Aviation and the Ebola epidemic in West-Africa

[RoMax]

You forget that there are various stages with Ebola, there are stages it can be extremely contagious, which is why it is so dangerous for people actually working with these patients. But a person in that stage of Ebola is not even close to the state you should be in when flying, you are way too sick for that. And even if you would try, they will prevent you from boarding an aircraft.

It all starts with high fever and that's the moment you start to be contagious (and also the only stage of the disease you might not be detected as an infected person), but still 'limited' and some simply (though very important) measures will prevent infecting other people, but the worse it gets, the more contagious it will become. And as a normal passenger, you don't get into contact with body fluids of other passengers, even diseases which spread through the air are usually known to threat only nearby rows (of course that depends on which virus you are talking about and the way the a/c system is working).

Btw, it might not be nice to say this, but who says this nurse followed all measures at all times? Maybe she felt compassion with him and the way he was treated. Maybe she crossed a line, didn't follow the rules as strict as requested.

[airazurxtror]

Has anyone been contaminated on an SN flight?

Not yet.

[Passenger]

Has anyone been contaminated on an SN flight?

Not yet.

Correct answer is : no.

(same applies for Royal Air Maroc and Türkish Airlines)

[airazurxtror]

The safety of our customers, crew and ground teams is always our top priority.

Don't you think that Brussels Airlines has the same priorities and does all what is possible to safeguard the health of its crew and passengers?

No idea.
Obviously, British Airways and Brussels Airways have different opinions as regards the best means of preserving "the safety of (their) customers, crew and ground teams".

[Inquirer]

No idea.
Obviously, British Airways and Brussels Airways have different opinions as regards the best means of preserving "the safety of (their) customers, crew and ground teams".

As with everything and everybody, the opinion of an airline is dependent on the consequences of them handling in accordance with it: in this perspective, it's noteworthy to remember how British (or in fact any other airline) didn't cancel their Asian flights during the SARS crisis for instance despite this being a far more contageous virus (airborn), and how it is a guaranteed certainty that no airline is going to halt serving Spain, even if it's confirmed that there's an open infection source in Madrid for instance. Or do you think Iberia will close down, ryanair pull out of Spain completely and all tour operators head to Turkey in stead in a couple of weeks? of course not. All of them will say there's no risk and all possible measures are taken to protect the safety of passengers and crew.

[RoMax]

As with everything and everybody, the opinion of an airline is dependent on the consequences of them handling in accordance with it: in this perspective, it's noteworthy to remember how British (or in fact any other airline) didn't cancel their Asian flights during the SARS crisis for instance despite this being a far more contageous virus (airborn)

True, demand to BA's two destiantions there, Freetown and Monrovia, is lower (mainly southbound flights) due to Ebola. Both destinations have extremely limited importance in BA's complete network and will have little or no influence on BA's balance sheet if they stop flying there. So BA acts as the "safe" and "responsible" airline, while it is nothing more than a commercial decision. Imagine it wouldn't be Freetown/Monrovia, but Lagos or Johannesburg, that would be already a different story. The SARS outbreak is actually quite a good example.

[airazurxtror]

True, demand to BA's two destiantions there, Freetown and Monrovia, is lower (mainly southbound flights) due to Ebola. Both destinations have extremely limited importance in BA's complete network and will have little or no influence on BA's balance sheet if they stop flying there. So BA acts as the "safe" and "responsible" airline, while it is nothing more than a commercial decision.

If one follows you, British Airways act not according to a safe and responsible attitude, but just follow commercial décisions, minding only their balance sheet.
Don't you think that one could say exactly the same about Brussels Airlines (whose balance sheet is much worse) ?
I thought so - that "humanitarian" excuse is all poppycock.

[FlightMate]

I think they are indeed all taking commercial decisions before safety concerns.

It's all about weighting profits against risk.

If the airlines are to be taken liable in case the epidemic spreads to another country, you can be sure they'll stop flying there, or they will have to buy very expensive insurance.

During SARS, airlines reduced their number of flights (CX even almost halved its network), but only because less people were flying to Hong Kong, not because "safety is number one priority"

For SN and RAM, I guess the money is too good to pass on. While for the others, the risk of having bad press if a sick passenger gets on board supersedes the possible gain.

I actually feel sorry for United who seem to suffer from their codeshare, without having gained much.

[Inquirer]

I think they are indeed all taking commercial decisions before safety concerns.

That's what commerce is all about.

Just 2 days ago, I kept asking Sean for a clear yes or no answer on halting all Ryanair flights to Morocco in the light of there having been at least one, and possibly more (hidden) cases, and yet despite it being 'just' Morocco, the answer came very reluctantly and only after a few evasive replies.
I won't even try to get an answer on Spain, which is pivotal.
We all know the answer.

And in fact, it really doesn't matter, because the point is diseases spread also without aviation: they have been doing so ever since the creation of life on our planet.

