Welcome to the COVID-19 Aviation Related News & Discussion Thread - for Q4 2020.

Please continue your discussion and add your comments below.

Link to the Q3 thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1449821

This is an excellent article on the current Covid-19 pandemic meltdown on the airline industry and the conflict of interest as to demands to reduce pollution emissions. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... s-pandemic

FAA moves forward with plans to waive minimum slot usage requirements at New York’s JFK and LGA along with Washington DCA during IATA W20 season.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN26Q329

Hawaii October 15th reopening won't be quite as planned.

Hawaii’s big island opted out pre-travel testing program and will still require 14 day quarantine on arrival, while Maui is still deciding what it plans to do with visitors.

https://viewfromthewing.com/hawaiis-big ... -deciding/

Courtesy: Aviation Pros

Southwest Airlines Wants Workers to Take 10% Pay Cuts or Face Furloughs in 2021

https://www.aviationpros.com/airlines/news/21157183/southwest-airlines-wants-workers-to-take-10-pay-cuts-or-face-furloughs-in-2021

How about Gary Kelly and the entire "management" take a 100% pay cut. I doubt at their pay rate that they would go hungry.

KarlB737 wrote:

Courtesy: Aviation Pros

Southwest Airlines Wants Workers to Take 10% Pay Cuts or Face Furloughs in 2021

https://www.aviationpros.com/airlines/news/21157183/southwest-airlines-wants-workers-to-take-10-pay-cuts-or-face-furloughs-in-2021

How about Gary Kelly and the entire "management" take a 100% pay cut. I doubt at their pay rate that they would go hungry.

"Kelly is reducing his base salary to zero through the end of 2021 and continuing a 20% cut in senior executives’ pay through next year. The airline is also reducing all leadership group salaries by 10% until Jan. 1, 2022, when he said they will return to the current level." so yeah he is taking a full paycut through the end of 2021 and let's see if execs follow. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/05/southwe ... cuts-.html

Far away from home... Xiamen Airlines operating today at Buenos Aires EZE, route XMN-AMS-EZE, flown with 787-8 B-2763. It carried 45 passengers and cargo. Most Chinese living in the Buenos Aires area are from Fujian province, which is where Xiamen is HQ'd.

https://twitter.com/ArgSpotters/status/ ... 1701748744

Another casualty of COVID.

Hawaiian Airlines to suspend Ohana passenger and cargo services effective Nov. 1st. As result, Moloka‘i, Lāna‘i and West Maui will see service dropped.
Suspension result of pilot scope requirements.

https://newsroom.hawaiianairlines.com/r ... an-service

AirAsia gets US $242m loan from the Malaysian government

https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Busine ... D-lifeline

Ethiopian returned today to Buenos Aires EZE, ADD-GRU-EZE route. Initially it will be 1x w during October, to be increased to to 3x w during November and December, and then 4x w from January onwards.,

https://twitter.com/ArgSpotters/status/ ... 6992841728

ANA to operate its 3rd A380 sightseeing flight. Flight time will be doubled to 3hours and include meal service.

Prices are 68,000 yen for first class seats, 53,000 yen for business class seats, 38,000 yen for premium economy seats, and 28,000-30,000 yen for a economy seats depending on location.

https://www.aviationwire.jp/archives/212550

And Porter further delays its restart.


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkN3ZXBU0AM ... name=large

Updated large UK travel market infection list


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EkNQQqmXYAA ... ame=medium

China's air traffic seems to have rebounded.

September domestic passenger numbers reached 47.75 million, or 98% of 2019.

https://www.reuters.com/article/china-a ... SL4N2H60Z7

mercure1 wrote:

China's air traffic seems to have rebounded.

September domestic passenger numbers reached 47.75 million, or 98% of 2019.

https://www.reuters.com/article/china-a ... SL4N2H60Z7

There is no virus in China.

Or so I'm told.

Anyway, this creates hope that international travel can pick up quickly once COVID has been contained. People have a desire to travel.

Since this is the COVID discussion thread I think this is the right place for this.

In the COVID reference thread someone posted the findings of the United Airlines and Department of Defense but they said they saw a story on GMA and posted a link to youtube. It was noted in their post on the reference thread that the test did not take into account people removing their mask to eat and drink.
The link to the full unedited report put out by the DOD, and not the doctored story shown on Good Morning America. If people take the time read the report they will see on page 15, 16and 19 people will see the test were conducted under both conditions, meaning mask on and mask off. The only thing not test was people walking around the aircraft without mask.

https://www.ustranscom.mil/cmd/docs/TRA ... 0Final.pdf

Just so it is clear United Airlines only supplied the aircraft and crew to fly the aircraft. United employees were not involved in overseeing or conducting any test.

