Korona - Flere nyheter - Curt Lewis

The Aviation Industry Can't Give In to the Temptation to Compete on Safety A jet flying under dark skies and over a storm-tossed ocean was not the best idea for an aircraft advertisement, but in 1999, Airbus was desperate. Its four-engine, 300-seat jetliner, the A340, was losing sales to Boeing's 777 twin engine jet, so some of the European jet maker's less gifted communicators got the bright idea of producing an ad showing exactly this frightening scene, with the caption "If you're over the middle of the Pacific, you want to be in the middle of four engines." Some people might have been scared by this ill-advised ad campaign, but targeted customers-airlines in the market for aircraft-were deeply annoyed. Airbus had violated one of the sacrosanct (if unwritten) rules in aviation: Thou shalt not compete on safety. Airlines and other aviation companies were extremely critical. Gordon Bethune, the respected head of Continental Airlines at the time, told Airbus that the ad "makes it more unlikely we would put our confidence in you or your products." The ad was withdrawn. Bizarrely, Airbus tried a watered-down version of the ad ("A340-4 engines 4 long haul") three years later and was again roundly denounced. Since that ill-fated campaign to raise doubts about the wisdom of twin-engined wide-body planes, the industry has reverted to its previous reluctance to cast stones at each other on safety grounds. Regulators and watchdog groups occasionally call out airlines or manufacturers for transgressions, but their competitors don't try to capitalize on these to gain market share. The primary reason for this is simple: Nobody in the industry wants to scare the flying public. Instead, the consistent message from everyone has been that flying is safe, that regulators have the authority to keep it safe, that the system works. Through the recent 737 Max controversy, nobody in the industry-not Airbus, not airlines that opted not to buy the plane-has alluded to Boeing's problems as part of a sales pitch. Airbus and other manufacturers instead point to lessons learned from past disasters and how this body of knowledge created the safest form of travel yet devised. And I am guessing you have never heard an airline boast of how many millions of people it may have flown without a crash. But this injunction against competing on safety may be sorely tested in the post-COVID-19 era. Following past market shocks, such as 9/11 or the 2008 financial meltdown, global air travel demand fell but recovered quickly, and declined by only 2 to 3 percent on an annual basis, according to the Airline Monitor. COVID-19 has hurt the industry in a far worse way. If we make a miraculous (and not very likely) fourth-quarter recovery, the International Air Transport Association says demand this year will fall 48 percent worldwide from 2019. As of this writing, it's down about 95 percent, according to the Transportation Security Administration. As the pandemic eases (I hope) and with it travel restrictions, quarantines, and lockdowns, people will gradually resume flying. They might do so nervously, and tentatively. Most of them won't fear engine failures, pilot error, or suicidal terrorists. They will fear one another, eyeing every fellow passenger as a potential pathogen host. And they will fear their tray tables, their armrests, and all other surfaces that could harbor the virus over the course of a few flights. Hence the conundrum. Airlines are reflexively tribal when it comes to closing ranks around the safety of flying, at least what we traditionally think of as safety. Airlines are also accustomed to competing against one another on the basis of comfort and spacing between seating; business class offerings on long flights in recent years have boasted of separate compartments, and screens between seats. Now suddenly, competing on the basis of how isolated your business class pod is, or the width of your coach class seat, can easily seem like a safety and health claim-a knock on the competition as being not just less comfortable, but less safe. Or take competing technologies and techniques airlines are embracing to deep clean and disinfect their planes. Will it be fair game for one airline to champion its approach over another's? The temptation will arise not only because of the blurred line between safety and comfort, but also out of desperation. The entire airline industry system will likely suffer from serious overcapacity for years to come-too many carriers with too many jets chasing too few passengers. How far will airlines be willing to go to reassure these passengers? More worryingly, how far might they go to cast doubt on their competitors' safety standards? This could all start at the