11–20 of 364 posts
"asking for the rules to be suspended during the outbreak to prevent further environmental and economic damage" It's not like having those planes full of people results in less environmental damage.
They are paying for the fuel. So?
They are paying for the fuel. So?
A non-original idea is to create a market for landing slots.
This seems like a sensible rule that leads to unwanted behavior in this unforeseen case. Would make sense to grant a temporary exemption.
> This seems like a sensible rule Does it?! Why would you ever want to motivate an airline to fly just for the sake of it? Whether there's a pandemic or not it seems like a bad thing.
EDIT: I found the EU page outlining the regulation here: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/airports/slots_en
EDIT 2: This appears to be a global practice: https://www.iata.org/en/policy/slots/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems like a sensible rule Does it?! Why would you ever want to motivate an airline to fly just for the sake of it? Whether there's a pandemic or not it seems like a bad thing.
Because otherwise airlines can buy up all the slots so competitors can't operate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This seems like a sensible rule Does it?! Why would you ever want to motivate an airline to fly just for the sake of it? Whether there's a pandemic or not it seems like a bad thing.
Because on the flip side, airlines could keep canceling flights on less popular routes when they're not at full capacity (i.e. not/less profitable). That would inconvenience passengers. Under this regulation they could lose that route to a competitor that is more willing to service customers (or can operate at a lower cost). EDIT: I found the EU page outlining the regulation here: https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes…