Aviation and the Ebola epidemic in West-Africa

[tolipanebas]

SN will resume flights to ROB, FNA and of course also CRY as from tomorrow.

CRY remains paired with DKR as before, whereas ROB and FNA are going to be uncoupled (but with a technical stop in DKR on the inbound for crewchange) to maximize capacity.

http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/buite ... =1.2070638

[b-west]

CKY

[tolipanebas]

Here's the new schedule to the 3 affected countries for the rest of the month:

http://brusselsairlines.com/nl-be/misc/ ... etail.aspx

[convair]

It is not stated, but I assume these flights do not take pax to/from DKR.

[airazurxtror]

http://www.air-journal.fr/2014-08-27-eb ... 13354.html

Extract :

A la demande du gouvernement français, la compagnie nationale Air France a décidé de « suspendre provisoirement » sa liaison entre Paris et Freetown, capitale de la Sierra Leone, pays africain gravement touché par l’épidémie du virus Ebola.

En revanche, Air France peut poursuivre ses dessertes au Nigeria et en Guinée, compte tenu de la bonne situation sanitaire dans ces deux pays.

En France, outre le gouvernement, des voix de tout bord, de la CGT au Front national, se font entendre pour demander à Air France d’arrêter ses vols vers l’Afrique de l’Ouest. parmi les premiers concernés par le danger du virus Ebola, des hôtesses et stewards ont signé une pétition demandant l’arrêt de ces dessertes africaines.

Following a request by the French government, Air France has temporarily cancelled its flights to Freetown, Sierra Leone.

[airazurxtror]

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/fl ... faqid=5072#

British Airways has suspended flights to and from Liberia and Sierra Leone until 31 December 2014 due to concerns about the public health situation in both countries.
The safety of our customers, crew and ground teams is always our top priority and we will keep the routes under constant review in the coming weeks.

[sn26567]

After a special meeting this morning with the staff council (conseil d'entreprise/ondernemingsraad), Brussels Airlines has announced its decision to maintain its routes to the three concerned countries, where it is now the only airline, together with Royal Air Maroc, to continue flying.

During the staff council meeting, medical specialists have explained to the staff representatives that the risk to be contaminated by the Ebola virus is extremely low.

If an SN aircraft goes technical in one of the three countries affected by the virus, the crew will be evacuated on a stand-by aircraft located in that country. In that way, the crew will not have to get out of the airport into the country.

Nobody will be compelled to fly to one of the affected countries, but it seems that there is no lack of volunteers.

[Inquirer]

Would be interesting to know what this does to the financial results on these markets: much higher thanks to a quasi monopoly, or much lower due to reduced overall demand?

[sn26567]

I just heard that SN was not able to transport 40 tonnes of pharmaceuticals and medical equipment due to the earlier cancellation of a couple of flights. I guess that this cargo will take a future flight. Even if the number of passengers decreases, I think that freight will largely compensate.

[airazurxtror]

The other Europen airlines cease to fly there for the safety of their crews, but there is no risk for the crews of Brussels Airlines. Supermen, are they ?
Gustin takes on his shoulders a hell of a huge responsability.

[nordikcam]

The other Europen airlines cease to fly there for the safety of their crews, but there is no risk for the crews of Brussels Airlines. Supermen, are they ?
Gustin takes on his shoulders a hell of a huge responsability.

http://www.lalibre.be/actu/internationa ... e6103b98f1

[convair]

The other Europen airlines cease to fly there for the safety of their crews, but there is no risk for the crews of Brussels Airlines. Supermen, are they ?
Gustin takes on his shoulders a hell of a huge responsability.

Can you stop bashing SN for one hour, pleeeeaaase! Or are you so sick that you can't help it?

[Flanker2]

He's not bashing it. He's just reminding you the reality that you don't want to see.
SN is not operating to the Ebola-hit country because they have the biggest heart among the airlines. It's because they are a business in financial trouble and have to take risks that healthy airlines would not take.

I don't mind that part, as long as they do it in a responsible way, ie with Ebola blood tests on arrival back to Europe.
At this rate and in this way, it's only a matter of time for Ebola to slip through the nets and spread into Europe, putting you , your children, parents, brothers and loved ones at risk.

I don't really care for the crews, it's their decision to fly there, so if they get infected it's their problem.
I do however have great respect for the doctors who are out there trying to fight this thing.

The difference between a hero and an idiot can be small: the crews are doing it for their miserable paychecks and "keeping the airline alive", while those doctors are just out there for the people and nothing in return.
It's one thing to die trying to save children and sick people, it's another to die trying to save your broke airline...

[FlightMate]

The WHO wants more flights to ebola-land, that's understandable.
But they could maybe charter planes, just for them?
The risk is not to fly doctors, nurses or equipment to these countries. The risk is to take back a passenger, family member of a sick person, back to Europe.
So, fine by me if SN sticks with trained medical personnel. Not fine if they carry normal passengers without carrying out extra checks upon arrival.
Hell, think that you could well be flying in the same plane to JFK, at the same seat as a sick passenger?

$$$, that's all that matters.

At least, people not willing to go won't have to.

