A few questions on the Volcanic eruption...

[Gromit]

1. Was grounding all flights, Health and Safety gone mad?
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/170307

2. Should the Airlines get compensation off the Government (Taxpayers)?
http://news.bbc.co.uk.../business/8629674.stm

3. Should Airlines decide whether they fly or not?
http://business.times...rt/article7102317.ece

5. Have Governments lifted the flight ban because of lobbying and threats of litigation by the airlines, and economic reasons, overriding genuine safety concerns?
http://www.businesswe...ialnews/D9F695702.htm

5. If flights returned, would you be fly?

[jno]

in answer to the second question 5, I am hoping to fly on Sunday (another flight, today, was cancelled, so I am sitting at my computer instead of strolling the Kudamm). If it takes off I will be on it unless any other planes have crashed.

I think grounding was the right thing to so, though.

[tamborine]

Hasn't there been a live volcano erupting in Hawaii for last 5y. I'm nr Heathrow & the skies are clear and bright. Surely planes can take an alternative route?

Where are all the freight ships & liners - surely they could do some rescues ?

[Old_Geezer]

If it is right for airlines to make the decision to fly or not, presumably it is right for the banks to decide whether they invest people's money in risky investments that bring down the economy. Strange I seem to recall folk suggesting the government should step in, in these sort of circumstances to protect the people. Damned if you do, damned if you don't it seems.

[Gromit]

tamborine

Hawaii is remote, in the middle of the pacific, not one of the busiest air traffic ares in the world.

Freight ships & liners have to work all the time to payback their enormous costs (as do aircraft). There are no vessels laying idly by for weeks doing nothing. Their companies would be out of business if that was how they were being operated.

[R1Geezer]

1. Not initially, it may be getting towards that now though
2. No, act of nature, nobody'd fault, no one to sue
3. No, that's what the CAA is for.
4. Quite possibly, they would also have done a risk assessment of the current conditions at any one time.
5. Not until this has blown over.

[tamborine]

thanx Gromit for explanation...am such a div :)

To think I was nearly trapped in B'kok but for my passport mishap and was considering CA for Easter - still awaiting passport, so am stuck here to bore y'all ;)

[olddutch]

1.No, if scientific experts in this field believed there was an unacceptable level of risk to safety of passengers,flight crew, residents under flight paths and aircraft then grounding the planes is a no brainer

2.Definitely not, little willie walsh has got enough reserves to provoke strikes,mess terminal 5 up - and we the tax payer are hard up enough already to be subsidising him and iberian airways and the mikey o'learys of this world

3.No, the decision should be made by a body of .appropriate independent scientific experts with Airlines, government, pilots,flight crews,even unions having an input into the decision

4.Probably, big business interests always end up being accomodated

5.After 3 to 6 months of personally monitoring how many planes fall out of the sky or nearly fall out of the sky and for what reason

[jake-the-peg]

Lets say the odds of a serious issue were 100:1 against

Say 1,000:1 10,000:1

Would you fly?

Probably?

Now how many flights are there across Europe a day?

Would you take responsibility for approving flights?

There's a difference between taking a risk with your own safety and taking risks with other peoples

[Haggisdj]

Why worry about 3 is that the money men may risk lives for profit...

[rov1200]

No, I hope a lot of them go bust. Aeroplanes are the worst invention ever made by man. The noise and pollution has affected so many lives on the ground. If they used up all the seats instead of flying half empty it would be a start. Cheap flights should be banned and be made to pay for the damage caused.