bottom end of the market. Because ultra-low-cost airlines-think Ryanair or Spirit, among many others-depend on passenger seating density to achieve low fares, they will be quick to advertise any remediation they take to accommodate concerns about spacing, such as filtration systems or higher jet cleaning frequencies. If they can't advertise these kinds of remedial pandemic safety methods, consumers may not trust them anytime soon. It's one thing to sign up for an armrest battle with a seatmate spilling over into your seat in the best of times to save a few bucks; it's an entirely different calculus in a pandemic-focused environment. At the other end of the aviation spectrum, we might see business jet charter providers, or other private aviation market players, break the code by suggesting this is no time to be boarding planes with hundreds of other passengers (and using large public terminals). The cost of private aviation means it only competes directly with scheduled air service for a very select clientele. But it would still be an unwelcome development if private services directly advertised their virtues with references to the pandemic. The reasons the aviation industry hasn't historically competed on safety are still valid: Implying that competitors are less safe undermines passenger confidence in the entire system and will be a lose-lose over time. Instead, the industry needs to work together to ensure safety around clear, shared standards. Whatever measures are adapted for passenger safety-minimum space requirements, air filtration and disinfectant techniques, new seating configurations, cabin cleaning intervals, boarding procedure, pre-flight passenger testing, etc.-need to apply to all airlines equally. If an airline wants to exceed these standards, that's fine. It can do so quietly without trying to upcharge for them or gain market share as a result, much like how airlines currently don't boast of how much training their pilots may get above what's legally required. The only question is where these shared standards come from. The International Air Transport Association and the International Civil Aviation Organization may play a role here, as might national industry groups such as Airlines for America. The industry may approach the problem collectively. Or perhaps ad hoc groups will emerge to propose answers to specific safety challenges, such as this proposal for preflight passenger testing. Finding common ground is a far better idea than letting individual entities develop their own solutions (and inevitably using these solutions for a competitive edge). Without such universal standards, the COVID-19 pandemic's devastation of commercial aviation could prove to be deeper and lasting than it needs to be. And if anyone in the industry tries to gain short-term profit or market share by promising passengers higher safety standards, they will deserve the same scorn Airbus's A340 ad was met with in 1999.

Allegiant Air to provide masks, gloves and wipes to passengers LAS VEGAS (KLAS) - Allegiant Air is now joining other airlines in adding more safety measures by offering masks to its passengers. In an email sent to customers Sunday, the airline, headquartered in Las Vegas, announced a new health and safety program. Beginning this week, Allegiant will provide personal health and safety kits to every passenger that boards their flights. Kits include: single-use face mask pair of non-latex disposable gloves cleaning wipes Crew members will also be required to wear masks on board. The announcement comes after other airlines, such as JetBlue, announced earlier in the week that they would require their passengers to wear masks. "Our commitment to you includes cleaning and disinfecting our aircraft to the highest possible standard, exceeding guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and from Airbus, our aircraft manufacturer. And we don't just clean - we protect all surfaces, routinely treating our planes with an advanced antimicrobial protectant that kills viruses, germs and bacteria on contact for 14 days." SCOTT SHELDON, ALLEGIANT CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER The airline also notes the air quality and purity in their aircrafts exceeds HEPA standards due to a state-of-the-art VOC filtration. Back in March, Allegiant Air announced the reduction of their flight schedule "significantly" due to the impact coronavirus had had across the nation. "The coming weeks and months will undoubtedly bring many changes, as communities across the country begin the process of safely re-opening, and events and occasions we've all been looking forward to are rescheduled. As your plans develop, please know we'll be with you on your journey, seeing you safely on your way."

