Volcanos vs airplanes

[JF Mezei]

So, Iceland is getting its revenge for the banking collapse... As a
result, much of europe is without air service.

Out of curiosity, for a place like England, could they not allow
aircraft to fly at low altitudes, well below the ash clouds from the
volcano ?

I realise that flying at 15k altitude is not as efficient, but couldn't
they still operate short haul flights ?

Do they have precise measurements of the dust cloud at various altitudes
(so they could allow for flight plans at altitudes below the cloud ?
)
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[Roland Perry]

Post by JF Mezei
Out of curiosity, for a place like England, could they not allow
aircraft to fly at low altitudes, well below the ash clouds from the
volcano ?
I realise that flying at 15k altitude is not as efficient, but couldn't
they still operate short haul flights ?

I've been wondering this, and my theory is this: airspace is of two
kinds - controlled and uncontrolled, and most of the controlled space is
at quite high altitudes.

What they've done is close the controlled airspace.

What they can't do is re-adjust the controlled space to be at a lower
altitude for a few days.

And the airlines don't want (maybe aren't allowed) to fly in
uncontrolled space. After all, they might bump into people in hot air
ballons etc. never mind bumping into one another.

[matt weber]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 01:13:32 -0400, JF Mezei

Post by JF Mezei
So, Iceland is getting its revenge for the banking collapse... As a
result, much of europe is without air service.
Out of curiosity, for a place like England, could they not allow
aircraft to fly at low altitudes, well below the ash clouds from the
volcano ?

Ash is heavier than air, and it does settle out. The Ash problem is
several fold, although I suspect the issue is not as serious as some
have suggested. The two incidents in which aircraft had flameouts on
all 4 engines all involved being pretty much directly downwind, and
much closer to the volcano than is most of the UK.

However we live in a highly litigous society, and as a result, the
risk/benefit ratio just isn't there. There is not a lot of upside, but
if anything goes wrong (even if unrelated), everybody and his brother
will sue for something. It is a no win situation for the carriers.

Anyway I don't remember such widespread airspace closures in the
aftermath of the Mt. St. Helens Eruption....

Post by JF Mezei
I realise that flying at 15k altitude is not as efficient, but couldn't
they still operate short haul flights ?

Very short (The fuel burn penalties in Jet engines for operating at
such low altitudes are huge), and do you really want large numbers of
aircraft at 300+kt flying in 'Indian Country'? That's largely Visual
Flight Rules territory.

Post by JF Mezei
Do they have precise measurements of the dust cloud at various altitudes
(so they could allow for flight plans at altitudes below the cloud ?
)

Probably not, and even if they did, just because there wasn't much at
that altitude now, is no guarantee that won't be a lot more in a few
hours.

The problem of ash is two fold. It is very hard, and very abrasive. It
also contains large amounts of 'glass'. So the compressor blades and
seals get scoured, while the the stuff melts in the combustion chamber
and sticks to the blades and stators in the turbine section. Engine
overhauls are a very expensive proposition.

It can also render the windscreen nearly opaque by sandblasting it
(That happened to the BA aircraft).
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Are reports that some airlines may go belly up in europe credible ?
Which ones would be so severely impacted by being "down" for a week that
they would no longer be financially viable ?

Is this just a ploy to try to get government compensation ?

Also, BBC reported that some airlines sent their own planes up to check
out the atmosphere and that they reported oit was OK, by the gorvernment
airplanes still detected particles.

Who should one believe in this ?

Could BA operate flights NYC-Madrid tomorrow if it wanted to ? Or is it
lacking rights to do so ? Would BA then be responsible for paying
train/buses/ferries to get people from Madrid to London ?

I know that large cruise ships are generally designed for the caribeean
and not the north atlantic. Would they still be able to make a crossing
between new york and london in realtive comfort/safety ?

Could the airlines get together and rent one and fill it with some 5000
customers and run it between New york and London ? At the very least,
this would greatly reduce the strain on the backlog of passengers.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[Roland Perry]

Post by JF Mezei
Are reports that some airlines may go belly up in europe credible ?
Which ones would be so severely impacted by being "down" for a week that
they would no longer be financially viable ?

Emirates (although not quite a "European" airline perhaps), claims it's
lost $50M already.

Post by JF Mezei
Is this just a ploy to try to get government compensation ?

Airlines won't get government compensation, they might get a "government
bailout", but only if it's 100% necessary.

Post by JF Mezei
Also, BBC reported that some airlines sent their own planes up to check
out the atmosphere and that they reported oit was OK, by the gorvernment
airplanes still detected particles.
Who should one believe in this ?

Both. A hand-picked flightpath for one aircraft, versus hundreds of
aircraft flying through rapidly changing conditions.

Post by JF Mezei
Could BA operate flights NYC-Madrid tomorrow if it wanted to ? Or is it
lacking rights to do so ?

Or capacity (human and runway) at Madrid?

Post by JF Mezei
Would BA then be responsible for paying
train/buses/ferries to get people from Madrid to London ?

