IAMORGAN

Just to be really clear here: travelling out of or within a Tier 4 area is not illegal. Going on holiday is not Illegal. What *is* illegal is being outside the place you live without reasonable excuse.

If you get stopped whilst travelling to Heathrow, it’s not the fact that you’ve crossed into a Tier 3 area en route that is the issue, or that your journey isn’t ‘essential’ it’s the fact that you’re not at home and don’t have a reasonable excuse for not being at home (such as walking the dog or going to the vets or going to the office because you can’t work effectively at home).

In the context of flying if you were asked what your reason for being away from home was, it could be things like work that cannot be done from home (obvious example is TV film crew or journalists), going to a funeral of a close relative seems like a reasonable reason, if you’ve formed a support bubble with another household in another part of the country because nobody else lives close by then that would seem reasonable. But going on holiday doesn’t seem to be reasonable, in general (though never say ‘never’!)

KULKyle

Legally you can leave your home for something like a funeral or work, then go on holiday afterwards so long as you do not return to your home.

KARFA

Not really no. Once the purpose of you being away from home changes from the funeral/work to going on holiday you are committing an offence. The restriction includes leaving and being outside your home, not just the bit when you leave.

IAMORGAN

I don’t think if it came to it a judge would look at it like that (presumably you could refuse to pay a fixed penalty notice and could be reported for the offence). The offence is being away from home without reasonable excuse. If you’ve been to the funeral, then your reason for being away from home is returning home following funeral. This is why the UK’s uncodified constitution has lasted so long, concepts of reasonableness are malleable but generally in this kind of situation it means don’t take the p...sorry, to quote JVT “don’t tear the pants off it”.

GumshoeW12

I note Labour is now calling for a national lockdown within 24 hours.

Even if Boris initially resists and the tier system survives, the direction of travel is pretty clear and I can’t see how BA will be able to justify serving any leisure destinations within a couple of weeks or so, even if it can still fill flights with people willing to break the rules.

destone

I remain hopeful that the emphasis in the airline industry will move to pre-departure and post-landing PCR testing rather than arbitrary travel bans by national governments. The private industry needs to lead by example.

JessicaB

The PUJ (Punta Cana, Dom Rep) flights have not been cancelled after the Dominican government's ban on UK arriving passengers finishes on 10th Jan. My theory is that BA is playing this very clever. They don't want to cancel the flights because that means that they will have to give refunds out to everyone who is still booked, and according to the call centre I spoke to yesterday, the flights are still very busy - presumably because people are either willing to break the rules and go anyway, or are waiting for a cancellation and refund. BA know that most people who are getting on those flights will be breaking the rules (law?) by doing so as PUJ is pretty much 100% leisure traffic. So they wait, see how many people request the voucher and if there are enough people willing to fly, and the Dominican government lets them, they fly. If a lot of people cancel and request the voucher, so the loads aren't commercially viable, then they cancel and refund the rest. Makes complete business sense, but it's like a game of chicken to see who flinches first, BA or the passengers.

KULKyle

Probably same theory with CUN then.

JessicaB

So the best advice is if you are booked, wait until the very last minute to request the voucher even if you have no intention of travelling, just in case they do actually cancel. In the case of PUJ, I can't quite see that the Dominican government is going to allow UK flights to resume, given that the news here is plastered with stories about how the UK has gone to hell in a hand-cart. So I'm guessing they will almost certainly have to be cancelled anyway.

jimcbob

The territorial scope of the Regulations is limited to England (and English aircraft and ships) - see reg. 1(3). So you couldn't commit the offence if the purpose of your trip changed whilst you were abroad.

i_concur

We are booked LGW-PLS at the end of Jan. Expert flyer shows lots of seats full, but in the last 2 weeks, the cost of WTP out Club back has fallen from over £7k to £2828. So I assume people are cancelling left right and centre. They may still fly the planes (see ANU thread) to take vaccine out or for other reasons, but we will not be on it. I assume the pricing reflects the current load of the plane. I will not be taking a FTV / evoucher until the last minute.

FWIW I am a consultant working in the NHS in the midst of this. I would love a holiday, but will not be looking to bend the rules in any way. It;s slightly frustrating to see the influencers etc doing rather more than bending the rules imo. And the discussions here about how to circumvent are not really helpful.

KSVVZ2015

I doubt that BA is making the decision based on "justification" except whether a flight is justified based on the business case (profitability, positive cash flow, keeping key network connectivity, etc.). I think the vast majority of BA's leisure customers have been prohibited from traveling abroad for holiday over the past few weeks (especially after the last expansion - the Tier 3 areas remaining aren't core catchment area for BA especially for flights like Male) and yet by all accounts traffic on leisure routes has been heavy. Given the lack of enforcement, and limited nature of the sanction if enforced. Many passengers will continue to flout the rules unless (i) enforcement/sanctions increase or (ii) the government orders the airline to stop flying a certain route (even more unlikely given the nature of this government and the fact that BA is a network airline with connecting traffic). Without wanting to go too off topic, I imagine that the fact that the current infection rates are due to a home-grown issue and not due to travel makes many justify their decision.

Some press have siad that Tier 5 / Lockdown 3.0 will come with a complete international travel ban even for work. I see that as highly unlikely (given the number of exemptions they would have to provide for truly essential business travel) and the fact that I can't see the BJ administration as wanting to go down the road of Australia and preventing people from traveling to visit dying relatives and the like. Indeed, government sources have said this is highly unlikely.

Therefore, I think the coming decision from BA is likely going to be based primarily on (i) who will let UK-origin leisure travelers (and business for that matter) into a country and (ii) how many people cancel trips based on the law, coupled with the normal post-holiday slow down. My crystal ball says routes like MLE, BGI, and ANU are going to continue to run while frequency and loads may decrease.

paulaf

Surely more cancellations will follow after tonight's lockdown announcement?

London21

think limited if any. People who are currently travelling despite being in tier 4 will continue to

oceanscape

I'd have thought so but as London21 says, the fact so many routes are still going now, despite most of the country being in Tier 4, suggests otherwise UNLESS this time around the government makes explicit reference to international travel in the announcement tonight. If we just move to "Tier 4 for the whole country" I don't see why BA would act any differently than they have been over the last few weeks, although it beggars belief how they'd justify running, for example, the 2 flights a day to MLE they have on certain upcoming dates