Hong Kong Airport Is Testing Full-body Disinfectant Machines That Clean Passengers' Clothing and Bodies The machine sanitizes anyone who steps inside in 40 seconds. In an effort to prevent further spread of coronavirus, Hong Kong International Airport is testing a new machine that would effectively sanitize passengers head to toe. The CLeanTech machine acts as a full-body disinfectant, killing bacteria on people's bodies and clothing. The cleaning, which takes 40 seconds, uses an antimicrobial coating on the interior surface of the machine as well as sanitizing spray for "instant disinfection," according to a press release shared by the airport. The machine is kept at "negative pressure to prevent cross-contamination between the outside and inside environment." Anyone who steps inside first goes through a temperature check. The machine is currently being used by airport staff who specifically handle public health issues for arriving passengers there. "The safety and wellbeing of airport staff and passengers are always our first priority," Steven Yiu, the deputy director for service delivery of the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA), said in a statement. "Although air traffic has been impacted by the pandemic, the AA spares no effort in ensuring that the airport is a safe environment for all users. We will continue to look into new measures to enhance our cleaning and disinfection work." More than 1,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 have been recorded in Hong Kong, according to Johns Hopkins University, which tracks the virus. In addition to the full-body machine, the Hong Kong airport has introduced other cleaning measures to assure passengers. The AA said it was piloting an invisible antimicrobial coating sprayed in all passenger facilities, including high-touch surfaces like check-in kiosks and baggage carts. And cleaning robots equipped with ultraviolet light and air sterilizers are being deployed to public areas. According to the AA, the robots can sterilize up to 99.99 percent of bacteria in the air and on surfaces in 10 minutes. The cleaning efforts come as air travel has been severely stymied by the spread of coronavirus and changes will likely be necessary going forward to assuage passengers who fly.

FACE MASKS TO BECOME COMPULSORY FOR AIR TRAVEL Despite questionable medical benefits, passengers will be told to wear face coverings Face coverings are set to become mandatory for airline passengers - even though medical opinion is sceptical of the potential benefits. Airlines and airports are demanding that internationally agreed measures are in place when aviation starts to recover from the near-standstill caused by the coronavirus pandemic. The industry fears that many prospective passengers will be deterred from travelling if they believe flying places them at risk of contracting the virus from fellow travellers. The hope is that the universal use of face coverings will restore confidence. At present, passenger numbers at airports and on most flights are so low that maintaining separation is generally achievable - though not at the security search area, passport control and departure gates. When numbers increase, imposing a two-metre social-distancing rule would be virtually impossible in an airport or plane without destroying the economics of aviation. Heathrow airport is calling for a "common international standard for safe air travel". The UK government, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency and the International Civil Aviation Organisation have yet to decide on precautions for flying while Covid-19 remains a threat. Public Health England is unconvinced about the public use of face coverings, saying: "Face masks play a very important role in clinical settings, such as hospitals, but there's very little evidence of widespread benefit from their use outside of these clinical settings." The World Health Organisation (WHO) goes one step further and cautions: "The wide use of masks by healthy people in the community setting is not supported by current evidence and carries uncertainties and critical risk." WHO warns that wearing a mask can create a "false sense of security, leading to potentially less adherence to other preventive measures such as physical distancing and hand hygiene". Nevertheless, increasingly impatient airlines and airports are set to impose their own rules on hygiene. Manchester Airports Group (MAG), which owns Manchester, East Midlands and Stansted, will this week set out what it calls "various new safety measures" to deal with coronavirus. The Independent understands the pilot programme will include a requirement for passengers to wear non-medical face-coverings while passing through the airport. A spokesperson for MAG said of the measures: "They are designed to help the small number of passengers currently making essential journeys through our airports feel safer and more confident about flying at this time. "We will be providing confirmation of exact guidance for passengers, to allow them to fully prepare for their journey, before the measures are put in place." An increasing number of airlines have made wearing a face covering compulsory. Canada insists all passengers must carry a suitable covering, though it is not compulsory to wear it during the entire journey. Some airlines are also leaving middle seats free to keep passengers further apart. But Ryanair - Europe's biggest budget airline - has criticised the concept. "This empty middle seat measure is wholly ineffective and does not comply with two-metre social-distancing rules," a spokesperson said. "We need effective health measures that work, such as wearing face masks and/or monitoring body temperature." But the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control describes temperature checks at airports as "not very effective in preventing the spread of the virus, especially when people do not have symptoms". The organisation says: "It is generally considered more useful to provide those arriving at airports with clear information explaining what to do if they develop symptoms after arrival." Separately, passengers on Eurostar will be required to wear face coverings from the start of service on Monday, 4 May. The international train operator said: "Passengers must wear a face mask or face covering at our stations and on board in line with guidelines announced by the French and Belgian governments. "Any type of mask is suitable as long as it effectively covers your nose and mouth. "If you don't have a mask you may be refused travel on our services. We'd like to advise you that fines may be imposed in France and Belgium if you're not wearing a mask."