Please read or at the very least look over the entire report and do not just take the condense version the new media may attempt to portray as factual.

Enough damage has been done to this industry based on theories put out by so called experts in the media.

jayunited wrote:

In the COVID reference thread someone posted the findings of the United Airlines and Department of Defense but they said they saw a story on GMA and posted a link to youtube. It was noted in their post on the reference thread that the test did not take into account people removing their mask to eat and drink.
That is 100% false,below is the link to the full unedited report put out by the DOD, and not the doctored story shown on Good Morning America. If people take the time read the report they will see on page 15, 16and 19 people will see the test were conducted under both conditions, meaning mask on and mask off.

Dramatic much? That poster asked about mask vs no mask on their own because the specific video they saw didn't explicitly mention it. United's social posts provided clarification to people who were asking. Just because a segment on one morning news show didn't go into more depth doesn't make it some fake news conspiracy. The only reason someone would read into it that way is if they're some belligerent anti-masker looking for a gotcha.

That said, this could actually be huge, not just for air travel but in general. There were already plenty of experts saying that air filtration should take priority over surface cleaning to reduce transmission and this is a pretty compelling piece of evidence to for that. If instead of focusing so much on hand sanitizer they put air purifiers in every room to get schools open, that would be a huge win.

jayunited wrote:

Please read or at the very least look over the entire report and do not just take the condense version the new media may attempt to portray as factual.

Enough damage has been done to this industry based on theories put out by so-called experts in the media.

One huge area overlooked is the broader travel journey.

The airplane portion is merely a single element. People must get to the airport, deal with airport check-in, security, gate areas, the arrival process like immigration, bag claim, and eventually another land journey to their destination.

To me there are simply way too many points of infection along the trip beyond the airplane. And then you have the fact that at your potential destination things are closed, there might be further restrictions etc

I still say #StayHomeStaySafe.

Due COVID Japan’s government announced it will waive airport landing fees worth up to equivalent US$120mil for airline operators at 14 airports.
Its essentially a 50% reduction for operators till March 2021.

Major study finds that the risk of getting Covid-19 on a commercial aircraft is extremely remote if wearing a mask due to the effectiveness of masks and the constant air movement ventalation in commercial aircraft.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/risk-co ... d=73616599

This could open up air travel if we can get everyone to buy into wearing a masks - always.

Have a great day,

US-Canada border to remain close as long as COVID cases remain elevated in the U.S. Latest closure was to expire on October 21st.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/n ... 661758001/

Hong Kong extends waiver on airport fees until year-end.

https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/- ... 38.article

For an airport that saw a loss of 98% of its passenger traffic, suppose why not give away things for the rest

DIRECTFLT wrote:

TheSpaceCadet wrote:

Live Testing, Passenger Data and Simulation Show Low Risk of In-flight COVID-19 Transmission:

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2020/10/0 ... nsmission/

NB: "Among the 1.2 billion passengers that have traveled with commercial airlines since the beginning of 2020, there have been 44 cases of COVID-19 reported where transmission occurred in-flight ..."

>>> The above figures equate to ~ 0.00000004 %

GMA did a report on this today:

A landmark study from the Department of Defense and United Airlines conducted 300 tests in over six months with dummies in-flight to examine the possible spread of droplets.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWbHh1I_Cd8

What the study didn't seem to factor in was people removing their masks on a flight to drink and to eat. I'm assuming people still get to eat and drink on flights...

Does anybody have a reference on the report (if it exists) with technical details, e.g., key assumptions, specific CFD methods used, solvers, etc.? or maybe what "Department of Defense" organization was involved? I think I did a thorough search, but I was not successful.

European air traffic recovery snuffed out by second wave we are experiencing



https://www.gridpoint.consulting/blog/e ... nuffed-out

Starting from October 26th, passengers departing from the two main Paris airports - Roissy-CDG and Orly - will be required to take a rapid antigen test on departure.

Unlike genetic tests (which includes RT-PCR and RT-LAMP testing), they can often be done in 15 minutes or less and don't require the same testing infrastructure. The downside is that they are simply not as accurate, especially with asymptomatic case, and some French doctors clearly have concerns.

https://www.connexionfrance.com/French- ... passengers

mercure1 wrote:

Starting from October 26th, passengers departing from the two main Paris airports - Roissy-CDG and Orly - will be required to take a rapid antigen test on departure.

