It is amazing to read most all the posts in this thread for those of us who were frequent flyers during 2001-2003. We've kinda been through this before. It is not exactly the same, but it has a whole lot of similarities.

I was saying that to a friend earlier today. Indeed it does.

Sorry, I don't get this post. I was in my 40's at that time, so it was definitely a time I recall. I remember lots of annoying and stupid ideas about what might happen once flights resumed (after a shutdown of less than a week???). But I don't recall any consideration that I might not fly for even the next 10 days, as opposed to the current times when I think it will be many times longer than 10 days before I fly. Sorry, not trying to argue, just trying to understand. What is the analogy?

One thing I recall clearly and that will likely be repeated now, is that every country, and even every airport had their own set of rules after 9/11. The US had the strongest new security rules at the beginning, then Europe followed, but many airports in Asia and Africa did not introduce any new security rules for over a year until the US government forced them to by threatening to block flights to the US. In Africa, it was only flights to the UK that eventually added extra security and airports like NBO added a second security checkpoint for BA flights. But AF, LH, etc did not. I probably hit over 50 airports around the world during that time and would be hard pressed to name two airports that had the same rules. LAX was different than BOS which was different than MIA, etc. And BKK was one example that did not add any extra security. Scissors and box cutters were fine. This was the case for quite a while even though most Asian airports had non-stop flights to the US. Then when Asian airports began to add security rules, I found that as a white guy in a suit flying business class, those rules did not apply to me for the first year or so.

And while yes it there are flew flights now and few people even wanting to fly, that too was the case after flights resumed in 2001. A whole lot of people were too afraid to fly. And businesses pushed people to use conference calls instead of flying. Then there was the big economic effect on US airlines. The big airlines dropped a lot of routes because they were hemorrhaging money. I recall I used to fly from So Cal to San Jose a lot back then and AA and UA dropped many of those flights. Some were picked up by LV, but it took a long time for that business to return. I have never been an LCC flyer, but I did a lot of LV in 2002/2003, mostly between BUR and SJC. I had no other choice.

One other thing for the people who can afford it. I flew private a lot in 2002/2003, mainly between LA and Las Vegas. The reason was the security lines at LAX T1 (which had LV and HP) and LAS were horrific. If airports introduce draconian measures here in 2020 maybe they will experience super long lines again. That will lead more people to fly private.

Another thing we experienced back then was constant changing of rules and the application of rules at individual airports and onboard different airlines. I might guess that will happen again, especially as we will be learning more about this virus every week and month for the coming year or more. So maybe there is no point in speculating now what the rules will be when they open. No one knows for sure now. And I'l bet those rules all change a month or so later.

Any finally, while it was clear that a lot of people were afraid to fly, still a lot of us did not willfully change a single thing about our travel patterns. That will repeat itself here I am sure.

Just thought I would drop this here. Australia and NZ are now openly discussing opening the trans tasman border in the not super distant future and by the sounds of it, without testing not necessarily required for entry: https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/healt...eing-discussed

Less than a week after 9/11, even the US government was trying to get people to go back to the usual socio-economic activities and was not widely hostile to cross-border travel. I was on US carriers on 9/10 and on 9/11, and I was flying back into the US within 7 days after 9/11. And with the exception of a handful of days, I was able to continue to fly in the weeks and months after 9/11 with no substantial risk of additional big surprises ruining my travel ability. [The biggest disruption for me was that some US long-haul routes were cancelled and that DCA was removed as an option for some weeks, meaning I had to deal with the hassle of getting to NY in other ways or to use IAD or BWI.]

This time is very different than 9/11.

The scope and scale of concern about cross-border travel and travel in general is way greater now with this virus situation than in the weeks and months after 9/11. And the economic damage from this virus situation is way more extreme and intense than 9/11 was. Governments have shown that they can and will change the rules on rather short notice. These are ingredients for a very uncertain, very slow and very uneven recovery in the market for air travel .... even with the unprecedented amounts of fiscal and monetary stimulus being deployed at this time.

i do recall flying LHR-IAD [with VS] on 24 Sep 01. The aircraft (747) was very lightly loaded, but apart from that everything seemed normal. The only other detail I recall was the number of people who thought we were very brave flying a couple of weeks after those awful events of 9/11. As GUWonder said above, this is a completely different scenario, and certainly not easily resolved by enhanced airport security.