[Flanker2]

It looks like the threat is already materialising... http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/957/Binnenland ... huis.dhtml

Sigh

[Inquirer]

What strikes my is that those who are vehemently calling for Brussels airlines to quit flying to Ebola risk areas are the same that wouldn't mind seeing them disappear ASAP. The fact that one may somehow help lead to the other probably has nothing to do with it, of course, which puts then at a pretty pathetic starting point for an in se interesting topic.

As to the idea to enforce blood tests and/or quarantine measures, I am not even sure a commercial company can enforce such rules? This is something a government can legally do, however.

Elaborating a bit further on this, another thing which would then be a vey good measure is to close BRU for non-essential airlines to isolate it as much as possible and turn it into a secured quarantine area in order to keep the best possible oversight while reducing the risk of uncontrolled spreading even further when passengers mingle in the terminal and use common facilities there: I think the world can do without Brussels being served by charter airlines or airlines like for instance Easyjet, but I am not so sure we can ever get this epidemic under control if everybody simply runs away from the problem like there are doing now, because then Ebola will definitely reach us in Europe, if needed on foot!
Remember the Spanish influenza spreading the entire world from Alaska to Australia exactly a century ago? Not a single victim took the plane in 1918, so the idea you are safe if you cut off all direct air links, isn't a realistic starting point.

[Flanker2]

Well Inquirer, you could argue that the so-called SN fans are also the only ones to be cheering for SN to continue flights to Ebola land.

Yes, an airline can subject passengers to medical tests if the pax sign a paper that says they agree to be subjected to it.
I don't think that it's the duty of the government to organise and pay for that, especially if only one airline in the whole world is taking the risk. It's not for the government to pay for risks that corporations take.
But if the government supports SN's position to continue flights, it's their duty to monitor the situation and make sure SN checks every enterig passenger.

If we say that air travel isn't going to stop Ebola from spreading, you are wrong. Ebola is much less contagious thanks to the awareness around it. It's a disease that can be contained by stopping air travel. Remains to be seen how many people this doctor gave the virus to before he can get isolated.

The WHO should organise charters if they want help and support to ocntinue going in.

This doctor should also have respected the incubation period before returning to Belgium, or have taken a test as soon as he was back.

I think that it's no coincidence if Belgium becomes the first country in Europe where Ebola became symptomatic and spread. Its doctors, airline and government apparently refuse to accept that there is a high risk in the disease. What a bunch of idiots.

[convair]

Well Inquirer, you could argue that the so-called SN fans are also the only ones to be cheering for SN to continue flights to Ebola land.

Yes, an airline can subject passengers to medical tests if the pax sign a paper that says they agree to be subjected to it.
I don't think that it's the duty of the government to organise and pay for that, especially if only one airline in the whole world is taking the risk. It's not for the government to pay for risks that corporations take.
But if the government supports SN's position to continue flights, it's their duty to monitor the situation and make sure SN checks every enterig passenger.

If we say that air travel isn't going to stop Ebola from spreading, you are wrong. Ebola is much less contagious thanks to the awareness around it. It's a disease that can be contained by stopping air travel. Remains to be seen how many people this doctor gave the virus to before he can get isolated.

The WHO should organise charters if they want help and support to ocntinue going in.

This doctor should also have respected the incubation period before returning to Belgium, or have taken a test as soon as he was back.

I think that it's no coincidence if Belgium becomes the first country in Europe where Ebola became symptomatic and spread. Its doctors, airline and government apparently refuse to accept that there is a high risk in the disease. What a bunch of idiots.

First of all, I'm not cheering SN to do anything; I just respect their decision.
Second, it's not for you to decide what SN should do regarding the protection of the belgian/european population; that's the job of the authorities. As far as I know, there is currently no ban/restriction on travel from these (Ebola) countries to Europe. If the authorities decide there is an important risk, they will/should organize the screening you request; that's the usual practice everywhere in the world.
Obviously paranoia does not help sound thinking!

[Flanker2]

In the meanwhile, the comments on hln.be:

Ben Hetbeu
Het is onbegrijpelijk dat men sn brussels als enige op die besmette regio laat vliegen. De kassa is daar wel leeg, maar snel winstbejag met risico voor de volksgezondheid?

ijsbereke
Ik begrijp dat het niet slecht is om de onderzoeken hier ook voort te zetten en mensen te behandelen. Het beleid van Sn Brussels is echter gericht op geld. Mocht er nu iemand in Brussel landen zonder enige alarmsignalen is het hek van de dam in zulk dichtbevolkt gebied. Schande vind ik het.

tom 35
En in brussel blijven ze doen of hun neus bloed. . SN die blijft vliegen op die landen puur uit eigen winstbejag is onbegrijpelijk. Dat er daar niet wordt in gegrepen is een schande. Die eneman kan ondertussen al .. tig anderen hebben aangstoken die opneiuw weer ... tig anderen aansteken. . En de boer die ploegde voor. . Wanneer gaan ze nu is handelen in brussel..... . Wij zouden het eerste westerse land zijn waar ebola dan opduikt, goed bezig..

Just to clarify, I didn't write any of these and I don't know who these people are.
But SN is not going to win in popularity in its home market if it becomes clear in the coming weeks that they contributed to the spreading of the disease.

[convair]

Everyone is entitled to her/his own opinion but, again, it's up to the authorities (Belgian and/or European) to determine if the risk is too high and, if so, take the necessary measures to control/avoid it.