KLM Suspends all intercontinental flights
Jan 21, 2021, 2:47 am
#46
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: PAR, TYO, SEL, SIN, SYD
Programs: AF/KLM Platinum Ultimate, VA Velocity Platinum, ALL Platinum
Posts: 716
Even flights to ZA and LatAm are still loaded despite the supposed ban
Jan 21, 2021, 2:55 am
#47
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: CPT,AMS
Posts: 4,412
KL has taken the big gun out to negotiate.
I am all in favor of having tests before departure on long flights. This reduces the risk of pax getting infected onboard by a sick pax.There are now several documented cases that show that people get contaminated onboard (e.g. https://loyaltylobby.com/wp-content/...-Zealand-1.pdf). A FA is even more likely to contaminate other pax/crew onboard.
Apparently, KL prefers not to know if a crew is contagious and take the risk to infect others onboard.
Some Asian airports now test crew on arrivals (e.g. HKG). Regional flights with immediate turnaround at those airports are no problem as the crew say onboard. The situation is different for longhauls. If one crew on an arriving flight tests positive, then the crew and its immediate contacts are sent to quarantine and cannot operate their returning flight (say 2 days later). Extremely inconvenient but consistent with the strict testing that has become the norm. Some airlines have stopped flying to these airports, some board 2 crews to operate the return leg, with none disembarking. KL had chosen to base a crew in BKK to operate AMS-HKG, so the same BKK crew would do a fast turnaround in HKG.
All this is extremely inconvenient and does affect cargo flights a lot. But creating loopholes is not the solution either.
Of course, the AMS situation seems a bit ridiculous from afar, when the EU principle means that it is so easy to get to Holland from 26 other countries by land or sea (cargo)..
I am all in favor of having tests before departure on long flights. This reduces the risk of pax getting infected onboard by a sick pax.There are now several documented cases that show that people get contaminated onboard (e.g. https://loyaltylobby.com/wp-content/...-Zealand-1.pdf). A FA is even more likely to contaminate other pax/crew onboard.
Apparently, KL prefers not to know if a crew is contagious and take the risk to infect others onboard.
Some Asian airports now test crew on arrivals (e.g. HKG). Regional flights with immediate turnaround at those airports are no problem as the crew say onboard. The situation is different for longhauls. If one crew on an arriving flight tests positive, then the crew and its immediate contacts are sent to quarantine and cannot operate their returning flight (say 2 days later). Extremely inconvenient but consistent with the strict testing that has become the norm. Some airlines have stopped flying to these airports, some board 2 crews to operate the return leg, with none disembarking. KL had chosen to base a crew in BKK to operate AMS-HKG, so the same BKK crew would do a fast turnaround in HKG.
All this is extremely inconvenient and does affect cargo flights a lot. But creating loopholes is not the solution either.
Of course, the AMS situation seems a bit ridiculous from afar, when the EU principle means that it is so easy to get to Holland from 26 other countries by land or sea (cargo)..
KL started doing the same for ZA (crew based in DAR) but obviously now have to cancel the flights altogether with the ban on ZA flights.
I believe KL crew are getting tested anyway in one form or the other, so the chances of a crew member to be infected is low to begin with, if a crew member tests positive at an outstation it will be a major headache, having to rebook all pax, get another crew on the next flight which might not be for another few days, having an airplane not able to fly, crew who are now out of commission for 2 weeks if not more etc.
If they will be sending an extra crew to operate the return it will not significantly decrease the risk compared to having a crew staying overnight in a hotel (perhaps in some sort of "quarantine").
Jan 21, 2021, 3:14 am
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,364
As to the 'good 'employer' argument, let us unpack it: it implies that any business that sends any employee abroad is a "bad employer" because it puts that employee under the risk of that employee being left behind and, therefore, any responsible employer would ban all foreign travel at the moment. It is a defensible view but I am somewhat sceptical that many of the defenders of KL's position would in fact share that view.