[sean1982]

Yesterday I kept beating Sean for an answer on halting Ryanair flights to morocco in the light of there having been at least one, and possibly more (hidden) cases, and despite it being 'just' Morocco, the answer came very reluctantly and only after a few evasive replies.
I won't even try to get an answer on Spain.
We all know the answer.

Excuse me??? I made it VERY clear that there should be NO commercial traffic to countries where there are uncontained ebola outbreaks REGARDLESS of which airline. Please DO NOT assume that you have figured me out, because clearly you havent!

[Inquirer]

Sir,
in that case may I ask you to also push for a complete end to all commercial flights to Spain, including those of your employer too, because with at least 1 open infection case, that is an ebola country too, now.
Although I see you just slipped a little adjective into your very clear position: "uncontained".
Seems you are in need of some wiggle room all of a sudden?

[sean1982]

No, uncontained means uncontained ..... that very clear isn't it? Not open to interpretation.
We wouldn't even have anything in spain if they hadn't been so foolish to FLY an infected person into the country in the first place

[Inquirer]

By definition, an infection is always uncontained, especially if it happens inside a hospital, I should think?

Anyway, all this is pretty pointless, because what WE think of it, is of no importance.

I can tell you already that when Ebola makes it to Europe (in fact one could agrue it has, given the case of an infection in Spain), no airline is going to stop flying here. Maybe you will resign from your job in that case, that is entirely possible, but your employer will definitely not stop flying, that much is a given, just as nobody stopped flying to Asia when it was hit badly by SARS or Brussels nor Air Maroc aren't quiting those other ebola countries.

[sean1982]

By definition, an infection is always uncontained, especially if it happens inside a hospital, I should think?

Clearly you need to update your definition of uncontained and read up on specialised wards for highly infectious diseases.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola- ... la-n177846

[airazurxtror]

The spread of Ebola to Spain has sent shares in holiday and airline companies tumbling for a second day on fears that the arrival of the virus in Europe will hit travel and tourism.

Marvin Barth, Barclays’s European head of foreign exchange research, said if Ebola became endemic in west Africa and more contagious it would be a greater threat to the world economy and markets than the Sars outbreak of 2003.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... ares-ebola

[Passenger]

We wouldn't even have anything in spain if they hadn't been so foolish to FLY an infected person into the country in the first place

Just like all other "western" ebola infected persons, the Spanish priest was transferred via private medical jet, not via a commercial flight.

There is another case of such medical repat: a NBC cameraman was transferred to the U.S. after being diagnozed ebola in Liberia:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola- ... ka-n219426
and
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola- ... ca-n221156

Meanwhile, he received a blood transfusion from an Amerikan doctor that survived ebola:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ebola- ... po-n220811

[RoMax]

If one follows you, British Airways act not according to a safe and responsible attitude, but just follow commercial décisions, minding only their balance sheet.
Don't you think that one could say exactly the same about Brussels Airlines (whose balance sheet is much worse) ?
I thought so - that "humanitarian" excuse is all poppycock.

I never denied SN has in the first place commercial reasons to continue flying, did I?! SN is taking a small risk, because of the importance of their African routes, others don't want to take that risk because they fear bad publicity.

My point was and still is, those airlines that stopped flying didn't do that because they think it's too dangerous, but because they see declining demand and want to mitigate the risk that a small route brings them bad publicity.

[RoMax]

We wouldn't even have anything in spain if they hadn't been so foolish to FLY an infected person into the country in the first place

"They" is Spain's health system. Just like with infected US citizens, these people are brought back to their own country because that's how a democratic country should act, giving your own citizens the best possible chances on survival! That's also part of the reason why countries don't close their borders for people from these countries, they don't want to stop people going to these countries to help fighting the epidemic and they certainly don't want to prevent their citizens from coming back to their home country.

And as Passenger said, commercial aviation or not, has nothing to do with the infected people in Spain because not a single one of them took a commercial flight.

[airazurxtror]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29543956

The first person to be diagnosed with Ebola within the US has died, Texas hospital officials have said.

Thomas Eric Duncan, who caught the virus in his native Liberia, was being kept in isolation in a Dallas hospital and receiving experimental drugs.

"It is with profound sadness and heartfelt disappointment that we must inform you of the death of Thomas Eric Duncan this morning at 7:51 am," a spokesman said in a statement.

Duncan, a Liberian national, tested positive in Dallas, Texas, on 30 September, 10 days after arriving on a flight from Monrovia via Brussels.

[sn-remember]

What is crucial now is to try limit the spreading of the epidemic from its epicenter.
As long it is still geographically contained, it is hopefully possible to limit the impact.
Already some alarming news coming from certain nearby Westafrican countries such as Nigeria report some isolated (?) cases.
As everybody knows, containment would be difficult to achieve within the EU (or even Marocco) as contacts are permanent and close, that's why it's irrelevant to compare.
I think RAM as SN as any other carrier operating from the epicenter need to coordinate with some respected international health authority in order to implement the necessary sanitary checks and transportation measures deemed appropriate.
Or they should close operations altogether.