Coronavirus: Future of airlines and airports

cactustwirly · 6 Apr 2020

Bald Rick said:
Oh they won’t leave Gatwick, far from it. However passengers will be more tempted to use Luton from London when it’s effectively 15 minutes quicker than it is today, and much easier as well. Indeed for many London ‘start’ points, Luton will in future be the quickest and easiest airport to get to; not least anywhere that’s walking distance to a Thameslink station from Farringdon northwards, which by extension will include many Elizabeth line stations. Another factor is that the Luton DART will open righ tin the middle of the construction works for the Gatwick station rebuild, with Gatwick Express services begin reduced, so there will be a further incentive to try Luton, particularly for regular travellers. Therefore, the equilibrium of choice between Luton and Gatwick, where that exists, will shift slightly more towards Luton than currently.

What this could mean is that for the most popular Easyjet routes from Gatwick (Amsterdam, Geneva, Berlin, Rome, Nice, Milan, Madrid, Malaga, Barcelona, Palma, UK domestic - all of which have at least 4 flights a day from Gatwick) there may be a slight reduction in frequency, with a corresponding increase at Luton. Even if it means just 10-12 Gatwick flights daily swapping to Luton, (3-4 aircraft being relocated) that is worth a lot in slot value at Gatwick.

Of course it might just be that growth at Gatwick flattens, and increases rapidly at Luton instead.

I still don't see it, I recognise Luton is expanding and would be more convenient than it is now.
But it is still seen as a small "low cost" airport. Whereas Gatwick is a much bigger "higher class" airport, although not quite as precidious as Heathrow. Especially since easyJet's home, the North Terminal is in the middle of being refurbished.

Gatwick doesn't just serve London, it is also the main Airport for the South Coast, serving places such as Brighton, Eastbourne, Ashford, Reading, Guildford etc.

RailUK Forums

Ianno87 · 6 Apr 2020

cactustwirly said:
I still don't see it, I recognise Luton is expanding and would be more convenient than it is now.
But it is still seen as a small "low cost" airport. Whereas Gatwick is a much bigger "higher class" airport, although not quite as precidious as Heathrow. Especially since easyJet's home, the North Terminal is in the middle of being refurbished.

Gatwick doesn't just serve London, it is also the main Airport for the South Coast, serving places such as Brighton, Eastbourne, Ashford, Reading, Guildford etc.

Presumably it will also depend on how people "latch on" to the Luton DART and subtle feel of making Luton access slightly "easier"; initially at least this wouldn't play much of a conscious part of the airport people choose to travel from; it may have a more gradual effect over time, boosted by Luton's marketing (e.g. tube posters etc) championing the better access.

TheEdge · 6 Apr 2020

Chester1 said:
he single aisle vs wide body suitability debate does seem to be the aviation sectors version of mid door train snobbery. Vast majority of passengers just care about price first and seat pitch second, how many aisles the plane has is of no interest. If the market shrinks a little then it might see more orders.

I don't know. I flew to Cyprus once on a Thomas Cook A320 and once on a BA 767. I know it's not exactly like for like but I've flown on BA A320s so at least have an idea that the Thomas Cook offering wasn't too far off BA economy. And it was a much more comfortable and pleasant flight on the 767 than on the 320. Its not just the seat pitch. A narrow body feels exactly like that, squished into a tube and claustrophobic, at least widebodies tend to be airier and feel less cramped, and that will make a big difference on a long flight like off into the continental US.

Bald Rick · 6 Apr 2020

cactustwirly said:
I still don't see it, I recognise Luton is expanding and would be more convenient than it is now.
But it is still seen as a small "low cost" airport. Whereas Gatwick is a much bigger "higher class" airport, although not quite as precidious as Heathrow. Especially since easyJet's home, the North Terminal is in the middle of being refurbished.

Gatwick doesn't just serve London, it is also the main Airport for the South Coast, serving places such as Brighton, Eastbourne, Ashford, Reading, Guildford etc.

Put it like this.

You need to go to Barcelona from London. You look up the Easyjet website, and can see daily flights from Southend (1) Luton (3) and Gatwick (6). The choice you make between those airports will be your personal view of the trade off between convenience (time, changes, comfort) of getting to them, how the time of the flight suits your needs, and the price of getting to the airport and the flight itself.

For some of the million plus people who fly with Easyjet from Luton or Gatwick to Barcelona each year, it will be a marginal call, and some of those marginal calls will choose Gatwick because it is slightly better for them - perhaps Gatwick is slightly quicker, or perhaps they don’t like using the shuttle bus at Luton. But when the DART opens those who marginally decide to use Gatwick are more likely to choose Luton. (As an aside, it is noticeable that fares from Gatwick to common Easyjet destinations are usually higher than those from Luton, sometimes much more so, some of which will be due to highe airport charges).

Of course, Gatwick serves a wide area, and many people will still have a clear preference for it (and so does Luton). But those who have a genuine choice will have the balance of that choice tilted slightly more in favour of Luton. Even if, over time, it is only 5-10% of people, that’s still quite a few flights.

In concept, getting from most parts of central London to the terminal at Luton will be no different to getting to the north terminal at Gatwick - get yourself to a Thameslink station or Victoria (Gatwick) / St Pancras (Luton), take a 30ish minute train journey, easy transfer to a shuttle for a couple of minutes, arrive at terminal.

cactustwirly · 6 Apr 2020

Bald Rick said:
Put it like this.

You need to go to Barcelona from London. You look up the Easyjet website, and can see daily flights from Southend (1) Luton (3) and Gatwick (6). The choice you make between those airports will be your personal view of the trade off between convenience (time, changes, comfort) of getting to them, how the time of the flight suits your needs, and the price of getting to the airport and the flight itself.

For some of the million plus people who fly with Easyjet from Luton or Gatwick to Barcelona each year, it will be a marginal call, and some of those marginal calls will choose Gatwick because it is slightly better for them - perhaps Gatwick is slightly quicker, or perhaps they don’t like using the shuttle bus at Luton. But when the DART opens those who marginally decide to use Gatwick are more likely to choose Luton. (As an aside, it is noticeable that fares from Gatwick to common Easyjet destinations are usually higher than those from Luton, sometimes much more so, some of which will be due to highe airport charges).

Of course, Gatwick serves a wide area, and many people will still have a clear preference for it (and so does Luton). But those who have a genuine choice will have the balance of that choice tilted slightly more in favour of Luton. Even if, over time, it is only 5-10% of people, that’s still quite a few flights.

In concept, getting from most parts of central London to the terminal at Luton will be no different to getting to the north terminal at Gatwick - get yourself to a Thameslink station or Victoria (Gatwick) / St Pancras (Luton), take a 30ish minute train journey, easy transfer to a shuttle for a couple of minutes, arrive at terminal.

That's why easyJet will be adding capacity at Luton from A319s which would otherwise be withdrawn.
They will not be withdrawing slots or aircraft from Gatwick, those are far too valuable, they will either stick to the current routes, or expand with new routes.
Lets not forget they have set up their own travel agency as well, Gatwick is the better airport for that market.

I think you're overestimating the appeal of Luton, it's a glorified shed with a runway, it really doesn't have the appeal of a world class international airport like Gatwick or Heathrow.
easyJet know this, that's their USP, a LCC that uses the main international airports, unlike Ryanair who use the cheaper smaller airports.
I suspect more people will switch from Stansted to Luton than from Gatwick. So we could se a consolidation of easyJet at Luton away from Stansted.

PG · 6 Apr 2020

cactustwirly said:
I think you're overestimating the appeal of Luton, it's a glorified shed with a runway, it really doesn't have the appeal of a world class international airport like Gatwick or Heathrow

Admittedly I haven't flown for over 3 years but another factor against Luton was the horrendous security queues. Given a choice between Luton and Gatwick the latter won hands down.

Bletchleyite · 6 Apr 2020

cactustwirly said:
I think you're overestimating the appeal of Luton, it's a glorified shed with a runway

When was the last time you went there?

Also don't forget that Luton is convenient (mostly by car) for huge swathes of the south Midlands, the Home Counties etc.

cactustwirly · 6 Apr 2020

Bletchleyite said:
Also don't forget that Luton is convenient (mostly by car) for huge swathes of the south Midlands, the Home Counties etc.

Those people aren't going to be using Gatwick though, they're more likely to be using Stansted or Heathrow.

Bald Rick · 6 Apr 2020

PG said:
Admittedly I haven't flown for over 3 years but another factor against Luton was the horrendous security queues. Given a choice between Luton and Gatwick the latter won hands down.

I fly in / out of Luton half a dozen times a year, and haven’t queued for more than 5 minutes at security or immigration for at least 5 years. For my last trip I did my front door to departure lounge in under an hour, and that included 45 minutes getting to Luton Airport parkway station!

cactustwirly said:
They will not be withdrawing slots or aircraft from Gatwick, those are far too valuable, they will either stick to the current routes, or expand with new routes.

..

I think you're overestimating the appeal of Luton, it's a glorified shed with a runway, it really doesn't have the appeal of a world class international airport like Gatwick or Heathrow.
easyJet know this, that's their USP, a LCC that uses the main international airports, unlike Ryanair who use the cheaper smaller airports.
I suspect more people will switch from Stansted to Luton than from Gatwick. So we could se a consolidation of easyJet at Luton away from Stansted.

I’m not explaining myself well. What I’m saying is that if LHR R3 doesn’t happen, slots at Heathrow and Gatwick will become more valuable for long haul. And if there is even a small transfer of ‘London’ demand from Gatwick to Luton, then Easyjet (or Vueling, or Wizz, etc) may decide to sell a small number of the valuable slots at Gatwick as it would be more profitable for them that way. I accept it may not happen.

On the second point, I’m not for one moment suggesting that Luton is a world class airport. However I also don’t believe that there are many passengers in the LCC market who choose which London airport to use on the basis of it being a world class international airport.

Besides, Luton is much, much improved than it was a few years ago - little queuing, good facilities (at least as good as any other european other airport I’ve been to recently), rarely any holds on arrival, and (soon) 30 minutes from London Zone 1 to the terminal.

I do agree that Luton will also take share from Stansted, but Easyjet don’t have much presence at the latter, and their flights from there are mostly to serve the ‘Anglian’ and N/E London market. I do think that Wizz at Luton will make a dent in some of Ryanair’s east European business from Stansted though.

plugwash · 6 Apr 2020

A big question is how long will restrictions on international travel last? if most countries continue to demand two week quarantines (because they think rightly or wrongly that their aproach to covid-19 is better than anyone elses) then airlines are going to find it very hard to make money!

How long can most airlines keep burning money before they go bust? Will most of our current airlines even still exist when this is all over?

Meerkat · 6 Apr 2020

How quick from infection to failing an antigen test?
If it’s very short then they could start testing at check in.

Chester1 · 6 Apr 2020

plugwash said:
A big question is how long will restrictions on international travel last? if most countries continue to demand two week quarantines (because they think rightly or wrongly that their aproach to covid-19 is better than anyone elses) then airlines are going to find it very hard to make money!

How long can most airlines keep burning money before they go bust? Will most of our current airlines even still exist when this is all over?

Meerkat said:
How quick from infection to failing an antigen test?
If it’s very short then they could start testing at check in.

We are probably far past the point where covid-19 can be eradicated without a vaccine, even in Europe. Its about to rip through the developing world and would reinfect us at some point. Its a case of managing it to avoid our healthcare systems being overwhelmed. EU's travel ban exempts Brits and is designed to encourage national governments to loosen their controls, knowing that the EUs external borders are nearly entirely closed. If numbers are under control i.e. European health systems are under strain but not overwhelmed then national travel restrictions could be lifted over the summer. Thats still means long haul services will be almost none existent but short haul within Europe could start to return to normal.

