Social Distancing at Airports

mattyprice4004

margaretx9 said:

Given you then get on a plane and the air conditioning system circulates rounds all your and other passengers germs anyway while you sit in a once place for two hours or so why worry?  Inside  the airport is the least of your worries!

This has already been discussed at length previously - most of the airlines are drawing more fresh air in, and using filters graded for the removal of particles carrying the pathogen so the risk is minimal. 

The risk is from the person sat next to you  

Butts

blindman said:

Butts said:

Is there any point in maintaining the 2m Rule throughout Public Areas of Airports if you are only going to be 2cm apart once onboard ? Indeed is it even possible to achieve.
To me this seems a fundamental problem for the resumption of mass Air Travel.
If social distancing is to have any crediiblity how can it be exempted when travelling in close proximity to others for hours on end ?
Surely you can't tell people to stay 2m apart in Tesco but not on an aeroplane ?

As in normal life you assess risks for any activity and decide whether it is for you or not.
Buying food is a necessity and if you can physically go out then mitigate the risk by staying 2m apart.
Flying is not a necessity for most people, however if you want to travel (and you have insurance to back you up) then take the risk associated with close proximity\recirculated air\closed borders and get on with it, once it is deemed "legal"


 

When was it deemed illegal - flights are still taking place ?
It just seems crazy to me to have all the hue and cry about social distancing only for it to go out the window on an aeroplane.
Logically there shouldn't be any flights until social distancing in no longer required ?

Thrugelmir

Biggest issue will be on arrival. At Vienna there's a €190 charge for a Covid test results in 2/3 hours. Otherwise it's a 14 day quarantine. 
You can have the test on departature as well. 

bradders1983

Butts said:

blindman said:

Butts said:

Is there any point in maintaining the 2m Rule throughout Public Areas of Airports if you are only going to be 2cm apart once onboard ? Indeed is it even possible to achieve.
To me this seems a fundamental problem for the resumption of mass Air Travel.
If social distancing is to have any crediiblity how can it be exempted when travelling in close proximity to others for hours on end ?
Surely you can't tell people to stay 2m apart in Tesco but not on an aeroplane ?

As in normal life you assess risks for any activity and decide whether it is for you or not.
Buying food is a necessity and if you can physically go out then mitigate the risk by staying 2m apart.
Flying is not a necessity for most people, however if you want to travel (and you have insurance to back you up) then take the risk associated with close proximity\recirculated air\closed borders and get on with it, once it is deemed "legal"


 

When was it deemed illegal - flights are still taking place ?
It just seems crazy to me to have all the hue and cry about social distancing only for it to go out the window on an aeroplane.
Logically there shouldn't be any flights until social distancing in no longer required ?

Or, people accept it cant happen on flights and if they dont like it, they dont go.

Thrugelmir

Butts said:

blindman said:

Butts said:

Is there any point in maintaining the 2m Rule throughout Public Areas of Airports if you are only going to be 2cm apart once onboard ? Indeed is it even possible to achieve.
To me this seems a fundamental problem for the resumption of mass Air Travel.
If social distancing is to have any crediiblity how can it be exempted when travelling in close proximity to others for hours on end ?
Surely you can't tell people to stay 2m apart in Tesco but not on an aeroplane ?

As in normal life you assess risks for any activity and decide whether it is for you or not.
Buying food is a necessity and if you can physically go out then mitigate the risk by staying 2m apart.
Flying is not a necessity for most people, however if you want to travel (and you have insurance to back you up) then take the risk associated with close proximity\recirculated air\closed borders and get on with it, once it is deemed "legal"


 

Logically there shouldn't be any flights until social distancing in no longer required ?

Many foreign nationals will be returning home. With no income, there's nothing to keep them here. 

Flights are carrying cargo. Takes a month for a ship to arrive from China. 

Butts

Thrugelmir said:

Butts said:

blindman said:

Butts said:

Is there any point in maintaining the 2m Rule throughout Public Areas of Airports if you are only going to be 2cm apart once onboard ? Indeed is it even possible to achieve.
To me this seems a fundamental problem for the resumption of mass Air Travel.
If social distancing is to have any crediiblity how can it be exempted when travelling in close proximity to others for hours on end ?
Surely you can't tell people to stay 2m apart in Tesco but not on an aeroplane ?

As in normal life you assess risks for any activity and decide whether it is for you or not.
Buying food is a necessity and if you can physically go out then mitigate the risk by staying 2m apart.
Flying is not a necessity for most people, however if you want to travel (and you have insurance to back you up) then take the risk associated with close proximity\recirculated air\closed borders and get on with it, once it is deemed "legal"


 

Logically there shouldn't be any flights until social distancing in no longer required ?

Many foreign nationals will be returning home. With no income, there's nothing to keep them here. 

Flights are carrying cargo. Takes a month for a ship to arrive from China. 

I understand about Foreign Nationals returning home, I was referring to Holidaymakers / Leisure Travellers.
If people are only going to be allowed to return to work with adequate social distancing on the pretext of safety, how on earth can boarding a packed aircraft be compatible with that criteria.

bradders1983

It cant. So people need to accept that. Dont like it, dont fly.

lincroft1710

I always thought the thing to be concerned about when flying was that between the ground  and the huge metal cylinder in which you are travelling is 30,000 feet of nothing.

Butts

lincroft1710 said:

I always thought the thing to be concerned about when flying was that between the ground  and the huge metal cylinder in which you are travelling is 30,000 feet of nothing.

Very witty !!!
If the Government advice is only travel if it is essential and if you have to maintain social distancing. Until this changes how can you board an Aircraft to go abroad.
Surely Airlines could be liable if loads of people contract coronavirus on packed services ?
Or is the Government advice just that and not mandatory ?

bradders1983

Butts said:

lincroft1710 said:

I always thought the thing to be concerned about when flying was that between the ground  and the huge metal cylinder in which you are travelling is 30,000 feet of nothing.

Very witty !!!
If the Government advice is only travel if it is essential and if you have to maintain social distancing. Until this changes how can you board an Aircraft to go abroad.
Surely Airlines could be liable if loads of people contract coronavirus on packed services ?
Or is the Government advice just that and not mandatory ?

Nobody can prove where they caught it from. And no test can show this either.  

And in any case, if "loads" of people catch it on a flight, in the main it is a mild illness no worse than the flu for the vast majority. Do people currently sue airlines if they catch the flu on a flight?