The current situation has very, very few similarities to 9/11.
Here in Europe I was on a commercial plane on 9/12 and everything was the same as on 9/10.

After 9/11 most of us soon realised it was a one-time event that was unlikely to be repeated.

The current Covid-19 situation is far from over and is unlikely to be over for the next year or two.

Well I outlined all the similarities just 4 posts above yours. Did you see it?

I did not stop flying at all and even flew the night of 9/11, WAW-LHR. But you are completely wrong when you write "most of use soon realized that it was a one-time event..." That is very, very far from the truth and ignores both public opinion and all the massive efforts to work to prevent such an event from repeating itself. Many billions were spent over the first few years to prevent a repeat event. What happened on 9/11 not only affected us severely for many years, its effects are still with us today in the aviation business.

Except for Americans and people traveling to (or considering traveling to) and from the US, 9/11 wasn’t much of a factor in whether to travel by air in most of the rest of the world in late 2001 and early 2002. It was a drag on travel demand in various places, but it was not as much of a drag on travel demand as this virus situation.

This virus situation is very different than 9/11.

A week after 9/11, I could still fly around on all my frequent city pairs domestically and most of them internationally without massive inconvenience beyond the security screening rules changing and being inconsistent even at that. Now, flying domestically in the US by scheduled common carriers to do my usual trips is very different than it was in the latter half of September 2001 and now way more inconvenient and often not even possible without going to intermodal travel or just hiring a private plane. And flying internationally now is very inconvenient because of how thinned out the route networks have become in so many more places than happened in the weeks and months following the 9/11 hits.

This virus situation with traveling is very different than the situation of traveling in the weeks and months after the 9/11 attacks.

Just as simple as this if enough testing places and tests available.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...hours-fly.html

Except, I still don't think there is a test that works sufficiently in the pre-symptomatic stage.

A reliable test, probably tests, at the airport would help weed out as many potential passengers infected with Covid-19 as possible (and thus be a huge huge factor in reducing transmission risk on the plane and in the airport).
However, other mitigation factors need to be layered to further reduce transmission from people not able do be detected as being infected and shedding.
This is where masks come in; where persistent and resolute cleaning and re-cleaning of high traffic surfaces comes in; and, where regular personal hygiene en route comes in (and the ability to safely do that).

It seems to me there are ways to make this all work; but different airports, airlines, governments will have different views and the minimum mitigations needed (in my view) involve 3 or 4 layers not a magic bullet.

Very true!
And many billions were taken in too; about $4.26B in 2019 alone:
https://www.tsa.gov/for-industry/security-fees

I reckon there will be "Pandemic prevention and security fee" added to all flights in the US. And unlike the $5.60 for the 9/11 fee, it will be SUBSTANTIALLY greater and its proceeds not only going to the TSA.
My guess: $32.00 (although I think they'll finally drop the '9/11 fee' designation and roll it all into this one).

Added:
Actually, I think they'll split it this time: say $16.00 for domestic/international, except: $32.00 for TPAC and TATL.

Any plan based on tests are just a fantasy, at least for now. Because the tests you are talking about (at the airport) don't exist, 2 days in advance barely exists (and not in the quantity required), it doesn't handle return flights, and it isn't even supported by science. Here is the press release, from a few minutes ago, from the WHO:

The World Health Organization (WHO) said on Saturday that there was currently “no evidence” that people who have recovered from COVID-19 and have antibodies are protected from a second coronavirus infection.

In a scientific brief, the United Nations agency warned governments against issuing “immunity passports” or “risk-free certificates” to people who have been infected as their accuracy could not be guaranteed.

The practice could actually increase the risks of continued spread as people who have recovered may ignore advice about taking standard precautions against the virus, it said.

Think I'll fly Wizz Air, got to be fake news surely as it sounds like it's aimed at tourists not repatriation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tinations.html