norwegian might still receive future compensation from both Boeing and RR and rumor has it that compensation from Boeing is ready but that Norwegian is cautious about accepting during the current terms as that would mean that they won’t be able to claim further compensation in the future. But if they are really cash strapped, they can still choose to accept the current offer.

Even Thomas Cook could manage the occasional profit but they couldn’t manage the debt pile. You can’t ignore the wider picture here. The rush to long haul has lost them money on a huge scale

skipness1E wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

Only a bit of Norwegian is actually Norwegian , a lot of it is Irish and U.K. and no rational government will throw good money after bad if the underlining business model is failing

They were actually expecting a profit in 2020 if it wasn’t for the corona virus with a lot of measures implemented over the last 1,5 years. So the model isn’t “failing”.

It has nothing to do with Norwegians business model that the Trent 1000 engines have been causing ongoing troubles. Neither is it Norwegians fault that the 737 max has been grounded for so long.

But on a positive note, at least a lot of aircraft were already grounded because of the engines that would have been grounded anyway due to the corona virus now and Norwegian might still receive future compensation from both Boeing and RR and rumor has it that compensation from Boeing is ready but that Norwegian is cautious about accepting during the current terms as that would mean that they won’t be able to claim further compensation in the future. But if they are really cash strapped, they can still choose to accept the current offer.

Even Thomas Cook could manage the occasional profit but they couldn’t manage the debt pile. You can’t ignore the wider picture here. The rush to long haul has lost them money on a huge scale

Indeed but not so much because of the business model but more due to unreliable engines and crap aircraft designs.

Also, NLH crew is the cheapest in the long haul market, TCX was haunted by lucrative crew contracts from the crews perspective.

on Sky News in the UK today they mentioned that there is talk of the Norwegian Government nationalising Norwegian. Does anyone know more? Is it seriously being considered?

seansasLCY wrote:

on Sky News in the UK today they mentioned that there is talk of the Norwegian Government nationalizing Norwegian. Does anyone know more? Is it seriously being considered?

No chance in Hell.
This is as far fetched as if the Tories in UK would nationalize RyanAir - an Irish company.

Norwegian used to be a Norwegian Airline, but they have in recent years restructured so that they consist of Norwegian Air International, Norwegain Air UK, Norwegian Air Sweden etc.
Only the little part of the group named "Norwegian Air Shuttle" constitutes the remains of the original Norwegian operation.

Norwegian government to the rescue.

https://www.web24.news/u/2020/03/norweg ... virus.html

AirPacific747 wrote:

Norwegian government to the rescue.

https://www.web24.news/u/2020/03/norweg ... virus.html

And we are still none the wiser from the article you have already posted, it offers no more information in this re-written article.

Ryga wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Norwegian government to the rescue.

https://www.web24.news/u/2020/03/norweg ... virus.html

And we are still none the wiser from the article you have already posted, it offers no more information in this re-written article.

Because the details are not agreed upon yet. Duh.

AirPacific747 wrote:

Ryga wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Norwegian government to the rescue.

https://www.web24.news/u/2020/03/norweg ... virus.html

And we are still none the wiser from the article you have already posted, it offers no more information in this re-written article.

Because the details are not agreed upon yet. Duh.

So don’t post false information + information you have already posted.

Ryga wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

Ryga wrote:

And we are still none the wiser from the article you have already posted, it offers no more information in this re-written article.

Because the details are not agreed upon yet. Duh.

So don’t post false information + information you have already posted.

Which I didn’t, so not to worry. Sorry if it’s not the bad news you were probably hoping for.

mcg wrote:

enilria wrote:

mcg wrote:

What's the appropriate thing for UA to do; more less match DY's fare to maintain the loyalty of their customers, perhaps forcing DY out of the market; or, not match DY and allow themselves to be forced out?

That's a difficult question. The govt should not allow selling below cost. That would mean that DY could offer a fare that they could prove could be offered profitably, probably a little more than what they are now charging. It would also mean that UA could not match DY if the fare was below their cost. Essentially these are the laws now, but there isn't even a framework to enforce it, much less any attempt *AT* enforcement. When you allow loss-leading, you invite cross-subsidization which gives massive benefit to bigger companies. This effect is why we have fewer and fewer airlines, particularly coupled with bankruptcy policy which is basically "who cares about LCCs and small airlines, but legacies are too big to fail".