This seems a slightly odd strategy. Let us suppose that a person is resident in (for example) China, holds a Chinese passport and tests positive. Would the passenger be required to stay in France instead of being able to return to their home country ? Even if they are near visa expiry date ? Would France really want that person to remain on their territory and thus become France's problem to care for in hospital ? Will airlines give refunds (not just vouchers) if boarding is denied ?
Personally I would be very nervous about booking a flight from Paris to my home country, if this potentially means I can't get back home, but I wonder if either Air France or alternatively ADP who own CDG + Orly have made comment on this. It seems like an attempt to boost confidence in flying but I'm not sure the outcome will be what is desired

Note - before anyone gets upset about my choice of China - I picked it as an example of a country which is very far away from France (i.e. surface transport is not really viable) and whose citizens are not easily granted long term stays in France/Schengen. No political hints intended

davidjohnson6 wrote:
This seems a slightly odd strategy. Let us suppose that a person is resident in (for example) China, holds a Chinese passport and tests positive. Would the passenger be required to stay in France instead of being able to return to their home country ? Even if they are near visa expiry date ? Would France really want that person to remain on their territory and thus become France's problem to care for in hospital ? Personally I would be very nervous about booking a flight from Paris to my home country, if this potentially means I can't get back home, but I wonder if AF or ADP who own CDG + ORY have made comment on this

This. IMO that is one of the major points why the airline industry is underestimating the effect of rapid testing when basing their hope on these rapid tests in order to fill planes and offer more flights. While I think that the rapid testing is a good way to allow for essential travel, it nevertheless is an additional uncertainty that might prevent you either from going or returning. These are all very relevant questions. What happens when somebody is on the return leg and test positive? Letting that person continue to travel does endanger others at the airport / on the flight from catching C19, but preventing that passenger from flying is big financial burden on who ever ends up paying for the quarantine. Then there is also the question of insurance and potential waiting times at the airport (even though it says rapid there might be quite the queue during peak times) and so on, so flying gets a lot more complicated.

So far in Europe we have not yet figured out how to travel during C19 times in a safe and convenient manner. That is definitely something that needs to be figured out ASAP in case 2021 is going to be similar to 2020, which nobody hopes for.

Over ONE MILLION went through TSA checkpoints yesterday, for the first time since March 17th. Still far below the 2016 number of 2.6 million on this day last year, only 38%, but a milestone, nonetheless.
https://www.tsa.gov/coronavirus/passenger-throughput

October Breaks overlapping On a Sunday. Any word out there of anecdotal load factors???

FlyingElvii wrote:

Still far below the 2016 number of 2.6 million on this day last year, only 38%, but a milestone, nonetheless.
https://www.tsa.gov/coronavirus/passenger-throughput

October Breaks overlapping On a Sunday. Any word out there of anecdotal load factors???

I was one of the 1,031,505 people clearing TSA on Sunday. I flew IAD-DEN. The 2:30 PM United flight, which was a 737-9 and it was 70% full by my eyes.

There were absolutely no lines at TSA at IAD, and Terminal C/D was effectively empty.

But that was simply timing: the flight left between United's banks at Dulles. The flight was timed for a Denver arrival as opposed to a Dulles departure.

When I arrived at Denver, Terminal B looked darn near normal. But, again that was timing too. It was right at the beginning of a bank of arrivals, for United's 5-6 PM block of departures.

I think that's the new normal. The airport experience determined by time of flight. That was always so to SOME extent, of course (I recall one time where my departure on DL CVG-DTW was delayed 90 minutes by weather, so when we arrived the McNamara terminal was rather empty as we arrived after the bank of departures. This on a July Thursday afternoon). But this is amplifying that effect.

Morning Folks

Some good news for Heathrow passengers on the horizon, please see this: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus- ... w-12108853

I am travelling to Hong Kong myself in a months time (from Manchester) and is struggling to get a test (as the flight is on Sunday), now that this becomes available I may consider changing the flights to depart from Heathrow (with LH connecting though). This is certainly complicated but will keep an eye out.

Hope this is helpful for others folks that need to travel over Christmas too!

Best wishes
musapapaya

So the purpose of the tests are to help restore confidence in flying again. But the airlines and airports are making the passengers pay 80 pounds for the tests. The airlines are basically asking passengers to pay to help boost their business. I think it should be the other way around, where the airlines pay for the tests so passengers feel safe to fly again.