Its one thing sealing borders and locking countries down for a few weeks and another to do it for a few months. There is a limit to the economic damage each country can absorb and southern europes economic pain threshold is significantly lower than the UKs.

FQTV · 6 Apr 2020

Bald Rick said:
My apologies. I thought ‘Sporty’ was the official industry term for a certain type of air stewardess.

It’s interchangeable, but it’s cabin crew, please

.

Chester1 said:
I might be wrong but doesn't an airline need to be operating (or at least not in administration or liquidation) to be able to sell its airport slots? If Virgin Atlantic went bankrupt then Heathrow could reallocate the slots, therefore if Delta want them then they need to buy them off Virgin Atlantic. This would likely fund a consolidation of London services at Gatwick. That might just be delaying the inevitable though.

It’s certainly possible that Virgin could ‘sell’ slots to Delta and then Virgin effectively be allowed to burn that cash and fizzle out. To a certain extent that’s what Connect Airways (part owned by Virgin) did with flybe in mortgaging assets prior to the collapse. Slots are valuable, but in the current scheme of things, possibly not that valuable.

Chester1 said:
Do you think Norwegian will survive this? They have been in trouble for a long time.

A few weeks ago, I’d have most assuredly said ‘no’, but then the Norwegian government pumped just under £250m into them, so they presumably see value in at least the intra-Nordic connectivity that Norwegian provides.

I don’t know what the terms are, but if that’s the government rationale, I wouldn’t be surprised if the airline was told to retrench to being that provider of regional connectivity and close down the Irish, UK etc., operations (Argentina having already gone the distance).

MDB1images · 7 Apr 2020

Apparently over 100 American Airlines flight attendants have contracted coronavirus.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/business/american-airlines-flight-attendants-coronavirus/index.html

The union representing flight attendants for American Airlines says about 100 flight attendants have tested positive for the coronavirus.
The Association of Professional Flight Attendants, representing more than 27,000 flight attendants, disclosed the figure in a message to its membership and said the airline has "agreed to start providing face masks for frontline team members while at work should you choose to wear one." The union said masks are being distributed this week.

JonasB · 8 Apr 2020

FQTV said:
A few weeks ago, I’d have most assuredly said ‘no’, but then the Norwegian government pumped just under £250m into them, so they presumably see value in at least the intra-Nordic connectivity that Norwegian provides.

I don’t know what the terms are, but if that’s the government rationale, I wouldn’t be surprised if the airline was told to retrench to being that provider of regional connectivity and close down the Irish, UK etc., operations (Argentina having already gone the distance).

The Norwegian government has not pumped a lot of money into Norwegian yet. They have set aside 6 billion kroner for airlines based in Norway. 3 billion of that is earmarked for Norwegian, 1.5 billion for SAS and the rest for other airlines (mostly Widerøe). But:

Conditions are being attached to the guarantees, including a minimum 8% equity requirement. While SAS and Widerøe meet this equity criterion, Norwegian will only be provided with an initial NKr300 million until it achieves a reduction in interest and repayments to creditors – at which point another NKr1.2 billion will be made available.

The remaining NKr1.5 billion will be handed over when Norwegian improves its solvency to a “satisfactory level”, says the ministry.

hooverboy · 8 Apr 2020

cactustwirly said:
That's why easyJet will be adding capacity at Luton from A319s which would otherwise be withdrawn.
They will not be withdrawing slots or aircraft from Gatwick, those are far too valuable, they will either stick to the current routes, or expand with new routes.
Lets not forget they have set up their own travel agency as well, Gatwick is the better airport for that market.

I think you're overestimating the appeal of Luton, it's a glorified shed with a runway, it really doesn't have the appeal of a world class international airport like Gatwick or Heathrow.
easyJet know this, that's their USP, a LCC that uses the main international airports, unlike Ryanair who use the cheaper smaller airports.
I suspect more people will switch from Stansted to Luton than from Gatwick. So we could se a consolidation of easyJet at Luton away from Stansted.

