Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Flights cancelled at UK airports due to ATC issue

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 126 posts

Re: Flights cancelled at UK airports due to ATC issue

#101

Post by dlcarrier »

dewey wrote: post #31
dlcarrier wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ocean liners use several times more fuel per passenger mile than airliners.

Thats a bit of an odd comparison as they are in pretty different categories and don’t really compete against each other.

They don't in this case, because there's plenty of other airlines offering competing service, but when disruptions do prevent air travel, for example with the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull, travelers cruising to their destination will burn far more fuel.

Granted, the difference in emissions of either form of traveling are absolutely nothing compared to the emissions of Eyjafjallajökull itself.

Re: Flights cancelled at UK airports due to ATC issue

#102

Post by Lagoon3384_SWE »

small_model wrote: post #36

Wonder if any of this code was outsourced to India 'cut costs'

ofc this is downvoted on this site (by Indians and naive white western people)

Sweden has changed so much in only 15-20 years, I can remember what it was like and I weep.

Re: Flights cancelled at UK airports due to ATC issue

#103

Post by illwrks »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #76
illwrks wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may be right. As a direct result of the NATS issue perhaps not, but any second order issues once that is resolve you might be within scope.

Almost certainly not. The legislation says: "An operating air carrier shall not be obliged to pay compensation [...], if it can prove that the cancellation is caused by extraordinary circumstances which could not have been avoided even if all reasonable measures had been taken." That gets them off the hook for even second order effects. No harm throwing in a claim though, there's no penalty for having a claim turned…

Fair point.

Re: Flights cancelled at UK airports due to ATC issue

#104

Post by tialaramex »

tcfhgj wrote: post #92
MaxBarraclough wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not uncommon to travel for medical care, or for medics to travel for work.

If you set traveling and flying equal, I very much think it is.

The US has a bunch of highly paid medics who fly every week or in some cases every day because they work somewhere with enough population to justify their practice but they choose to live somewhere hundreds of miles away, and at their income it's actually practical to have a small private jet. It's probably only a small minority of the most highly paid (so e.g. cosmetic surgeons) where this makes sense but it's more than a handful of people.

Likewise because it's big and a lot of it is empty the US does more medical flights than a country like the UK, if a Wyoming multi-millionaire needs urgent treatment in a Californian hospital you're not going to load him into a truck and drive there, you use a plane. This is relatively high risk commercial air travel, it's not quite as dangerous as most GA but there's some get-there-itis because you don't want to abort the flight and let down your patient, and you're often flying one-off journeys whereas the people doing scheduled passenger travel it's like a bus, same route, every time, regular as clockwork, and if things go wrong you just scratch the flight and no harm, no foul.

Re: Flights cancelled at UK airports due to ATC issue

#105

Post by [deleted] »

junofan wrote: post #28
illwrks wrote: post #8

For anyone stranded, read up on UK261/EU261 and your airlines application process to be reimbursed. As far as I’m aware it’s not likely to happen automatically, you need to initiate the process (and record audio/video just in case proof is needed)

Eh, I tried in 2017 with BA when their system went down and received nothing. There was magically a Black Lives Matter protest at Gatwick (or maybe LCY, can’t remember) on the same day, which isn’t covered apparently.

[deleted]

Re: Flights cancelled at UK airports due to ATC issue

#106

Post by stockresearcher »

dlcarrier wrote: post #101
dewey wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats a bit of an odd comparison as they are in pretty different categories and don’t really compete against each other.

They don't in this case, because there's plenty of other airlines offering competing service, but when disruptions do prevent air travel, for example with the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull, travelers cruising to their destination will burn far more fuel. Granted, the difference in emissions of either form of traveling are absolutely nothing compared to the emissions of Eyjafjallajökull itself.

The speed of the ship makes a huge difference in fuel consumption. Cruise ships/ocean liners usually go as fast as practicable, which leads to terrible fuel efficiency. Reducing speed from 20 knots to 15 knots may cut fuel consumption in half or more.

One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of comparisons you’ll see will have, for example, a 5-day journey by cruise ship compared with an airline flight covering the same distance. Usually measured not in fuel consumed but carbon emissions. Ok, but shouldn’t the more accurate comparison be a 5-day cruise compared to an airplane trip plus 5 days in a hotel?

Re: Flights cancelled at UK airports due to ATC issue

#107

Post by GolfPopper »

exogenousdata wrote: post #66
basisword wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you want them to say? It's an ATC issue. The airline don't know when it'll be fixed and can't do much until it is.

“We’re sorry, but our business model precludes timely responses in times of system stress. As a reminder, our shareholders are our primary concern (by law) and staffing trained humans to handle in customer support during unexpected surges isn’t something that can be supported while also funding the €0.05 per share quarterly dividend paid to British Airways share holders on June 29th of this year. We are not in a rush…

This is true for so much of the human/corporation interface. I think it is so frustrating because it forces us to confront some major cognitive dissonance: we increasingly live in a world that isn't designed for us. It's designed by the corporations, acting under much different pressures.

Sure, you can say humans made these decisions. But at scale, that seems like saying our cells choose what we do.

Re: Flights cancelled at UK airports due to ATC issue

#108

Post by Daviey »

ktallett wrote: post #9
illwrks wrote: post #8

For anyone stranded, read up on UK261/EU261 and your airlines application process to be reimbursed. As far as I’m aware it’s not likely to happen automatically, you need to initiate the process (and record audio/video just in case proof is needed)

You won't get compensation for ATC issues, but you will be reimbursed.

Delays yes... But once an airline cancels the flight, they become liable.

Re: Flights cancelled at UK airports due to ATC issue

#110

Post by IshKebab »

tcfhgj wrote: post #70
IshKebab wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "necessary". Good luck.

the flight doesn't contribute to preventing harm to anyone

That is a super weird definition. If you only want to allow that you're going to have to ban basically everything.
Post reply on HN