Also, a lot of countries will only accept a PCR test to certify that you're negative when entering their country. So I'm not sure how the rapid tests, which are not PCR, will benefit the travelers. And instead, these rapid tests are just a self-serving marketing tool for the airlines.

Why pay Heathrow £80 when you could have the test without charge on arrival in Italy? I suppose you would avoid the risk of being in an Italian quarantine 2* hotel until you have 2x negative COVID PCR's, but for a family of four, that is quite a lot of money. £480 on a return journey, for example.

I think they might help short-stay business travellers, or possibly couples, but on larger party sizes I don't think it will be that attractive and people will prefer to travel to "safe" or "green" countries.

This is ridiculous and scammy.

I don't think people fear flying as much as there are no places you can reliably fly to from Heathrow. England is on a lot of quarantine lists at the moment and only Germany, Sweden, and one other country I think had completely free movement (no quara) in the last two weeks, which likely would have changed due to recent spike in cases. I've only had a couple of flights in the last six months and felt perfectly fine on them, and I'd happily fly again now if I had somewhere to go.

This seems to derive from the desire of airports and airlines to be seen to be doing something and thus persuade people to buy air tickets again. I am not sure that creating the perception of action is necessarily equivalent to solving the problem

max999 wrote:

So the purpose of the tests are to help restore confidence in flying again. But the airlines and airports are making the passengers pay 80 pounds for the tests. The airlines are basically asking passengers to pay to help boost their business. I think it should be the other way around, where the airlines pay for the tests so passengers feel safe to fly again.

What you expect does not make too much sense: You want the airline to pay for the test? Under the current conditions where almost all airlines are close to bankruptcy, or are receiving state support in the billions to survive?

Of course you can expect whatever you want, in the end you will pay the 80 Pounds anyway, added to your ticket, or separately!

Fully understand that airports and airports desperately want this pandemic to be over, as we all do, but some of the comments lately from the leaders of those organisations are as self serving as I’ve heard in a long time.

The rapid test just doesn’t cut it and is not the solution. Using it to somehow Push to get rid of quarantine requirements to ensure that a semblance of normality exists won’t help this situation one bit.

Each country will run things the way they see fit, and an airline or airport jumping up and down to get things to reopen whilst infection rates soar ignored the reality.

Setjet wrote:

max999 wrote:

So the purpose of the tests are to help restore confidence in flying again. But the airlines and airports are making the passengers pay 80 pounds for the tests. The airlines are basically asking passengers to pay to help boost their business. I think it should be the other way around, where the airlines pay for the tests so passengers feel safe to fly again.

What you expect does not make too much sense: You want the airline to pay for the test? Under the current conditions where almost all airlines are close to bankruptcy, or are receiving state support in the billions to survive?

Of course you can expect whatever you want, in the end you will pay the 80 Pounds anyway, added to your ticket, or separately!

The airline or airport should pay because the purpose of the rapid tests is completely self-serving and offers no benefits to the passengers. The rapid tests don't allow travelers to skip the quarantines (only a PCR test can do that for some countries) and they don't improve cabin safety because the rapid test is optional, so not all passenger will have taken a test before boarding.

Also, demand for airline tickets is elastic. That means demand for flying changes depending on the price. If the price is too high (ticket + cost of rapid test), then people will choose not to fly at all.

Airlines / airports will just shut down the testing facilities if it means airline / airport paying

After thinking a bit more, a voluntary testing facility at an airport where test results are passed only to passenger and not to the airline or Govt is still useful. It gives pax travelling to countries with a compulsory PCR test on arrival a pretty good idea before departure of whether they risk 2 weeks quarantine in a Govt controlled hotel after landing. Pax can then cancel the trip at their own cost if they test positive and prefer to stay at home instead. If airlines were to allow pax with proof of a positive test to defer their flights to a later date, this should boost air ticket sales

The concept of some sort of test to prove no infection makes a lot of sense. The problem is....if it's at the departure airport, and is optional, then it's no guaranty you won't become exposed to someone in the airport or on the plane. Then there's potential testing on arrival (depending on location) and the risk of quarantine. If all of this could be worked out....great, but a lot of complexity. I wonder if some insurance company will start selling covid test trip cancellation coverage? Considering the lack of consistency of tests, protocols in various countries, etc....not likely or very very expensive.

A rapid test before a flight makes MUCH more sense than a PCR test. You can test positive in a PCR test for months after you no longer have any viable virus in you.

