As far as I have seen till now, within the EU airlines, it seems only Lufthansa group has made it now compulsory (forgoing the leaving the middle seat free), I don't see IAG group or AF/KLM stating this - so to me this ia not a clear way to move forward. I am sure that there are lots of travellers will not see it this way as seen with the differences in approach within the different EU countries.
In my view, there will be no any sensible measures that can be taken or applied to provide 100% guarantee besides developing the immunity to the virus (and it's different strain) by whatever method. Others will just be either giving a false sense of security or based on luck....

Cheers!

I doubt that it will be left to their discretion. That is something that the industry will have to discuss with the relevant public authorities.
even that would not constitute 100% guarantee. it is always going to be a question of determining whether the level of risk is above or below an acceptable threshold. I agree that the range of effective measures that could realistically be taken onboard other than the wearing of masks, minimising movements and interactions in the cabin, frequent cleaning of hard surfaces (and perhaps making appropriate sanitising gel available in the toilets) seems rather limited. Screening passengers at the airport for temperature or other symptoms, while not 100% failsafe, is also something that would be conceivable but ultimately it is going to be the degree of prevalence of the virus in the overall population that is bound to be the key determining factor for airlines.

Alitalia has also made mask-wearing compulsory. I don't know how this work in long-haul flights, as you are supposed to change your mask every 3-4 hours.

i think it's surgical masks that have a short shelf life, not the fabric types
(I also suspect -- but don't actually know this -- the 4 hr recommandation is with the expectation of a working medical personnel using it, where they are walking about, being active etc. Sitting in your seat and therefore breathing at a more relaxed pace, it would seem logical that the mask can last a bit longer. But again, I'm speaking out of turn here, I don't actually know this)

While I am sure there will be political pressure to come up with these schemes to control virus transmission on airplanes, and trains and buses as well, I think it is a serious waste of time. Vulnerable people will simply not engage in public transport .The rest of us won't be bothered much if we catch this virus, as has been proven. And all of us who go back out into the world will get COVID sooner or later anyways. We can and will be forced to wear masks as that costs governments and airline companies nothing. But I predict all these other schemes will fade away, if they ever get implemented.

When a new ritual gets introduced it is hard to get rid of it.
Consider the security controls at airports; the 100ML liquids rule; 80-year-olds being randomly screened for explosives. None of those rituals are going to go away because they make people feel safe, even if the actual utliity of all the "security theater" is debatable.
I think the same will happen with Covid-19: by the time a vaccine is eventually deployed (could take a long time), people like the idea of a health check to be sure that there is a low chance of somebody sick sitting beside them.

OK, but I will counter that argument with mobile telephones. Previously people were afraid of them on airplanes and they were tightly restricted. Until the age of always-on. Once airlines and regulators realized that there were at least a hundred telephones left turned on and transmitting on airplanes and it really didn't matter, no one cared anymore. Competition among the airlines also helped in that once one airline had WiFi, they all wanted WiFi. So in other words, if there is a good enough reason to get rid of a stupid rule, or ignore the rule, it will eventually disappear. There are not yet enough reasons to change the 100ML liquid rule even though it doesn't apply to baby's milk, prescription medicine and now hand sanitizer.

That's true.
I guess it will depend on the perceived danger of other infections in the post-covid world, which is difficult to predict at this stage :D

Perceived danger or fear is the problem. 20+ years ago, there were scholarly studies that proved mobile phones had zero effect on airplane navigation. But no one paid attention to the experts. Fear ruled the day. And Fascist tendencies where some people just love to force others to comply with their rules, logical or not.

These days with the Internet and social media, we have both fear mongering, and more non-experts perusing the scholarly studies of virus experts. And the Fascists are having a field day, telling us how we must behave whether it is scientifically correct or not. I think that fear will again beat the experts but we can hope that business people and bottom line economic concerns will push things back towards normal.

Agreed.

I don't know what it is about air travel, but these "plastic hoods" only seem to have been dreamed up/proposed for aircraft. I have seen no similar porposals for trains, buses or any other form of public transport, in which people are traditionally packed in more closely and which are likely a greater infection risk.

It's also far more likely that public transport will be "crowded" far faster than aircraft will be.

If it turns out that the public indicates a preference for airlines that enforce mask-wearing, I am pretty sure these airlines will get on board quickly....

Or for airlines with a dedicated on-board cleaner....

Or for any of the new pieces of theatre that will be dreamed up to allay customers' fears.

And, as others have said, this is something that is unlikely to be left up to each individual airline to decide for themselves.

BA is announcing 12,000 redundancies.
LH Group talks about 10,000 over-staffing and 100 aircraft in the New Normal (post crisis)
Any news from AFKL? The French economy cannot stay under respirator, with employment subsidized by the state, for months and months.

Thanks.
Is there any mention of how many voluntary exit are considered?

Ok, but are you going to isolate yourself from any other human being who might conceivably come in contact with somebody who might come in contact with somebody who might come in contact with a vulnerable person? Are you going to self-isolate for 14 days after flying because you might transmit the virus to somebody in the same shop as you who might later come in contact with a carer who might work in a care home?

Of course, you won't and that is precisely where the problem is, isn't it? And unless you are ready to sacrifice a good chunk of a generation merely on the ground that, well, they are old so not contributing anything to the economy so it does not really matter, that is a reality that has to be faced.