Fair answer, but I'd argue that UA in Denver hasn't offered fares below cost, they've simply unbundled their offer so that passengers can choose the overall value proposition they prefer (I really want premier qualifying points and an e+ seat, so I choose appropriately). And UA only competes with DY in the basic economy segment, so what's UA cost, really? (the cost to transform an unused economy seat into an occupied basic economy seat is pretty small). And what about customers in places like Missoula and Fago, UA serves them, DY dies not. It's a competitive world and I can't really see UA to simply walk away from their customers. I suspect you'll see this response as slightly cynical, but that is how I see it.

This is the game of variable and ultra-variable costs. I think for this to work they have to be made to sell at costs that also cover overhead. The government should have a set formula for calculating cost using the factors that the airlines are forced to publish under F41. The airline would then submit a revenue plan for each route. We expect front cabin to generate x% and coach to cover y%. Based on that our minimum fare for each cabin is Z.

Doesn't the original part of Norwegian fly subsidies routes in Sweden and Norway? The government will have a vested interest in keeping these routes open. I can't see them however pumping money into the other aoc . I don't think that would be in the intrests of tax payers

There will be presented a general rescue package tomorrow, probably providing liquidity to the airlines business in general

f4f3a wrote:

Doesn't the original part of Norwegian fly subsidies routes in Sweden and Norway?

No, they don't

Share price is now 7.2 NOK, which means it's down 25 % today. This gives a market cap of about 130m euros for the company. I know that share price is an indicator of company value and does not mean the company makes a loss, but this is deeply troubling...

Someone83 wrote:

There will be presented a general rescue package tomorrow, probably providing liquidity to the airlines business in general

f4f3a wrote:

Doesn't the original part of Norwegian fly subsidies routes in Sweden and Norway?

No, they don't

They did operate a couple of routes which were subsidised by Norwegian Gov for the armed forces but those contracts changed to SAS last year.

seansasLCY wrote:

They did operate a couple of routes which were subsidised by Norwegian Gov for the armed forces but those contracts changed to SAS last year.

They had the contract with the armed forces that bought tickets on their regular flights, that is not the same as being subsidized. Although in a few routes, the armed forces makes up a majority of the traffic. So when they lost the contract, they stopped flying OSL-BDU

The share price / market cap will likely reflect the value of any assets (e.g. aircraft or engines) that can be sold by a bankruptcy administrator once all debts have been paid. I am guessing that the liabilities that Norwegian has (e.g. paying staff salaries or redundancy money and any fuel bills that are due) will exceed the value of the planes.

AirPacific747 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

They were actually expecting a profit in 2020 if it wasn’t for the corona virus with a lot of measures implemented over the last 1,5 years. So the model isn’t “failing”.

It has nothing to do with Norwegians business model that the Trent 1000 engines have been causing ongoing troubles. Neither is it Norwegians fault that the 737 max has been grounded for so long.

But on a positive note, at least a lot of aircraft were already grounded because of the engines that would have been grounded anyway due to the corona virus now and Norwegian might still receive future compensation from both Boeing and RR and rumor has it that compensation from Boeing is ready but that Norwegian is cautious about accepting during the current terms as that would mean that they won’t be able to claim further compensation in the future. But if they are really cash strapped, they can still choose to accept the current offer.

Even Thomas Cook could manage the occasional profit but they couldn’t manage the debt pile. You can’t ignore the wider picture here. The rush to long haul has lost them money on a huge scale

Indeed but not so much because of the business model but more due to unreliable engines and crap aircraft designs.

Also, NLH crew is the cheapest in the long haul market, TCX was haunted by lucrative crew contracts from the crews perspective.

'Unreliable engines and crap aircraft designs' - might I just point out that prettymuch every new aircraft type has teething issues, and 'teething issues' in the aviation industry can have major impacts. I'm in no way denying that Trent engine issues haven't hugely hampered Norwegian, but those issues are shared by a large number of other airlines and DY has been compensated by RR for such - they haven't just been dealt a one off, bad hand. Other Trent & MAX operators aren't on the brink of bankruptcy. I'd also argue there is a case to be made that MAX groundings have helped Norwegian as of late, we've already seen them lease the A321 order out having majorly over-ordered aircraft, and with frames now flying pretty empty that's a lot less lease payments they're having to support flying half empty planes.

https://www.nrk.no/norge/norwegian-kans ... 1.14941620

Being reported that Norwegian may lay off half their staff.

