5 ms·
Very eloquent. The thing that has surprised me with all these Airplane groundings is the number of companies who say they could go out of business. One of the
by ErrantX 17y ago
Very eloquent.
The thing that has surprised me with all these Airplane groundings is the number of companies who say they could go out of business. One of the smaller firms has said they will be effectively bankrupt if they can't start flying on Monday. I just heard Easyjet on the radio saying they need to fly at least 2 weeks in the next month to avoid "financial instability".
I know the aviation industry is struggling but didn't realise they were that close to the wire.
- nfnaaron 17y agoI hope we don't have a disaster because aviation authorities were pressured into opening the skies too early.
- ErrantX 17y agoThat's what's concerning me too. It's partly ironic; I expect if there had been a terror attack grounded planes would be accepted, but people on the news last night seemed actually cross this was affecting them.... One guy even said (and I swear this is a quote): "but it looks clear out there, it's not at ground level is it?" doh.
- gaius 17y agoMost laypeople do think it's a problem with visibility and can't understand why if planes can fly at night they can't fly through dust. That it will destroy the engines (and won't show up on radar, so you can't just avoid it) never occurs to them. I suppose it's nice to live in a world in which flight is taken for granted.
- rmundo 17y agoWith all the media attention you would think the dangers of flying in this would have been clearly explained to everyone by now.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- FooBarWidget 17y agoThere's an Air Crash Investigation episode about flying through vulcano dust. Show them and they'll understand.
- ash 17y agoThis one? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5620835202130688048 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5620835202130688048
- rue 17y agoI have to say that I have not seen much evidence of people not being aware of what is going on in general terms, or challenging the groundings. Upset, sure, but (for once) pretty much upset at the right target: ms. Nature.
- pbhjpbhj 17y ago>ms. Nature. Dang, if only God hadn't been running MS Nature we'd have been saved all this kerfuffle!
- angstrom 17y agoThis reminds me of an old joke: An airplane was flying from LA to New York. About an hour into the flight, the pilot announced, "We have lost an engine, but don't worry, there are three left. However, instead of 5 hours it will take 7 hours to get to New York." A little later, the pilot announced, "A second engine failed, but we still have two left. However, it will take 10 hours to get to New York." Somewhat later, the pilot again came on the intercom and announced, "A third engine had died. Never fear, because the plane can fly on a single engine. However, it will now take 18 hours to get to new York." At this point, one passenger said, "Gee, I hope we don't lose that last engine, or we'll be up here forever!"
- tomjen3 17y agoA better solution would be to do what the Soviet Union did when that neuclear plant blew up: drop chemicals from the sky to force it to rain in place nobody cares much about. This time, we could dump that stuff out over the Atlantic.
- m0nty 17y ago"pressured into opening the skies too early" It's not just their own regulations they'd have to break, it would be the terms of sale of the aircraft (Boeing sayeth "thou shalt not fly the big shiny bird through clouds of volcanic ash") and their insurers, who say much the same thing.
- gaius 17y agoThere's only one rule that matters, what a man's insured for, and what he's not.
- mseebach 17y agoI read somewhere that our understanding of flying in/near clouds of volcanic ash is quite limited. We know from the BA9 Jakarta incident what an almost worst-case scenario looks like, but little more. The necessity to study it was simply not there - eruptions to far has happened in areas with fairly light traffic, so shutting down affected airspace had low consequences. If this eruption is going to last more than a few days more, keeping some of the worlds most busy hubs offline, there will be serious effort put into making flying under these conditions safe. An obvious part of the solution could be radars or lidars that can reliably see where this stuff is, and how dense, so flights can avoid it. Another could be coating for windows that can withstand the "sandblasting".
- jonknee 17y ago> Another could be coating for windows that can withstand the "sandblasting". AFAIK it's not just the windows that are the problem. The volcanic ash can melt in the heat of the engine and essentially turn to glass, taking the engines out. Sounds nasty to fly through in every way.
- gaius 17y agoIndeed, like I say, most people don't realize the problem is the engines. Also aviation radars see clouds by the moisture in them - they can't see ash because it's dry.
- v4us 17y agoIn general, Aviation is 0-profit biz. And alot of Sturt-ups and other businneses are dependent of cheap flights.
- wdewind 17y agoWhat are you talking about? Just because the airlines aren't doing great right now does NOT mean aviation is a 0 profit biz...
- jrw89 17y agoI think it was in the notes to a recent re-print of The Intelligent Investor or Security Analysis but it made clear that the cumulative profit of the airline industry has been negative overall (I'll try and find the reference to back it up). Of course there are some airlines that make money, but a lot that don't. Think of British Airways: essentially a loss-making pension fund with an airline on the side.
- Luc 17y agoBottom of p.7, 4th edition with preface by Warren Buffett. But note the full quote:'It is commonly accepted today that the cumulative earnings of the airline industry over its entire history have been negative. The lesson Graham is driving at is not that you should avoid buying airline stocks, but that you should never succumb to the "certainty" that any industry will outperform all others in the future.'
- v4us 17y agocummulitive profit of whole industry is 0. some people makes alot of money, but not companies.
- wdewind 17y agoBecause the companies are poorly run. This has little to do with the industry itself and air travel is clearly not going to stop anytime soon. Some companies may die, but again aviation is not a 0 profit industry, these are just shitty companies who grew beyond what they could manage.
- andr 17y agoIt's not only airlines that would be affected. Think about UPS and FedEx. Think about major exporters of fresh fruits, fish, etc. Most of those are transported by planes. The "build on demand" model that companies like Dell operate under would also have to go, and non-on demand retailers would have to maintain considerably higher stocks due to higher lead times. US - European business relations would be severely hurt.
- c1sc0 17y agoAnd how is that NOT a good thing? Nice way of mother Nature getting back at our global economy by 'internalizing' those pesky economic externalities like pollution.
- apsec112 17y agoThat doesn't even make the slightest bit of sense. You think damaging the global economy is a good thing? How would you feel if you got laid off because of this mess and couldn't find another job? And a volcano isn't an externality, because humans aren't responsible for it.
- viraptor 17y agoWhat are the costs for companies with grounded planes? I guess most of the cheap lines don't have to refund - only to rebook. There would be the cost of keeping the planes in the airport hangars of course, but I would imagine that at some point airports will charge only some discount rate if this condition continues (it's probably more profitable in a long run than making some company bankrupt... or is it?) Are there any other costs? Also, what about bailouts? We had money for banks - why wouldn't we sponsor grounded planes?
- wrs 17y agoPretty close to the costs for companies with flying planes, I would think: salaries, depreciation/leasing of planes and real estate, airport fees, insurance, power, etc. They do save on fuel costs, I guess. The airline industry was bailed out in 2001 and probably will be again if this goes on. I believe an economist showed that the industry as a whole (since it started) has lost money.
- viraptor 17y agoSorry - I was thinking about costs different to what they normally pay. So you're right - it's almost exactly what they pay anyways. But if you manage to actually have a number of planes flying internationally, I'd imagine you should have enough money in reserve to support the company for a month without much income (also, people are still buying tickets for the following months). It was not even a week so far - that's probably comparable to the number of flights stopped every year because of snow. Should I seriously believe that they don't plan for those kinds of events?