Todos
← Back to Squawk list
Ryanair boss says leaving middle seat open "Idiotic"
Michael O'Leary said he was hopeful 80% of flights could resume by October if travel restrictions are eased in July. But he said empty seats did not ensure safe social distancing and were financially unviable............. (www.bbc.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
His statement is a bit knee jerk. An extreme example, you could fly that AC with one PAX onboard quite profitably, if said PAX paid enough for that seat (say, $60,000). Now we scale that to say 200 seats, 1/3 of which are left empty, you can still make money if those 2/3 occupied seats pay enough extra or you are subsidized in some other fashion for those empty seats. The AC will operate a good deal more efficiently, also. There have been quite a few flights where I would have rather gladly have purchased that seat next to mine to keep some obnoxious, personal space invading clod from occupying it.....!
It is indeed idiotic. First of all - hello! - you're in a closed ventilation system. Secondly, one is still within 6 feet (an arbitrary number at best) of the people in front, behind, and lateral to you. The middle seat closure is cute. Plus, if you're travelling with family you can still use the middle seat...
Two large passengers will fit comfortably onto 3 seats. Leave booking the middle seat out even after the virus has been contained. I would hate to be in the middle between 2 x 250 pounders.
Sounds right to me. At least he's not some oily smooth-talking SOB trying to manage our perceptions.
And what's with the tiny soundbite "quotes"? If the guy's picture and name are in the headline, I expect to hear what he has to say, not just BBC's carefully selected snippets. Quoting people out of context sells lots of papers, I suppose.
And what's with the tiny soundbite "quotes"? If the guy's picture and name are in the headline, I expect to hear what he has to say, not just BBC's carefully selected snippets. Quoting people out of context sells lots of papers, I suppose.
First. What do you do about 2-3-2, leave one of the two seats on each side empty, and 2-4-2, and 3-4-3. How many seats do you leave empty in the middle 4? And husband and wife with child. Not allowed to sit together? The idea hasn't been thought through.
Second. By the time flights resume, there will be enough tests available for every passenger to be tested. It will be part of check-in procedure.
Positive test ? No-fly.
Second. By the time flights resume, there will be enough tests available for every passenger to be tested. It will be part of check-in procedure.
Positive test ? No-fly.
I think you're probably correct on pre-flight testing, although whether a proper and accurate test can be conducted in minutes is another matter. I think it'll be more like a basic test that just ticks the box and shows the airline as jumping thorugh that particular hoop.
For social distancing, I don't think the problem you highlight will be serious. For family groups, it doesn't apply - a family of 4 could sit beside each other without issues. For others, suitable gaps could easily be left, although it might take a little longer to sort the seating.
With respect to this article, O'Blearly will go mental if he's forced to ensure families sit together without charging them! I'd like to see his meltdown for that one. ;-)
For social distancing, I don't think the problem you highlight will be serious. For family groups, it doesn't apply - a family of 4 could sit beside each other without issues. For others, suitable gaps could easily be left, although it might take a little longer to sort the seating.
With respect to this article, O'Blearly will go mental if he's forced to ensure families sit together without charging them! I'd like to see his meltdown for that one. ;-)
Air France has announced it will resume international flights in July. Trials are under way to verify the reliability of a fast test. I am assuming that they will have been completed by July.
There is another aspect. Countries may require a negative test as a condition of entry.
Take India, or African countries, many of whom have fewer than 20 cases per million. may not want to risk being contaminated by Europeans or Americans with cases in excess of 2000 per million. Popular tourist destinations such as the Seychelles, Thailand, Indonesia, Mauritius, Bahamas, all show infection rates of around 10% of European ones. They may require a pre-flight test.
There is another aspect. Countries may require a negative test as a condition of entry.
Take India, or African countries, many of whom have fewer than 20 cases per million. may not want to risk being contaminated by Europeans or Americans with cases in excess of 2000 per million. Popular tourist destinations such as the Seychelles, Thailand, Indonesia, Mauritius, Bahamas, all show infection rates of around 10% of European ones. They may require a pre-flight test.
We know that the *actual* infection rates for Europe are, in some cases, possibly even the the majority, certain to be significantly higher than their *REPORTED* infection rates.
Therefore one would have to be very naive indeed to actually believe that the grossly unrealistic low *reported* infection rates for the countries cited in the foregoing post bare any resemblance whatever to the *actual* situation. Those countries,and very many others, simply do not possess the necessary resources to record, gather, publish or in any way to KNOW what their true infection rates are. In some cases there would also be considerable doubt as to their willingness to share that data with the rest of the world.
Taking India as just one named example:no matter what the 'statistics' presently indicate, it is beyond all reasonable belief that its *true* infection rate is as low as 20 per million. That figure is ludicrously low. No one can possibly know the rate in India's huge city slums because there is no way on earth that any testing is being done there. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that the virus would / will spread like uncontrolled wild fire in those dense, disorganized and massively under-resourced populations.
It is extremely unlikely that there will be any great desire for outsiders to visit such countries, at least if they possess the fundamental human characteristic of preferring to live rather than to die.
It is even less likely that the *true* infection or mortality rates will EVER be known in some of those countries.
Therefore one would have to be very naive indeed to actually believe that the grossly unrealistic low *reported* infection rates for the countries cited in the foregoing post bare any resemblance whatever to the *actual* situation. Those countries,and very many others, simply do not possess the necessary resources to record, gather, publish or in any way to KNOW what their true infection rates are. In some cases there would also be considerable doubt as to their willingness to share that data with the rest of the world.
Taking India as just one named example:no matter what the 'statistics' presently indicate, it is beyond all reasonable belief that its *true* infection rate is as low as 20 per million. That figure is ludicrously low. No one can possibly know the rate in India's huge city slums because there is no way on earth that any testing is being done there. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt that the virus would / will spread like uncontrolled wild fire in those dense, disorganized and massively under-resourced populations.
It is extremely unlikely that there will be any great desire for outsiders to visit such countries, at least if they possess the fundamental human characteristic of preferring to live rather than to die.
It is even less likely that the *true* infection or mortality rates will EVER be known in some of those countries.
Use dogs to snif out fever and covid (trials currently taking place) passengers.