Volcano disrupts all flights to UK (April 2010)

[simongr]

A family friend is trapped at my parent's place in Cyprus...

I am starting to think about my UK visit in June as well in case there is a second eruption from Katla...

 

[straitman]

The latest news this morning is that the volcano has erupted again and the potential reopening of airfields and airspace is in jeopardy and will probably be delayed.

 

[anat0l]

Slots will likely be the limiting factor, unless they waive the LHR curfew for a period of time. Aircrews will be an issue using a/c other than 744/380 into LHR too.

Don't think that the curfew / slots will be released quickly at all. The executive powers required to grant exceptions to the controlling legislation / regulations will be a nightmare in itself, not to mention trying to convince the people of London that this is imperative.

As for the crews, I can imagine that apart from logistical staffing issues (getting 388 crew for 388s, etc.), a lot of them might be a bit grumpier in the face of having to work in a sticky situation, with plenty of frustrated pax (correction: a full plane of frustrated pax) - the combination is just asking for a customer service debacle unless crew really keep their cool about them....

 

[QF WP]

The latest news this morning is that the volcano has erupted again and the potential reopening of airfields and airspace is in jeopardy and will probably be delayed.

Not so good news from NATS, I think they released this about 9pm UK time (Monday):

Since our last statement at 1530 today, the volcano eruption in Iceland has strengthened and a new ash cloud is spreading south and east towards the UK. This demonstrates the dynamic and rapidly changing conditions in which we are working.

Latest information from the Met Office shows that the situation is worsening in some areas. Based on this information, the situation for Northern Irish airports for the morning is uncertain, due to the new ash cloud. The latest information shows that Scottish airports should be available from 0700 and more airspace over England may become available from 1300 although not as far south as the main London airports.

We will continue to monitor Met Office information and the situation is likely to change overnight. We will make a further statement at approximately 0300 (local time), tomorrow, Tuesday 20 April and again at 0700.

NATS is maintaining close dialogue with the Met Office and with the UK's safety regulator, the CAA, in respect of the international civil aviation policy we follow in applying restrictions to use of airspace. We are currently awaiting CAA guidance.

We are working closely with Government, airports and airlines, and airframe and aero engine manufacturers to get a better understanding of the effects of the ash cloud and to seek solutions.

 

[QF WP]

From MichelAngelo on Business Traveller (live from SIN):

In SIN now there are people arriving from Australia / NZ on their way to Europe who have decided to give up and go back home. The airport (at least T3) was noticeably quieter this morning. Although there are large numbers of people still stuck here in limbo, presumably there are also now large numbers of people who can't get here. Hotels situation is a nightmare though.

SQ have just reinstated tonight's flight to Barecelona but it will operate non-stop (usually it goes via Milan) and are also advertising the same flight tomorrow night. All other European flights are advertised as cancelled.

I was told by an SQ manager that a LH flight took off last night but had to turn back.

 

[jb747]

I don't think there would be any chance of QF using aircraft other than 380/744. Way too hard, and pointless anyway.

If I were in charge of London, I suspect I'd ban everything smaller than 767 until it's all sorted out.

 

[anat0l]

I don't think there would be any chance of QF using aircraft other than 380/744. Way too hard, and pointless anyway.

If I were in charge of London, I suspect I'd ban everything smaller than 767 until it's all sorted out.

Well, I don't see QF operating 767s to LON. Not that it's impossible, but I don't imagine it - and I wouldn't like to imagine it! Ditto for A330s (which are in short supply anyway).

Banning everything smaller than a 767 (or A330) pretty much kills off all intra-Europe and longhaul for the carriers that don't have A340s, 747s, A380s etc. It'd probably open up a lot of slots, but at least for the oneworld side of things it'd still be fairly moot. Not to mention this scenario will likely very much p*ss off many people, but then again any solution probably will .

Could you move shorthaul operations to other London airports, or airports outside of London, e.g. Manchester?

 

[QF WP]

Well, from Business Traveller, some statements from UK Government (Prime Minister Gordon Brown), British Airways and CASNO

Gordon Brown:

Brown says airlines, individuals should be compensated

Britain said on Monday European funds should be made available to compensate airlines and other travel firms who have lost millions of dollars in revenue from the closure of airspace because of a volcanic ash cloud.

