5 ms·

KLM pushes to resume passenger flights after tests

31 points by waterlesscloud 17y ago

iaskwhy 17y ago
I wouldn't fly on those planes.
- gaius 17y ago
  You need some Dutch courage :-)
  - qq66 17y ago
    In Delft a student offered to take me on the back of his bike, sitting on the newspaper carrier. I expressed strong skepticism and he said, "Trust me, I'm Dutch." Within 50 yards of starting our journey, I had been unceremoniously spilled onto the pavement, bleeding from my elbow.
    - FooBarWidget 17y ago
      I live in the Netherlands. I've sat on the back of bikes more than a hundred times and I can't remember a single time that I've fallen to point where I'm bleeding.
      - qq66 17y ago
        Ah, but how many times has someone told you "trust me, I'm Dutch"? That should have been the only warning I needed :) Also, I assume that there is some skill to being a good backseat rider, and while I was not wiggling around, I was not actively helping steer either.
riffraff 17y ago
I still don't get the 200M losses per day. They are not paying back tickets /natural causes), nor taking care of passengers (hei, no out fault!) and I somehow doubt most people are buying tickets two days before flying. Can someone explain?
- mansr 17y ago
  British Airways are refunding tickets.
- aneesh 17y ago
  They're still paying salaries, plus many other operational costs. And they're foregoing revenues from these days of travel (by refunding/rescheduling passengers). So it's bound to have some impact on the bottom line.
- buro9 17y ago
  They are paying care... they have to cover alternative travel or accomodation. They are still paying for gates & slots in airports but are not recouping on those. They are still paying for staff who now sit around. They have an overhead of a communication system that is busy, combined with increasing demand for telephone support. The only thing they're saving on is fuel, but everything else they're still covering and additionally they're covering the lowest amount they can get away with for the passengers who are stranded. As for the passengers stranded, they have their only issues. Most would budget X on a trip that now will be rising substantially. And that's before we touch businesses who really want their resources back earning good revenue. Everyone is losing. Except for some people. I live in West London and looking out and seeing a sky devoid of planes is a very very rare thing. And it's a beautiful day and I swear there are more birds than normal around. Quite lovely really. It kinda explains this stuff here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8624663.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8624663.stm [quote] The IATA said its estimate of a $200m daily loss of revenues was "initial and conservative". "In addition to lost revenues, airlines will incur added costs for re-routing of aircraft, care for stranded passengers and stranded aircraft at various ports," its director of corporate communications, Anthony Concil, said. KPMG was less conservative in its estimates, predicting a £200m loss in traffic revenues as a result of the UK shutdown, assuming that all ticket sales would have to be refunded to passengers. [/quote] I'd say KPMG was rather silly, in that obviously passengers will need to get back and there's a bottle-neck at the channel tunnel and ferry ports. However as care is being paid they could actually end up paying out more than the cost of travel and make a loss even in the time after the skies open.
- swombat 17y ago
ErrantX 17y ago
As I understand it the major risk is that because the ash cloud is very dry radar won't pick it up at all. So you could fly 1000 planes and miss the cloud by luck; but if you hit it then potentially game over. It seems a little silly that an industry with such stringent safety regulations would take that kind of risk...
- gaius 17y ago
  BA at least say that satellite images show the cloud as smaller than the Met Office's computer model predicted it would be. Airspace was closed on the say of the latter. Note that the Met Office's models have been way off since at least last winter...
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    NASA satellite images this morning match the Met Office model pretty closely.
    - gaius 17y ago
      But do they match what the model said 5 days ago it would look like in 5 days time?
- hugh3 17y ago
  Given the worst-case scenario of a failure of all engines and nothing else at cruising altitude over Europe, and assuming you have a skilled pilot, what's the probability of gliding in for a safe landing? I'd think pretty high, since anywhere in Europe should be within safe gliding distance of a reasonable-sized airport. There are stories of landing safely under much worse conditions (eg the Gimli Glider which landed with no hydraulics or electronics and that US Airways flight into the Hudson which landed despite losing engines at low altitude).