I would expect to see quite a lot of merger/acquisition in the airline industry now.
I think it likely that the less popular routes are going to be axed, and existing routes operated less frequently but with larger aircraft where possible.
of course this is dependent on an airports capability to handle a big aircraft(runway clearance distances etc)
Luton for instance has a runway just over 2km , so is only capable of handling up to B757/A321 types.
Stansted is longer(3km), so could take the longer haul/higher capacity aircraft such as A330/340/350 and B767/777/787

in easyjet's case, then it makes sense for their present order of A320 neo's and A321's to be retained, and flog off their A319's to someone like SAS, to in turn replace their fleet of embraers

Nobody knows quite when travel restrictions will be lifted, if we are lucky and covid burns itself out during late spring as the other types of this virus generally do, then it could be feasible that international travel may come back online during the summer, but I wouldn't expect anywhere near the amount of footfall.
Countries may also wish to phase in graduallly, ie business travel first(with proof of purpose declared at border control), before leisure and tourism gets the nod.
I think a lot of people will be planning staycations this year, which I suppose is good for UK tourist industry,it needs a boost!

I wouldn't hold your breath for any giveaway flights though.They might be there as an initial enticement, but with more M&A activity comes less competition and higher prices.

Bletchleyite · 8 Apr 2020

My personal take is that international travel may take over a year to recover, as while flights might restart we will need testing and quarantining in place and most won't want the risk and hassle of that. I would like to see us return to a more sensible level of air travel, perhaps similar to the 1990s rather than 2010s.

JonasB · 8 Apr 2020

hooverboy said:
in easyjet's case, then it makes sense for their present order of A320 neo's and A321's to be retained, and flog off their A319's to someone like SAS, to in turn replace their fleet of embraers.

SAS have never had any Embraers and I don't think they are interested in used A319s.

hooverboy · 8 Apr 2020

JonasB said:
SAS have never had any Embraers and I don't think they are interested in used A319s.

my bad, I meant bombardier's

either way,do you catch my drift?
1*A319 could be used on the basis of replacing 2* CRJ900, but at half the frequency.
-it does work out as slightly under 2 full loads(156 vs 180 seats), but it's also a saving on running costs and maintenance

Same goes for easyjet.
if you take summer schedule gatwick to tenerife as an example(I think that is usually A320)
On easyjet's site it says they operate 3* daily.
That could be streamlined down to 2*Daily with A321.

That works out as a reduction in seats (440 using A321 v 540 with A320),but for the time being it would be enough to ensure costs are being kept down and the business kept viable.

There would be the possibility of operating extra craft from other airports, or poaching more vulnerable carriers going bust and nabbing their useful slots

JonasB · 8 Apr 2020

hooverboy said:
my bad, I meant bombardier's

either way,do you catch my drift?
1*A319 could be used on the basis of replacing 2* CRJ900, but at half the frequency.
-it does work out as slightly under 2 full loads(156 vs 180 seats), but it's also a saving on running costs and maintenance

I'm not sure reducing frequency is a good strategy. But if they are to do it, I'm not sure what the point is in using an A319 (that seats 150 in SAS configuration) compared to an A320neo that seats 180 (i.e. exactly 2 CRJs) and burns less fuel than an A319.

It might be a good idea for leisure-oriented routes, such as Easyjet to Tenerife. But for SAS the CRJs are used on routes where frequency is important but there is not demand enough for an A320. Like smaller domestic routes and routes to neighbouring countries.

hooverboy · 8 Apr 2020

JonasB said:
I'm not sure reducing frequency is a good strategy. But if they are to do it, I'm not sure what the point is in using an A319 (that seats 150 in SAS configuration) compared to an A320neo that seats 180 (i.e. exactly 2 CRJs) and burns less fuel than an A319.

It might be a good idea for leisure-oriented routes, such as Easyjet to Tenerife. But for SAS the CRJs are used on routes where frequency is important but there is not demand enough for an A320. Like smaller domestic routes and routes to neighbouring countries.

