Government bailout for airlines possible?

Degenerate

mbga9pgf wrote: »

They will end up killing a load of people carrying on like this. Just because one segment of the ash cloud is safe, how can you then take those results and assume that all sectors of the cloud are safe? Microscopic levels of contaminants on turbine blades can change their vibrational qualities significantly, changing natural frequency and potentially leading to High Cycle Fatigue. Not to mention contaminant corrosion and changes in the cooling paths in engines. Most modern turbines are very clever and the metal that is in them often operate in environments close to their meling point.

Yes, gas turbine engines are that sensitive to tolerance. Thats why they cost their equivalent amount in silver.

Businesses shouldnt make bad business decisions based on dodgy flight safety.

100% agree. The problem is that they know the ash is up there and the rough area it is in, but as this stuff is invisible to radar it's impossible to pinpoint its location with any degree of accuracy. The only safe thing is not to fly anywhere near where it might be.

The successful test flights prove nothing really, they were undamaged because clearly they didn't pass through the ash. So say say it's a thousand to one shot, is that an acceptable risk? It almost sounds like it, doesn't it? When you put it another way, losing 25 of the 25,000 or so flights currently being canceled every day doesn't sound so good.

(Degenerate, due to fly home from Budapest tomorrow and it's not looking good.)

nearlynew

Graham_Devon wrote: »

............. It's a natural problem, won't say disaster as it isn't, and the airlines cannot fly because they have been told they are not allowed.

It's not just one airline unable to cope. It's all airlines, ground, because those who control the airspace have said they cannot fly.

Isn't this exactly the same type of "regulation" you want for the banks?

mbga9pgf

nearlynew wrote: »

Isn't this exactly the same type of "regulation" you want for the banks?

Good analogy. the airspace owner also owns the risk, in this case. As they would if the airspace became too crowded or someone was operating within it without the correct equipment. Its all very complex, multinational, but it works!

michaels

I'm thinking that people are starting to weigh up the cost of not flying (say 150 mil per day) against the cost of a crash and the likelihood of a crash. Of course passengers and crew may not be so happy to take that trade off but in a way we do it every day when we opt for the convenience and utility of a car trip despite the known risk of serious injury or even death...

give

What are they going to bail them out with?? We don't have enough to pay for the debt we already have!!