  - lutorm 17y ago
    There are at least as many stories of not landing safely, not only killing the people onboard but also on the ground. Europe is quite densely populated. And I don't think you're within gliding distance of an airport at all, especially since they fly lower than normal to avoid the ash, and even if they are, I'm not sure what the odds of a successful dead-stick landing is. Given that most pilots have probably never tried it, I'd bet the odds of stalling out short of the runway or overrunning at high speed are pretty large. Ultimately, it's a matter of weighting risk, and given that there seems to be no accurate assessment in combination with the shitstorm that would arise if they allowed flights to resume and a plane went down, I can't blame the authorities.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
bemmu 17y ago
I am currently stranded in Tokyo with a group of passengers from Finland that I will need to accommodate until the ash stops being an issue. These are the risks that entrepreneurs take, nobody could expect that some random volcano in Iceland of all places would cause 300 eur / day of losses, but life goes on.
dll 17y ago
The longer restrictions are in place, the more airlines will push to be allowed to fly. I was due to fly from the UK to Qatar today, and I would much rather delay further than take any chances. Safety should be more important than profit.
- fauigerzigerk 17y ago
  A plane crash is pretty bad for profit (but even worse for health admittedly :-)
- gaius 17y ago
  You talk about profit as if it's something to be ashamed of. Facts are 1) if safety really was more important to you you wouldn't fly anywhere, you'd stay safely at home and 2) if there are fewer airlines operating then you personally will need to pay more for your ticket.
  - dll 17y ago
    Profit is nothing to be ashamed of, but saying the skies are free of ash and safe to fly in because of a couple of test flights? It seems to me that the airlines are more scared of losing money than they are of losing planes. Flying done properly is safer than crossing the street and I'm happy to take that risk. Flying through an ash cloud is not something that generally turns out good for aircraft engines; even if an initial inspection shows that all appears fine with the aircraft and first stage fan blades, a borescope inspection may reveal clogged turbine cooling air passages (see Grindle, T., J., and Burcham, Jr., F. W., 2002, Even Minor Volcanic Ash Encounters Can Cause Major Damage to Aircraft). If once all this is done airlines feel the need to charge more for tickets then so be it - I'm happy to pay more if it's because of safety concerns.
    - gaius 17y ago
      more scared of losing money than they are of losing planes They're scared of ceasing to exist, i.e. bankruptcy.
ugh 17y ago
The two biggest German airlines Lufthansa and Air Berlin are now in a full on PR war with the public authorities. It’s as if you flipped a switch, they remained silent about the whole thing until today.
thijsterlouw 17y ago
I'm very glad that KLM is pushing to lift the flight bans! From what I understand, is there are no strict rules to decide when not to fly due to volcanic eruptions. The current bans are just based on calculations and now the KLM (and the two German airlines) have done tests and it shows it's safe to fly. I want to catch my flight to the Netherlands from Hong Kong this Saturday and I have full confidence in the integrity of KLM.
- hga 17y ago
  There's satellite data as well, e.g. picking up SO2 and I think infrared off the particles, but the only one I read about and that I therefore know can do that takes most of a week to image the entire planet.
- avar 17y ago
  They haven't shown that it's safe to fly, they've just shown that they could fly a few planes from A->B without them crashing. Anecdote is not the same as evidence.
- qq66 17y ago
  I'm really surprised at how many people express little to no concern about being in a metal tube 5 miles up in what might be volcanic ash, given what ash has done to other planes.
  - gaius 17y ago
    The pilot doesn't want to die either, and the airline don't want to lose their expensive plane! I'll happily jump on a plane as soon as airspace reopens knowing that.
modoc 17y ago
My wife is currently stranded in Germany. As much as I miss her and want her home, there's no way I'd want her to fly through a potential ash cloud given that it doesn't show up on radar and the high risk of engine failure when you're over the North Atlantic doesn't sound like a good plan. A couple short range test flights do not mean it's safe to fly trans-Atlantic routes. When you're 40,000 feet up over freezing waters, you need to play it safe.