"I believe that this is one of the most serious transport disruptions that we have faced," Brown told reporters. "I am very clear that this is a shared European problem and he (Barroso) is very clear that there should be a shared European approach and I hope that we can see the European solidarity fund or other funds used to help not just airlines but people who have been stranded," Brown said.
Britain is also in discussion with Spain about creating a "hub" in Madrid to bring Britons home from Europe and beyond.

"We have large numbers of travellers who are caught in Asia and America and the main route home that is available at the moment is through the airports that are open in Europe and that is in Spain. Brown said he had held talks with Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero

"He has offered in principle the use of Spanish airports as a hub for bringing people back to Britain." "We are very conscious that speed is of the essence here. We hope to have reached agreement with the Spanish in the next few hours about what can be done."

British Airways:

BRITISH AIRWAYS STATEMENT: BRITISH AIRWAYS TRIAL FLIGHT - TECHNICAL STATEMENT

Analysis of British Airways’ trial flight yesterday through parts of the no-fly zone established by the airspace authorities has revealed no variations in the aircraft’s normal operational performance.
Prior to the flight, and in order to formally establish its condition, BA Engineering at London Heathrow conducted a full survey of the aircraft structure and engines.

These inspections included the aircraft radome, wing and stabiliser leading edges, flight deck windshields, passenger windows, sensors and probes, landing lights and engine inlets. Digital images of each of these items were taken to ensure a full comparative assessment of the hardware could be conducted once the flight had been completed.

Borescope inspections of each engine, including the compressors, combustor, vanes and turbine were also conducted on each engine position. A number of engine oil and fuel filters, together with aircraft recirculation fan and equipment cooling filters were also replaced. This would ensure that the engineers could assess any debris that had been captured during the flight.

In order to assess fully the performance of the aircraft in the suspected area of contamination, the flight was conducted at various altitudes and geographic locations. At each condition and after a period of stabilisation, the performance of the aircraft was closely monitored by the flight crew and observers.

Particular attention was paid to the performance of the engines, the presence of any acrid odour build up within each zone of the cabin, the condition of the wing and aerofoil surfaces together with the condition of the windshields and passenger windows. No deterioration or odours were observed throughout the flight. In addition to the above, Rolls-Royce, the engine manufacturer, monitored the performance of the engines from their base in Derby in real time.

Following the successful conclusion of the flight, the aircraft returned to BA’s aircraft maintenance facility in Cardiff for detailed after-flight checks.

These included full re-inspection of the aircraft structure and a re-borescope of the engines. All these checks showed no deterioration from that previously recorded at London Heathrow. The engine oil and fuel filters have been removed for analysis by Rolls-Royce.

Playback of the aircraft flight data recorders has also been carried out at the engineering base in London. Analysis of this data has indicated that all four engines performed without fault for the duration of the flight. The data also indicated that the performance of the engines had not suffered any deterioration as a result of the flight.

Commenting on the technical report on the performance of British Airways' trial flight yesterday, British Airways' Chief Executive Willie Walsh said:
"The analysis we have done so far, alongside that from other airlines' trial flights, provides fresh evidence that the current blanket restrictions on airspace are unnecessary. "We believe airlines are best positioned to assess all available information and determine what, if any, risk exists to aircraft, crew and passengers. “Since airspace was closed on Thursday our assessment is that the risk has been minimal and can be managed by alternative procedures to maintain the highest safest standards.
“We call on the Government urgently to adopt new policies that would allow us to resume flying. Safety is the overriding priority for an airline. We use our expertise in risk assessment across a wide range of safety issues to make decisions on the safe operation of flights every day. "We believe that we should be allowed to take the same responsibility over safety issues over the recent volcanic eruptions in Iceland."

CANSO STATEMENT

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL “LOSING 25 MILLION EUROS A DAY”

An analysis of Air Traffic Control organisations by CANSO, the global voice of Air Traffic Management, shows that globally the sector is losing up to 25 million Euros each day from the closure of European airspace.