I think it will very much depend on the financial state of the companies at the time.
I get your point about A320 neo would be a better option, but these will probably be retained by whoever has got them already, and I doubt airlines will be committing to much in the way of new debt/purchases of aircraft until they get a better view of how much the travel between places has been impacted.
There will be a reduction in passenger usage for sure,but nobody knows by how much and where yet.

SAS may not be prepared to fork out several million on new planes at the moment,hence me summising that they could possibly be on the lookout for either secondhand planes, or a competitor in distress which has assets which would be of use.

JonasB · 8 Apr 2020

hooverboy said:
I think it will very much depend on the financial state of the companies at the time.
I get your point about A320 neo would be a better option, but these will probably be retained by whoever has got them already, and I doubt airlines will be committing to much in the way of new debt/purchases of aircraft until they get a better view of how much the travel between places has been impacted.
There will be a reduction in passenger usage for sure,but nobody knows by how much and where yet.

SAS may not be prepared to fork out several million on new planes at the moment,hence me summising that they could possibly be on the lookout for either secondhand planes, or a competitor in distress which has assets which would be of use.

SAS have 39 A320neos in their fleet at the moment, and 41 more on order. And yes, they will probably retain them and have to use them somewhere. So I'm still not sure how used A319s would benefit them. There have however been rumours before the virus crisis that SAS is looking at replacing the CRJs with A220s.

The Ham · 8 Apr 2020

ainsworth74 said:
It's a shame that it's in aid of such a terrible situation otherwise I'd be looking forward to seeing a video of a C-17 operating out of London City! Sadly if that starts to happen it probably means things have taken a turn for the worse.

Indeed, my intro thought was supplies in and other "cargo" out. The suggestion being made in the US of temporary mass graves in parks would unlikely be very palatable over here.

Being able to move to a military airbase with hanger space to then process the bodies would certainly be easier to cope with for the families.

Even if that resulted in an urn with the ashes in being at the funeral.

The Ham · 8 Apr 2020

plugwash said:
A big question is how long will restrictions on international travel last? if most countries continue to demand two week quarantines (because they think rightly or wrongly that their aproach to covid-19 is better than anyone elses) then airlines are going to find it very hard to make money!

How long can most airlines keep burning money before they go bust? Will most of our current airlines even still exist when this is all over?

Whilst I admire those who are looking forward to mass flying being possible this year or next, I suspect that a more normal level of flying is quite possibly 3 years away.

The reason for suggesting this is that we're probably 15 months or from a vaccine being available, it's then likely going to take some time to be able to administer this to those beyond key workers, whilst children (even of key workers) are likely to near the back of the queue.

Part of the reason for the fairly slow progress of any vaccine being rolled out would be that there's likely to be limits on how much could be produced. As such chances are that there'd be a need to be tested to see if you have the antibodies from already had the virus and then only getting the vaccine if the test sites you've not had it.

Even once a vaccine has started to be widely enough distributed what's the chances that a lot of hotels and other holiday accommodation had been forced to close.

That's going to not only impact on the cost of the air fare but also the cost of accommodation, which is likely to make international travel fairly expensive. There's also going to be a fair amount of paperwork to demonstrate that you're not going to catch the virus.

However that still doesn't mean that you can't be a carrier, and although the risk of transmission is going to be fairly low (due to lack of coughing and short lifespan of the virus within your body) anything you carry could have it on it and so there's going to be a lot of countries who would be fairly nervous about letting many people in.

I also suspect that there'll be quite a few people who would look to put their finances in a better position (i.e. having more in the way of savings, paying down mortgages so they can take payment holidays, etc.) given that they've realised just how close to having to live on £100 a week that they may well have come.

Bletchleyite · 8 Apr 2020

JonasB said:
I'm not sure reducing frequency is a good strategy. But if they are to do it, I'm not sure what the point is in using an A319 (that seats 150 in SAS configuration) compared to an A320neo that seats 180 (i.e. exactly 2 CRJs) and burns less fuel than an A319.