I wouldn't fly on those planes.

gaius 17y ago
You need some Dutch courage :-)
- qq66 17y ago
  In Delft a student offered to take me on the back of his bike, sitting on the newspaper carrier. I expressed strong skepticism and he said, "Trust me, I'm Dutch." Within 50 yards of starting our journey, I had been unceremoniously spilled onto the pavement, bleeding from my elbow.
  - FooBarWidget 17y ago
    I live in the Netherlands. I've sat on the back of bikes more than a hundred times and I can't remember a single time that I've fallen to point where I'm bleeding.
    - qq66 17y ago
      Ah, but how many times has someone told you "trust me, I'm Dutch"? That should have been the only warning I needed :) Also, I assume that there is some skill to being a good backseat rider, and while I was not wiggling around, I was not actively helping steer either.

I still don't get the 200M losses per day. They are not paying back tickets /natural causes), nor taking care of passengers (hei, no out fault!) and I somehow doubt most people are buying tickets two days before flying. Can someone explain?

mansr 17y ago
British Airways are refunding tickets.
aneesh 17y ago
They're still paying salaries, plus many other operational costs. And they're foregoing revenues from these days of travel (by refunding/rescheduling passengers). So it's bound to have some impact on the bottom line.
buro9 17y ago
They are paying care... they have to cover alternative travel or accomodation. They are still paying for gates & slots in airports but are not recouping on those. They are still paying for staff who now sit around. They have an overhead of a communication system that is busy, combined with increasing demand for telephone support. The only thing they're saving on is fuel, but everything else they're still covering and additionally they're covering the lowest amount they can get away with for the passengers who are stranded. As for the passengers stranded, they have their only issues. Most would budget X on a trip that now will be rising substantially. And that's before we touch businesses who really want their resources back earning good revenue. Everyone is losing. Except for some people. I live in West London and looking out and seeing a sky devoid of planes is a very very rare thing. And it's a beautiful day and I swear there are more birds than normal around. Quite lovely really. It kinda explains this stuff here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8624663.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8624663.stm [quote] The IATA said its estimate of a $200m daily loss of revenues was "initial and conservative". "In addition to lost revenues, airlines will incur added costs for re-routing of aircraft, care for stranded passengers and stranded aircraft at various ports," its director of corporate communications, Anthony Concil, said. KPMG was less conservative in its estimates, predicting a £200m loss in traffic revenues as a result of the UK shutdown, assuming that all ticket sales would have to be refunded to passengers. [/quote] I'd say KPMG was rather silly, in that obviously passengers will need to get back and there's a bottle-neck at the channel tunnel and ferry ports. However as care is being paid they could actually end up paying out more than the cost of travel and make a loss even in the time after the skies open.
swombat 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago

As I understand it the major risk is that because the ash cloud is very dry radar won't pick it up at all. So you could fly 1000 planes and miss the cloud by luck; but if you hit it then potentially game over. It seems a little silly that an industry with such stringent safety regulations would take that kind of risk...

gaius 17y ago
BA at least say that satellite images show the cloud as smaller than the Met Office's computer model predicted it would be. Airspace was closed on the say of the latter. Note that the Met Office's models have been way off since at least last winter...
- ErrantX 17y ago
  NASA satellite images this morning match the Met Office model pretty closely.
  - gaius 17y ago
    But do they match what the model said 5 days ago it would look like in 5 days time?
hugh3 17y ago
Given the worst-case scenario of a failure of all engines and nothing else at cruising altitude over Europe, and assuming you have a skilled pilot, what's the probability of gliding in for a safe landing? I'd think pretty high, since anywhere in Europe should be within safe gliding distance of a reasonable-sized airport. There are stories of landing safely under much worse conditions (eg the Gimli Glider which landed with no hydraulics or electronics and that US Airways flight into the Hudson which landed despite losing engines at low altitude).
- lutorm 17y ago
  There are at least as many stories of not landing safely, not only killing the people onboard but also on the ground. Europe is quite densely populated. And I don't think you're within gliding distance of an airport at all, especially since they fly lower than normal to avoid the ash, and even if they are, I'm not sure what the odds of a successful dead-stick landing is. Given that most pilots have probably never tried it, I'd bet the odds of stalling out short of the runway or overrunning at high speed are pretty large. Ultimately, it's a matter of weighting risk, and given that there seems to be no accurate assessment in combination with the shitstorm that would arise if they allowed flights to resume and a plane went down, I can't blame the authorities.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