Norwegian to suspend more than 4000 flights and implement layoffs

40 percent of long-haul capacity to be cancelled
From March 13th to March 29th, we will cancel the majority of our long-haul flights to the U.S. from Amsterdam, Madrid, Oslo, Stockholm, Barcelona and Paris.

From March 13th to the end of May, all flights between Rome and the U.S. will be cancelled.

From March 29th until the end of April, all flights from Paris, Barcelona, Madrid, Amsterdam, Athens and Oslo to the U.S. will be cancelled.

All routes between London Gatwick and the U.S. will continue to operate as normal. Our goal is to reroute as many of our customers as possible through London during this difficult period.

The short-haul network heavily impacted
Norwegian will also cancel a large share of its domestic flights in Norway and flights within Scandinavia, such as Oslo-Copenhagen and Oslo-Stockholm. Flights to Italy will also be cancelled. Domestic and intra-Scandinavian flights will be combined to re-protect our customers.

Layoffs

During a pandemic it is Norwegian’s policy to prioritize and safeguard the health and well-being of employees while ensuring Norwegian's ability to maintain essential operations and continue providing services to our customers.

Due to the extraordinary market situation as a result of the coronavirus, and thus a dramatic drop in customers and subsequent production decline, we must look at all possible measures to reduce costs. This unfortunately also includes temporary layoffs of up to 50 percent of our employees and the number may increase. All departments will be affected by the temporary layoffs.

https://media.uk.norwegian.com/pressrel ... fs-2981544

Interesting that a lot of infra-Scandinavia capacity has been cut. I think conventional wisdom was that this was the most viable part of the network. That may still be the case and traffic is decimated right across the board and that people just are not travelling - even in areas with few other travel options.

JamesCousins wrote:

AirPacific747 wrote:

skipness1E wrote:

Even Thomas Cook could manage the occasional profit but they couldn’t manage the debt pile. You can’t ignore the wider picture here. The rush to long haul has lost them money on a huge scale

Indeed but not so much because of the business model but more due to unreliable engines and crap aircraft designs.

Also, NLH crew is the cheapest in the long haul market, TCX was haunted by lucrative crew contracts from the crews perspective.

'Unreliable engines and crap aircraft designs' - might I just point out that prettymuch every new aircraft type has teething issues, and 'teething issues' in the aviation industry can have major impacts. I'm in no way denying that Trent engine issues haven't hugely hampered Norwegian, but those issues are shared by a large number of other airlines and DY has been compensated by RR for such - they haven't just been dealt a one off, bad hand. Other Trent & MAX operators aren't on the brink of bankruptcy. I'd also argue there is a case to be made that MAX groundings have helped Norwegian as of late, we've already seen them lease the A321 order out having majorly over-ordered aircraft, and with frames now flying pretty empty that's a lot less lease payments they're having to support flying half empty planes.

How many other airlines have both 787s with RR engines and a fleet of Max aircraft and what percentage of their fleet does those two types account for in comparison?

BrianDromey wrote:

Interesting that a lot of infra-Scandinavia capacity has been cut. I think conventional wisdom was that this was the most viable part of the network. That may still be the case and traffic is decimated right across the board and that people just are not travelling - even in areas with few other travel options.

It is the most viable, but right now Norway is basically shut down. I'm suprised they haven't cut more, and I shortly expect simular cuts at SAS

Just a question, would it be possible that maybe Norway decides to support NAS only, and if so what could happen to NUK NAI and the Swedish AOC, could they potentially fail but leave NAS flying ? Can’t picture BA Easyjet and Ryanair staying quiet or the US3 if the Norwegian government subsidise flights to and from LGW/BCN/CDG.

tobsw wrote:

Norwegian to suspend more than 4000 flights and implement layoffs

40 percent of long-haul capacity to be cancelled
[...]
All routes between London Gatwick and the U.S. will continue to operate as normal. Our goal is to reroute as many of our customers as possible through London during this difficult period.
[...]
https://media.uk.norwegian.com/pressrel ... fs-2981544

I'm sure the US Government will shut that down real quick.
The official reasoning behind leaving the UK and Ireland out of the ban is that COVID-19 is much less spread there than in Continental Europe (less than 500 in the UK as of 3/12/20). So, offering to reroute passengers from Continental Europe to the US through London in hope to circumvent the ban is the same as ignoring the ban altogether.
The US Government is monitoring where people have been, not just where they're coming from (as in, from which airport they boarded heading to the US).