It's one heck of a distance. 24hrs and four or five changes, except for
one sleeper train a day. (I looked this up earlier, as I'm due to go
London-Madrid at the end of next week. Not looking good. I'd expect the
sleeper to be fully booked by now).

Post by JF Mezei
I know that large cruise ships are generally designed for the caribeean
and not the north atlantic. Would they still be able to make a crossing
between new york and london in realtive comfort/safety ?

They could, if diverted.

Post by JF Mezei
Could the airlines get together and rent one and fill it with some 5000
customers and run it between New york and London ? At the very least,
this would greatly reduce the strain on the backlog of passengers.

There's talk of getting the Navy involved. How many people could you get
on an aircraft carrier (and how many mattresses would fit on the hanger
desk)? There's a spare "camping carrier" at Charleston, but it's
probably not seaworthy!

ps the ash is heading your way, might get to Boston by midweek.

[Roland Perry]

Post by JF Mezei
I know that large cruise ships are generally designed for the caribeean
and not the north atlantic.

Europe's largest holiday company has announced this morning that it will
be redeploying two if its cruise ships as, in effect, ferries to get
holidaymakers from various islands back to the European mainland. Buses
from there.

[matt weber]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 03:53:26 -0400, JF Mezei

Post by JF Mezei
Are reports that some airlines may go belly up in europe credible ?
Which ones would be so severely impacted by being "down" for a week that
they would no longer be financially viable ?
Is this just a ploy to try to get government compensation ?
Also, BBC reported that some airlines sent their own planes up to check
out the atmosphere and that they reported oit was OK, by the gorvernment
airplanes still detected particles.
Who should one believe in this ?

The experience the industry has had with Volcanic ash have indeed
involved being a lot closer, and essentially directly downwind of the
eruption. I don't doubt that flying into the cloud 800 miles downwind
may reduce the TBO on the engine. The question is how much? The
preliminary indications are 'not much'...


Having said that, as I think I pointed out earlier, we live in a
society that just loves to find fault and try to collect damages for
anything and everything. As long as there is any measurable risk, I
cannot see that the benefits outweigh the risks for the carriers.
Anything goes wrong, even if unrelated, and the lawyer will have a
field day.

Post by JF Mezei
Could BA operate flights NYC-Madrid tomorrow if it wanted to ? Or is it
lacking rights to do so ?

Spain is an EU country, so BA would operate the flights. Last week
they actually operated 3 flights from the USA into Glasgow and
Prestwick in Scotland

Post by JF Mezei
Would BA then be responsible for paying
train/buses/ferries to get people from Madrid to London ?

Yes.

Post by JF Mezei
I know that large cruise ships are generally designed for the caribeean
and not the north atlantic. Would they still be able to make a crossing
between new york and london in realtive comfort/safety ?
Could the airlines get together and rent one and fill it with some 5000
customers and run it between New york and London ? At the very least,
this would greatly reduce the strain on the backlog of passengers.

Very very costly undertaking. The problem is you have provide food,
lodging and entertainment for 4-5 days instead of 7-8 hours. Most
Cruise ships make their money only because of the additional services
they sell on board or kickbacks from vendors at ports of call. What
killed the transatlantic ocean liners was pure economics. It is a lot
less expensive to only look after customer for 8 hours than it is 4-5
days, and count the number of staff per passenger on a cruise liner,
and you will start to get the picture.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

My idea of a cruise ship caught on ! A british tour operator managed to
snag the Celebrity Eclipse, brand new ship just before its first cruise.

http://www.celebritycruises.com/plancruise/ships/ship.do?shipCode=EC

First scheduled cruise is set for Apr 26 departing fron Southampton to
Le Havre to Southampton. Next cruise is on Ar 29.

So getting the ship to ferry passengers on Apr 22 from Spain to the UK
is probably good for the cruise line as it will likely be used as "break
in" cruise and positions the ship at the right place for its first
scheduled operation.




The media are now focusing on the costs of this volcano, as well as the
expensicve EU compensation to passengers. Real companies have to pay for
hotel and meals until tey are able to repatriate customers. Ryannair
has said it would want onto to refund up to the cost of the ticket.


So perhaps the cruise ship isn't THAT expensive when you have to factor
in compensation to passengers which would include hotel/meals anyways
(and media reports that hotels are charging a lot). They are apparently
ferrying over 2000 stranded passengers who "belong" to a tour operator.


What I find interesting in this saga is that trains were not used more
extensively. From madrid you'd think the british govt could have hired a
daily train express to London to carry a few hundred passengers instead
of hiring buses to carry 4 dozen passengers.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[Roland Perry]

Post by JF Mezei
What I find interesting in this saga is that trains were not used more
extensively. From madrid you'd think the british govt

Why is this a government problem?

Post by JF Mezei
could have hired a daily train express to London to carry a few hundred
passengers instead of hiring buses to carry 4 dozen passengers.

Part of the problem with that is the gauge changes at/near the Spanish
border. There are also no "spare" trains with clearance to use the
Channel Tunnel, nor probably the other "high speed" lines involved. So
you are looking at a little over a 24hr journey.