Graham Lake, Director General of CANSO, said:
“Our Members are losing 25 million Euros every day in this crisis, which will have a significant impact on investment decisions for the future if we are not assisted by European emergency funds. Air Traffic Control is a fixed-infrastructure business: when planes don’t fly we still have to maintain all our equipment and staff at a state of readiness. For safety reasons, an Air Traffic Control company cannot go ‘bust’ - any losses we incur will have to be recovered from airlines, the travelling public, or the taxpayer. Contingency funds at European level exist to help in situations like this. We hope they will be deployed to ensure that jobs and investment in European Air Traffic Control are not cut.”
www.canso.org

CANSO – The Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation – is the global voice of the companies that provide air traffic control, and represents the interests of Air Navigation Services Providers worldwide.
CANSO members are responsible for supporting over 85% of world air traffic, and through our Workgroups, members share information and develop new policies, with the ultimate aim of improving air navigation services on the ground and in the air. CANSO also represents its members’ views in major regulatory and industry forums, including at ICAO, where we have official Observer status.

 

[NM]

I don't think there would be any chance of QF using aircraft other than 380/744. Way too hard, and pointless anyway.

If I were in charge of London, I suspect I'd ban everything smaller than 767 until it's all sorted out.

Do you think they may allow special services to/from Stanstead to help overcome the slots/curfew limits at LHR/LGW? Obviously QF has no existing ground facilities/contracts there, but maybe something could be worked our with BAA to get things moving?

 

[jb747]

If London is to remain slot limited, then the only way to increase the number of people moved is to either remove the curfew, or to ban smaller aircraft. Or both. The little stuff can use Stansted, Luton, etc.

Sort of amusing reading the comments from BA about their 'test' flight. I'm afraid that I don't see that as having proved very much. I'm sure they chose a route that kept them away from the worst. Anyway, I'm a lot less worried about the effect on the engines than I am on the electronics and pitot systems.

 

[harvyk]

Gotta love nonews...

Travellers stung with expensive flights | News.com.au

I highly doubt that my comment to nonews will be published as I basically said that the author should have done 10 seconds of research, prior to writing such rubbish. The price of airfares have not gone up. It's just all the cheap seats have sold out. She was trying to make the airlines look like they where money grabbing from this incident.

She was saying that booking a flight to \ from the UK was going to cost nearly $8000. She went on and said it was ecconomy fares. Now when I did the same searches (for cheapst fare) it came up with that price, but they where for J class fare, which of course is business class. (The BA site actually says business class next to the price)

She also had a go at QF, stating that return flights where costing $4000. Which again is true, but what she failed to mention was that was for fully flex fares (true Y class fares), and which are the same price next week as they are in June.

Edit: I was right, they didn't like me pointing out to them that they got their article completely wrong, although I did notice someone else posted a similar response to me.

 

[jb747]

I doubt that it will matter what they cost...with the backlog, there simply won't be any seats anyway.

 

[anat0l]

Gotta love nonews...

Travellers stung with expensive flights | News.com.au

I highly doubt that my comment to nonews will be published as I basically said that the author should have done 10 seconds of research, prior to writing such rubbish.

To be somewhat honest, one could argue that the author was not portraying the airlines in a bad light. The comments, however, do show the shortsightedness of people.

Here's a comment that I've posted, pending review (if it doesn't make it, at least you'll know what I said):

Get over it people.

First, a whole bunch of people will be bumped to fly once the dust settles and EU skies open up. Hence less seats, more expensive.

Then, some will reschedule, taking up otherwise less than peak travel times to do so. Less seats, more expensive.

The author is quoting prices of flights for next week and next month, in the wake of the volcano erupting and the mess it has caused. Not only is the time between booking and flying short, but many of these fares are either Business or First (no Economy seats left), or in high cost Economy (e.g. fully flexible). Indeed, Barry Flyer of Melbourne is right, and I checked BA's website myself - on some dates next week, fat chance getting an Economy ticket: it's either First/Business class or bust (that is if there will be any flying next week!)

So for those of you thinking the airlines are gougers taking you for a ride (pun intended) on this issue, how about thinking a little harder? Or is that too much to ask?

There's going to be a marked effect on ticket prices and availability of seats until this mess is cleaned up and all affected passengers are accounted for.

I guess most people would be arguing on my comment then (hold your breath for some potentially unreasonable expectations):

• If an airline bumps pax as part of the reaccommodation process, assuming that there are some seats remaining (as jb747 says, little chance in Hell), these seats should be in the lower sales buckets.
• Airlines should put on extra aircraft - some will deal with the backlog, but others will run "regular" service (i.e. designed for pax to travel as if nothing happened, not extra to specifically deal with pax affected by the volcano). The seats sold for these extra "BAU" services would be sold "as normal" hence no "price gouging" (need to do a big literal quotation marks gestures here).
• I suppose there are some sore people not affected by the crisis directly that want to be able to travel as they normally would, even if it means selling some J seats as Y (low Y!), e.g. similar to how QF were selling 4 class equipment as 3 classes, or 3 as 2.