WayexTDI wrote:

tobsw wrote:

Norwegian to suspend more than 4000 flights and implement layoffs

40 percent of long-haul capacity to be cancelled
[...]
All routes between London Gatwick and the U.S. will continue to operate as normal. Our goal is to reroute as many of our customers as possible through London during this difficult period.
[...]
https://media.uk.norwegian.com/pressrel ... fs-2981544

I'm sure the US Government will shut that down real quick.
The official reasoning behind leaving the UK and Ireland out of the ban is that COVID-19 is much less spread there than in Continental Europe (less than 500 in the UK as of 3/12/20). So, offering to reroute passengers from Continental Europe to the US through London in hope to circumvent the ban is the same as ignoring the ban altogether.
The US Government is monitoring where people have been, not just where they're coming from (as in, from which airport they boarded heading to the US).

Isn't 500 cases just where France, Spain, Germany were a week ago? So maybe the UK gets an extra week?

WayexTDI wrote:

tobsw wrote:

Norwegian to suspend more than 4000 flights and implement layoffs

40 percent of long-haul capacity to be cancelled
[...]
All routes between London Gatwick and the U.S. will continue to operate as normal. Our goal is to reroute as many of our customers as possible through London during this difficult period.
[...]
https://media.uk.norwegian.com/pressrel ... fs-2981544

I'm sure the US Government will shut that down real quick.
The official reasoning behind leaving the UK and Ireland out of the ban is that COVID-19 is much less spread there than in Continental Europe (less than 500 in the UK as of 3/12/20). So, offering to reroute passengers from Continental Europe to the US through London in hope to circumvent the ban is the same as ignoring the ban altogether.
The US Government is monitoring where people have been, not just where they're coming from (as in, from which airport they boarded heading to the US).

I don't think I've heard any official reasoning. Trump basically said travelers from Europe except the UK. As far as I understand, the travel ban is actually for the Schengen area, not "Europe except the UK".

oslmgm wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

tobsw wrote:

Norwegian to suspend more than 4000 flights and implement layoffs

40 percent of long-haul capacity to be cancelled
[...]
All routes between London Gatwick and the U.S. will continue to operate as normal. Our goal is to reroute as many of our customers as possible through London during this difficult period.
[...]
https://media.uk.norwegian.com/pressrel ... fs-2981544

I'm sure the US Government will shut that down real quick.
The official reasoning behind leaving the UK and Ireland out of the ban is that COVID-19 is much less spread there than in Continental Europe (less than 500 in the UK as of 3/12/20). So, offering to reroute passengers from Continental Europe to the US through London in hope to circumvent the ban is the same as ignoring the ban altogether.
The US Government is monitoring where people have been, not just where they're coming from (as in, from which airport they boarded heading to the US).

I don't think I've heard any official reasoning. Trump basically said travelers from Europe except the UK. As far as I understand, the travel ban is actually for the Schengen area, not "Europe except the UK".

You're right, the official statement mentions the Schengen Area and makes no mention of UK and Ireland; the media reported it as "Europe except UK and Ireland", my mistake.
It does mention the reasoning about why the Schengen Area though:

The World Health Organization has determined that multiple countries within the Schengen Area are experiencing sustained person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2. For purposes of this proclamation, the Schengen Area comprises 26 European states: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. The Schengen Area currently has the largest number of confirmed COVID-19 cases outside of the People’s Republic of China. As of March 11, 2020, the number of cases in the 26 Schengen Area countries is 17,442, with 711 deaths, and shows high continuous growth in infection rates. In total, as of March 9, 2020, the Schengen Area has exported 201 COVID-19 cases to 53 countries. Moreover, the free flow of people between the Schengen Area countries makes the task of managing the spread of the virus difficult.

Source: White House website

WayexTDI wrote:

oslmgm wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

I'm sure the US Government will shut that down real quick.
The official reasoning behind leaving the UK and Ireland out of the ban is that COVID-19 is much less spread there than in Continental Europe (less than 500 in the UK as of 3/12/20). So, offering to reroute passengers from Continental Europe to the US through London in hope to circumvent the ban is the same as ignoring the ban altogether.
The US Government is monitoring where people have been, not just where they're coming from (as in, from which airport they boarded heading to the US).

