From: Mxsmanic on
Tom P writes:

> Moreover, the ash will get evenly distributed throughout the northern
> hemisphere, so if the outbreak continues, it'll be goodbye air travel
> for a while.

At some point, the ash is so sparse that it is no longer a hazard. There's
often ash in the atmosphere in very small amounts, since there are always
volcanos erupting somewhere.

The problem is that nobody knows how much ash is too much ash. The amount
hovering over Europe clearly is too much, but how little must there be before
it's safe?

KLM is flying a few bogus test flights right now so that it can prove that
risking the lives of passengers is justified in order to save the airlines
bottom line.
From: erilar on
In article <82uk9qFq7dU1(a)mid.individual.net>,
S Viemeister <firstname(a)lastname.oc.ku> wrote:

> On 4/17/2010 2:13 PM, Hatunen wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 12:14:25 +0200, Martin<me(a)address.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:27:31 +0200, Wolfgang Schwanke<see(a)sig.nature>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"<evgmsop(a)earthlink.net>
> >>> wrote in news:hq81gq04tv(a)news6.newsguy.com:
> >>>
> >>>> Interesting that the news story mentions the effects of an
> >>>> 1821 eruption lasting for two years - that was before jet aircraft. How
> >>>> might a similar situation affect worldwide air travel, now?
> >>>
> >>> That was probably about the climatic effect. It's unlikely that
> >>> aviation will be affected longer than a couple of days.
> >>
> >> It is already longer than a couple of days :o)
> >
> > Apparently, the same volcano erupted for two years in 1821...
> >
> I'm trying not to think about that - I'm scheduled to fly into Heathrow
> in a little over a week.

Even worse: I'm supposed to fly into Frankfurt Wednesday morning.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist


http://www.mosaictelecom.com/~erilarlo
From: Mxsmanic on
Wolfgang Schwanke writes:

> But if the risk is just damage to the
> plane without actual risk to passenger safety, I wouldn't personally
> worry much. In that case it boils down to economics.

Unless the damage were repaired after every flight (i.e., replacing engines),
it would be cumulative, and eventually an airplane would crash. Would you
want to play that sort of Russian roulette?
From: Mxsmanic on
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) writes:

> And how soon before the situation affects the worldwide economy?
> Passenger travel poses a serious enough problem, considering how many
> business travelers are affected, but much of the world's freight moves
> by air nowadays, too! (As though the economic situation were not
> already bad enough.)

The world may discover that a lot of things really don't absolutely have to be
transported by air.
From: d4g4h4 on
EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) <evgmsop(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

> David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*) wrote:
> > Tom P <werotizy(a)freent.dd> wrote:
> >
> >> Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> >>> "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)" <evgmsop(a)earthlink.net>
> >>> wrote in news:hq81gq04tv(a)news6.newsguy.com:
> >>>
> >>>> Interesting that the news story mentions the effects of an
> >>>> 1821 eruption lasting for two years - that was before jet aircraft. How
> >>>> might a similar situation affect worldwide air travel, now?
> >>> That was probably about the climatic effect. It's unlikely that
> >>> aviation will be affected longer than a couple of days.
> >>>
> >> Looking at flightradar24 it's staggering to see the impact, the only
> >> traffic in the air is in Turkey and the Western Mediterranean.
> >
> > It's pretty startling looking up at the cloudless skies in Manchester
> > and not seeing a single vapour trail...
>
> And how soon before the situation affects the worldwide economy?

I'm not really worried about it yet.

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate
www.davidhorne.net (email address on website)
"[Do you think the world learned anything from the first
world war?] No. They never learn." -Harry Patch (1898-2009)