EDIT: My comment was posted.

 

[harvyk]

To be somewhat honest, one could argue that the author was not portraying the airlines in a bad light. The comments, however, do show the shortsightedness of people.

Rereading the article I notice they have changed it, using my words almost verbatim (except for the very harsh words about the author not doing her research).

They didn't however publish my reply under my name.

 

[NM]

Anyway, I'm a lot less worried about the effect on the engines than I am on the electronics and pitot systems.

At least the hull will be sand-blasted ready for a a fresh coat of paint :-|

 

[QF WP]

Hot off the Business Traveller BB:

BA STATEMENT (BA Press Office)

Following the latest information from National Air Traffic Services about the path of the volcanic ash affecting UK airspace, we regret we will not be able to operate any shorthaul flights on Tuesday 20 April. We were planning to operate shorthaul flights scheduled to depart from 7pm, but these have now been cancelled.

We are still hoping to operate longhaul flights which are scheduled to depart after 4pm on Tuesday 20 April, however this remains subject to the full and permanent opening of airspace.

Customers should check their exact flight details on ba.com before departing for the airport. We realise this is disappointing for customers, however the circumstances are outside of all airlines' control. Customers booked to travel on a cancelled flight can claim a full refund or rebook their flight for a later date

 

[ajw373]

If London is to remain slot limited, then the only way to increase the number of people moved is to either remove the curfew, or to ban smaller aircraft. Or both. The little stuff can use Stansted, Luton, etc.

Sort of amusing reading the comments from BA about their 'test' flight. I'm afraid that I don't see that as having proved very much. I'm sure they chose a route that kept them away from the worst. Anyway, I'm a lot less worried about the effect on the engines than I am on the electronics and pitot systems.

I beleive the authorities have already given the go ahead for 24x7 operation once the airport opens to help clear the backlog.

 

[jb747]

:

• If an airline bumps pax as part of the reaccommodation process, assuming that there are some seats remaining (as jb747 says, little chance in Hell), these seats should be in the lower sales buckets.

If it was all turned on again tomorrow, I don't see people being bumped off their booked flights. You already have a large pool of affected people...bumping people whose flight actually goes as planned simply increases the affected.

• Airlines should put on extra aircraft - some will deal with the backlog, but others will run "regular" service (i.e. designed for pax to travel as if nothing happened, not extra to specifically deal with pax affected by the volcano). The seats sold for these extra "BAU" services would be sold "as normal" hence no "price gouging" (need to do a big literal quotation marks gestures here).

Whilst extra flights will certainly happen, I don't think that many airlines have aircraft just sitting around doing nothing. Some extras can be accomodated, but utilisation is already very high.

 

[dajop]

Whilst extra flights will certainly happen, I don't think that many airlines have aircraft just sitting around doing nothing. Some extras can be accomodated, but utilisation is already very high.

Wonder how the AirAsia X pax are being treated? They certainly don't have aircraft with legs sitting around doing nothing.... can just see them pulling off one of their A320's to do the trip ..... KUL-MAA-KWI-STN. :!:

 

[harvyk]

If it was all turned on again tomorrow, I don't see people being bumped off their booked flights. You already have a large pool of affected people...bumping people whose flight actually goes as planned simply increases the affected.

Yes, but most travel insurance policies only cover upto a certain amount. Beyond that your forking out of your own pocket. So if you have pax A who was say booked on a flight to LHR which was meant to leave on the 16th, and pax B who is meant to leave on the 21st. If they opened flights on the 21st and let pax B go before pax A, it could mean that pax A has already reached the limits of their travel insurance and thus having to pay for extra accom out of their own pocket. By bumping pax B and letting pax A fly it means that pax B can make a claim on their insurance, and pax A isn't too much out of pocket.

I was listening to a guy on the radio and he said his travel insurance policy was only going to cover 4 days. That prompted me to look at my policy, and that has spending limits. Depending on where I was I'd guess I could last 10 days until I reached the limits of my policy. Either way I'd be nervous about money running out.