IMO, there is much to be said for the view that a business that sends workers abroad at the moment should take appropriate steps to support them should they end up stranded abroad and that they should minimise foreign travel (or indeed any travel) as far as possible. But trying to use that as an argument to support the view that business travelers should be exempted from testing strikes me as rather dubious.
Jan 21, 2021, 3:37 am
#49
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: CPT,AMS
Posts: 4,412
The argument is self-defeating, though: let us not forget that the problem only arises if the crew is positive so, if the risk of a crew member to be infected is low, so is the risk of disruption resulting from the flight not operating and of the crew having to remain behind for 2 weeks. In effect, this is a clear choice which is being made by exempting crews from tests: KLM are saying: we would rather fly with crew members which are positive than having to cancel a flight..
As to the 'good 'employer' argument, let us unpack it: it implies that any business that sends any employee abroad is a "bad employer" because it puts that employee under the risk of that employee being left behind and, therefore, any responsible employer would ban all foreign travel at the moment. It is a defensible view but I am somewhat sceptical that many of the defenders of KL's position would in fact share that view.
IMO, there is much to be said for the view that a business that sends workers abroad at the moment should take appropriate steps to support them should they end up stranded abroad and that they should minimise foreign travel (or indeed any travel) as far as possible. But trying to use that as an argument to support the view that business travelers should be exempted from testing strikes me as rather dubious.
As to the 'good 'employer' argument, let us unpack it: it implies that any business that sends any employee abroad is a "bad employer" because it puts that employee under the risk of that employee being left behind and, therefore, any responsible employer would ban all foreign travel at the moment. It is a defensible view but I am somewhat sceptical that many of the defenders of KL's position would in fact share that view.
IMO, there is much to be said for the view that a business that sends workers abroad at the moment should take appropriate steps to support them should they end up stranded abroad and that they should minimise foreign travel (or indeed any travel) as far as possible. But trying to use that as an argument to support the view that business travelers should be exempted from testing strikes me as rather dubious.
Given that nothing really changed, it seems dubious at best that the Dutch government have opted to suddenly exclude crew from the testing exemption.
An exemption for "business travellers" was never in place (and let's not forget that the testing requirement is only ~3 weeks old anyway!)
Jan 21, 2021, 4:20 am
#50
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: VIE
Programs: SAS EBS / *A Silver, Hilton Diamond, Radisson VIP, IHG Platinum
Posts: 3,757
I know nothing about Dutch politics but I assumed the recent shift in the government policies has been motivated by a public opinion. Is that incorrect?
Jan 21, 2021, 4:35 am
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,364
Up until now crew were exempted by the requirement, and there are still exemptions in place as apparently diplomats, members of foreign governments, seafarers and some others can't spread the disease.
Given that nothing really changed, it seems dubious at best that the Dutch government have opted to suddenly exclude crew from the testing exemption.
Given that nothing really changed, it seems dubious at best that the Dutch government have opted to suddenly exclude crew from the testing exemption.
But, in any event, your statement that "nothing has really changed" is not entirely correct and not the view of the Dutch government. If you look at yesterday's press conference statement, what is new in their eyes is stated right from the start: they are "gravely concerned" by new variants such as the UK one and, in their view, this warrants a turning of the screw in terms of restrictions on, inter alia, travel.
In a way, the Netherlands sees itself, as far as new variants are concerned, in a similar position to which some Asian and Australasian countries are in relation to the virus as a whole itself: while there are many domestic covid cases in the NL, for the time being, there are very few cases of the new UK, ZA or Brazilian variants. So, in relation to these variants, the NL government is taking highly restrictive steps to avoid as much as possible any further introduction of these new variants so as to prevent their spread in the community in the NL, in the same way as some Asian or Australasian countries are taking highly restrictive steps to avoid as much as possible any further introduction of any new covid cases so as to prevent the spread of covid (as a whole in their case rather than just specifically new variants). That approach does not strike me as incoherent.