I don't think I've heard any official reasoning. Trump basically said travelers from Europe except the UK. As far as I understand, the travel ban is actually for the Schengen area, not "Europe except the UK".

You're right, the official statement mentions the Schengen Area and makes no mention of UK and Ireland; the media reported it as "Europe except UK and Ireland", my mistake.
It does mention the reasoning about why the Schengen Area though:

The World Health Organization has determined that multiple countries within the Schengen Area are experiencing sustained person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2. For purposes of this proclamation, the Schengen Area comprises 26 European states: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. The Schengen Area currently has the largest number of confirmed COVID-19 cases outside of the People’s Republic of China. As of March 11, 2020, the number of cases in the 26 Schengen Area countries is 17,442, with 711 deaths, and shows high continuous growth in infection rates. In total, as of March 9, 2020, the Schengen Area has exported 201 COVID-19 cases to 53 countries. Moreover, the free flow of people between the Schengen Area countries makes the task of managing the spread of the virus difficult.

Source: White House website

Right - so since Italy is in Schengen, it only made sense to ban Schengen travelers. Similarly, if, let's say the UK wanted to ban travelers from Washington state, they would have to ban everyone from the USA, since there's no travel restrictions within the USA.

oslmgm wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

oslmgm wrote:

I don't think I've heard any official reasoning. Trump basically said travelers from Europe except the UK. As far as I understand, the travel ban is actually for the Schengen area, not "Europe except the UK".

You're right, the official statement mentions the Schengen Area and makes no mention of UK and Ireland; the media reported it as "Europe except UK and Ireland", my mistake.
It does mention the reasoning about why the Schengen Area though:

The World Health Organization has determined that multiple countries within the Schengen Area are experiencing sustained person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2. For purposes of this proclamation, the Schengen Area comprises 26 European states: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. The Schengen Area currently has the largest number of confirmed COVID-19 cases outside of the People’s Republic of China. As of March 11, 2020, the number of cases in the 26 Schengen Area countries is 17,442, with 711 deaths, and shows high continuous growth in infection rates. In total, as of March 9, 2020, the Schengen Area has exported 201 COVID-19 cases to 53 countries. Moreover, the free flow of people between the Schengen Area countries makes the task of managing the spread of the virus difficult.

Source: White House website

Right - so since Italy is in Schengen, it only made sense to ban Schengen travelers. Similarly, if, let's say the UK wanted to ban travelers from Washington state, they would have to ban everyone from the USA, since there's no travel restrictions within the USA.

I personally think it's also a hand from Trump towards Johnson; can't prove it, it's my opinion.

Travel hasn't been restricted between Continental Europe (Shengen) and the British Isles; there are trains, planes and boats everyday between the 2 areas.
Honestly, Iceland has a much lower risk of contamination than the British Isles, due to their remote geographical location.

WayexTDI wrote:

I personally think it's also a hand from Trump towards Johnson; can't prove it, it's my opinion.

I don't think you're wrong.

WayexTDI wrote:

Travel hasn't been restricted between Continental Europe (Shengen) and the British Isles; there are trains, planes and boats everyday between the 2 areas.
Honestly, Iceland has a much lower risk of contamination than the British Isles, due to their remote geographical location.

And yes - it's not entirely rational... But Italy and Iceland are both in Schengen, so it was going to be both or none.

WayexTDI wrote:

oslmgm wrote:

WayexTDI wrote:

You're right, the official statement mentions the Schengen Area and makes no mention of UK and Ireland; the media reported it as "Europe except UK and Ireland", my mistake.
It does mention the reasoning about why the Schengen Area though:

Source: White House website

Right - so since Italy is in Schengen, it only made sense to ban Schengen travelers. Similarly, if, let's say the UK wanted to ban travelers from Washington state, they would have to ban everyone from the USA, since there's no travel restrictions within the USA.

I personally think it's also a hand from Trump towards Johnson; can't prove it, it's my opinion.

Travel hasn't been restricted between Continental Europe (Shengen) and the British Isles; there are trains, planes and boats everyday between the 2 areas.
Honestly, Iceland has a much lower risk of contamination than the British Isles, due to their remote geographical location.

Iceland has, per capita, more diagnosed cases than Italy.