A quick and dirty international treaty is needed for this sort of thing. The 'quickie' tests can be a cheap as $5, a person should be able to take their passport to an authorized clinic a few days before a flight and get tested and cleared to fly. Also an international quarantine insurance that would enable visa adjustments as well as cover medical care, room and board at an authorized facilities. This would assure fliers how and when they could get home. If this is not possible, we should not fly to foreign countries unless absolutely necessary.

Treaties are never quick and dirty... countries usually take a *long* time to come to an agreement, especially when they involve lots of different countries each fighting for their own interests

The federal govt will allow international travellers to take a rapid test instead of the 14 day quarantine in either one hub (YYZ or YYC) to start and implemented at other airports slowly. No timeline given

Great news. I definitely think more will follow.

Quick and dirty could be as little of one humanitarian flight for repatriation. The big difference from a proper treaty is that 'quick' is time limited and perhaps (as it was here in the US) limited as to types of aircraft and only certain airports, perhaps even only certain military airports. It might also simply mean a short term continuation of existing treaties with a few changes.

VIE now with quick test trial as well. It is free of charge and voluntary, which I think is a very good implementation of this undertaking.

Passengers receive their results within 10 to 15 minutes by SMS or, if they wish, upon request. "The boarding pass is only activated and access to the security area and gate is granted if the result is negative," Austrian Airlines explains in a message. If the test result is positive, the passenger will be looked after by the airport's medical team for a comprehensive clarification. According to Austrian Airlines, he can then rebook or cancel his flight free of charge.

This is acceptable as an outbound passenger (for me at least), but on the return journey that really is dangerous as it might prevent a swift return. Thusly the possibility exists of being "trapped" at the destination, for up to a fortnight. This leads to added cost and much worse possible absence from work (since there is no guarantee that prospective quarantine location has stable internet access necessary for remote work). I don't think that quick tests are the solution for easy travel in C19 times, though it might enable certain VFR travel and essential business travel, so I guess it is better than noting. But for leisure travel that certainly is a killer for many ppl.

Source
https://www.aerotelegraph.com/bei-posit ... e-gesperrt

I don't understand these travel restrictions. Isn't covid prevalence roughly the same everywhere? Sometimes USA has more cases, sometimes Spain, sometimes Belgium... Or is it because they don't want sick people on the plane itself? I travel on packed subway trains twice a day and nobody does COVID tests there.

Capricorn wrote:

VIE now with quick test trial as well. It is free of charge and voluntary, which I think is a very good implementation of this undertaking.

Passengers receive their results within 10 to 15 minutes by SMS or, if they wish, upon request. "The boarding pass is only activated and access to the security area and gate is granted if the result is negative," Austrian Airlines explains in a message. If the test result is positive, the passenger will be looked after by the airport's medical team for a comprehensive clarification. According to Austrian Airlines, he can then rebook or cancel his flight free of charge.

This is acceptable as an outbound passenger (for me at least), but on the return journey that really is dangerous as it might prevent a swift return. Thusly the possibility exists of being "trapped" at the destination, for up to a fortnight. This leads to added cost and much worse possible absence from work (since there is no guarantee that prospective quarantine location has stable internet access necessary for remote work). I don't think that quick tests are the solution for easy travel in C19 times, though it might enable certain VFR travel and essential business travel, so I guess it is better than noting. But for leisure travel that certainly is a killer for many ppl.

Source
https://www.aerotelegraph.com/bei-posit ... e-gesperrt

This is a good try because the rapid test is free, but it's not useful for the passenger. Because I'm not aware of any health or immigration authority that allows rapid tests to ENTER a country. A PCR test is required instead.

You can get a negative rapid test result on departure, but you would still be refused entry or forced into quarantine upon arrival without a PCR.

aircatalonia wrote:

I don't understand these travel restrictions. Isn't covid prevalence roughly the same everywhere? Sometimes USA has more cases, sometimes Spain, sometimes Belgium... Or is it because they don't want sick people on the plane itself? I travel on packed subway trains twice a day and nobody does COVID tests there.

Significant parts of Asia and also Australia and New Zealand have little or no community transmission. They are extremely cautious not to let passengers enter from poorly performing countries without testing and quarantine.

A fast cheap Covid test weighted substantially toward false positives than false negatives can be extremely useful. Those testing positive can get a second more accurate test. Ideally this would be done about 36 hours ahead of the flight, giving time for that second test. Almost no one is infectious the first few days after exposure, so exposure and contracting the virus after the tests will not not result in exposing other people. Best procedures might involve a second fast cheap test a day or two after completing the flight. Tests should be done by trusted agencies to ensure proper reporting.