bemmu 17y ago

I am currently stranded in Tokyo with a group of passengers from Finland that I will need to accommodate until the ash stops being an issue. These are the risks that entrepreneurs take, nobody could expect that some random volcano in Iceland of all places would cause 300 eur / day of losses, but life goes on.

dll 17y ago

The longer restrictions are in place, the more airlines will push to be allowed to fly. I was due to fly from the UK to Qatar today, and I would much rather delay further than take any chances. Safety should be more important than profit.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago
A plane crash is pretty bad for profit (but even worse for health admittedly :-)
gaius 17y ago
You talk about profit as if it's something to be ashamed of. Facts are 1) if safety really was more important to you you wouldn't fly anywhere, you'd stay safely at home and 2) if there are fewer airlines operating then you personally will need to pay more for your ticket.
- dll 17y ago
  Profit is nothing to be ashamed of, but saying the skies are free of ash and safe to fly in because of a couple of test flights? It seems to me that the airlines are more scared of losing money than they are of losing planes. Flying done properly is safer than crossing the street and I'm happy to take that risk. Flying through an ash cloud is not something that generally turns out good for aircraft engines; even if an initial inspection shows that all appears fine with the aircraft and first stage fan blades, a borescope inspection may reveal clogged turbine cooling air passages (see Grindle, T., J., and Burcham, Jr., F. W., 2002, Even Minor Volcanic Ash Encounters Can Cause Major Damage to Aircraft). If once all this is done airlines feel the need to charge more for tickets then so be it - I'm happy to pay more if it's because of safety concerns.
  - gaius 17y ago
    more scared of losing money than they are of losing planes They're scared of ceasing to exist, i.e. bankruptcy.

ugh 17y ago

The two biggest German airlines Lufthansa and Air Berlin are now in a full on PR war with the public authorities. It’s as if you flipped a switch, they remained silent about the whole thing until today.

thijsterlouw 17y ago

I'm very glad that KLM is pushing to lift the flight bans! From what I understand, is there are no strict rules to decide when not to fly due to volcanic eruptions. The current bans are just based on calculations and now the KLM (and the two German airlines) have done tests and it shows it's safe to fly. I want to catch my flight to the Netherlands from Hong Kong this Saturday and I have full confidence in the integrity of KLM.

hga 17y ago
There's satellite data as well, e.g. picking up SO2 and I think infrared off the particles, but the only one I read about and that I therefore know can do that takes most of a week to image the entire planet.
avar 17y ago
They haven't shown that it's safe to fly, they've just shown that they could fly a few planes from A->B without them crashing. Anecdote is not the same as evidence.
qq66 17y ago
I'm really surprised at how many people express little to no concern about being in a metal tube 5 miles up in what might be volcanic ash, given what ash has done to other planes.
- gaius 17y ago
  The pilot doesn't want to die either, and the airline don't want to lose their expensive plane! I'll happily jump on a plane as soon as airspace reopens knowing that.

modoc 17y ago

My wife is currently stranded in Germany. As much as I miss her and want her home, there's no way I'd want her to fly through a potential ash cloud given that it doesn't show up on radar and the high risk of engine failure when you're over the North Atlantic doesn't sound like a good plan. A couple short range test flights do not mean it's safe to fly trans-Atlantic routes. When you're 40,000 feet up over freezing waters, you need to play it safe.