I never totally understood why easyJet went for A319s, to be honest. Ryanair have proven that the economies of scale of the larger aircraft (which requires the same number of crew) works better. I think they've now realised that, though, with all new orders being 320s.

There does seem to be a sweet spot for low-costs of a largish narrowbody maxing out the number of passengers allowed for 4 cabin crew.

edwin_m · 8 Apr 2020

I suspect there will be more of a shift from air to rail for journeys where the train takes less than 4-5 hours. The ecological justification is bolstered by the lower actual and perceived risk of catching something on an intercity train than on a flight.

Bantamzen · 8 Apr 2020

The Ham said:
Whilst I admire those who are looking forward to mass flying being possible this year or next, I suspect that a more normal level of flying is quite possibly 3 years away.

The reason for suggesting this is that we're probably 15 months or from a vaccine being available, it's then likely going to take some time to be able to administer this to those beyond key workers, whilst children (even of key workers) are likely to near the back of the queue.

Part of the reason for the fairly slow progress of any vaccine being rolled out would be that there's likely to be limits on how much could be produced. As such chances are that there'd be a need to be tested to see if you have the antibodies from already had the virus and then only getting the vaccine if the test sites you've not had it.

Even once a vaccine has started to be widely enough distributed what's the chances that a lot of hotels and other holiday accommodation had been forced to close.

That's going to not only impact on the cost of the air fare but also the cost of accommodation, which is likely to make international travel fairly expensive. There's also going to be a fair amount of paperwork to demonstrate that you're not going to catch the virus.

However that still doesn't mean that you can't be a carrier, and although the risk of transmission is going to be fairly low (due to lack of coughing and short lifespan of the virus within your body) anything you carry could have it on it and so there's going to be a lot of countries who would be fairly nervous about letting many people in.

I also suspect that there'll be quite a few people who would look to put their finances in a better position (i.e. having more in the way of savings, paying down mortgages so they can take payment holidays, etc.) given that they've realised just how close to having to live on £100 a week that they may well have come.

There will also be countries that will be desperate to get tourism going again as soon as possible, particularly those whose economies rely on it. The availability of a vaccine is not the key driver for the vast majority of lock-downs, health service capacity is. However health services have to be paid for, and sooner or later many countries are going to need to get their economies moving again. A lot of countries won't be able to wait 3 years, even a few months will be seriously damaging for some so don't be surprised to see these countries trying to reboot their tourist trades a lot sooner.

cactustwirly · 8 Apr 2020

Bantamzen said:
There will also be countries that will be desperate to get tourism going again as soon as possible, particularly those whose economies rely on it. The availability of a vaccine is not the key driver for the vast majority of lock-downs, health service capacity is. However health services have to be paid for, and sooner or later many countries are going to need to get their economies moving again. A lot of countries won't be able to wait 3 years, even a few months will be seriously damaging for some so don't be surprised to see these countries trying to reboot their tourist trades a lot sooner.

I suspect that around July and August the lockdown will be relaxed, those two months are crucial for the tourism industry, and if we were still in lockdown, then the effect will be profound! Not just in the UK but in Spain, Greece and Italy, who have a huge tourist industry

Bletchleyite · 8 Apr 2020

cactustwirly said:
I suspect that around July and August the lockdown will be relaxed, those two months are crucial for the tourism industry, and if we were still in lockdown, then the effect will be profound! Not just in the UK but in Spain, Greece and Italy, who have a huge tourist industry

I think that is the sort of horizon too - but that relaxation won't include international travel so long as there are still countries with it. I would be surprised if that was back to normal until well into 2021, possibly 2022. This will be a year of British holidays.

cactustwirly · 8 Apr 2020

Bletchleyite said:
I think that is the sort of horizon too - but that relaxation won't include international travel so long as there are still countries with it. I would be surprised if that was back to normal until well into 2021, possibly 2022. This will be a year of British holidays.

I think it will include european travel, Spain and Greece especialy rely on the money from British and German tourists.

Coronavirus: Future of airlines and airports

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member