An exemption for "business travellers" was never in place
Jan 21, 2021, 5:09 am
#53
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: CPT,AMS
Posts: 4,412
But, in any event, your statement that "nothing has really changed" is not entirely correct and not the view of the Dutch government. If you look at yesterday's press conference statement, what is new in their eyes is stated right from the start: they are "gravely concerned" by new variants such as the UK one and, in their view, this warrants a turning of the screw in terms of restrictions on, inter alia, travel.
In a way, the Netherlands sees itself, as far as new variants are concerned, in a similar position to which some Asian and Australasian countries are in relation to the virus as a whole itself: while there are many domestic covid cases in the NL, for the time being, there are very few cases of the new UK, ZA or Brazilian variants. So, in relation to these variants, the NL government is taking highly restrictive steps to avoid as much as possible any further introduction of these new variants so as to prevent their spread in the community in the NL...
As a given example, I can't fly ZA-NL anymore, but I can just as easily fly ZA-DE and drive over without needing anything but a rapid test to satisfy DE entry requirements, or ZA-XX-NL with the double testing, if anything this only adds more contact points where I can get infected and import the virus.
I know it was never in place but my point was to demonstrate the problem with KL's "good employer" argument: if we accept that argument, then it seems to me that we should either suppress all foreign business travel or exempt all business travel from testing, neither of which, I think, anybody would seriously argue for.
Jan 21, 2021, 5:57 am
#54
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: London, UK and Southern France
Posts: 18,364
As a given example, I can't fly ZA-NL anymore, but I can just as easily fly ZA-DE and drive over without needing anything but a rapid test to satisfy DE entry requirements, or ZA-XX-NL with the double testing, if anything this only adds more contact points where I can get infected and import the virus.
I don't think it's fair to compare air crew to business travellers.
Jan 21, 2021, 6:23 am
#55
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: CPT,AMS
Posts: 4,412
OK, fair enough. This is not a policy of complete suppression but, nonetheless, it does not follow that it is not justified. What you are saying is that they could have adopted even more restrictive rules which would have been even more effective. That is correct but that is not conclusive. Just because you can have more restrictive rules does not mean that the rules that you have are useless, otherwise the only two choices that we would have would be to either completely shut down borders and let virtual no-one through (a kind of super-Australian approach if you like) or have a complete free-for-all. I do not think that they is a single government on earth that has such an extreme approach. There is a continuum from greater freedom of movement-lesser propagation of the virus to greater restrictions on movement-greater containment of virus propagation and an almost infinity of positions along that cursor. It is a reasonable position that banning direct flights from the UK will, in all likelihood, slow down the speed of propagation of the UK variant in the NL. Would banning all movements from the UK to the NL be more effective in doing so? Probably. Would banning all travel to the NL be more effective in doing so? Even more so. But with each of these turns of the screw come unwanted side-effects and those side-effects increase the tighter the restriction is soa choice has to be made somewhere along that continuum. The choice that the government has made may not be the one you or others would have made. Some would have argued for tighter restrictions, others for less strict restrictions. But just because it is not your choice or just because stricter rules would be possible does not make the choice made necessarily nonsensical.
OK: you have established that the ban on flights does not provide a cast iron guarantee that not a single person who was in ZA will be unable to enter NL. Fair enough. But was this really the aim of the restrictions? Or was the aim of the restrictions to diminish the number of infected persons from ZA entering the NL and thereby reducing the speed of diffusion of the ZA variant? Yes, you can fly to DE and take a train. But, realistically, what proportion of passengers who would have flown on a direct flight from ZA will actually do that? Indirect flights are possible but banning direct flights will nonetheless reduce the number of pax traveling between ZA and NL and, to that extent, slow down the propagation of the variant. Perhaps it will only give them a few more weeks respite but even a few more weeks can be valuable in the propagation of the virus, particularly at this time of year.
OK: you have established that the ban on flights does not provide a cast iron guarantee that not a single person who was in ZA will be unable to enter NL. Fair enough. But was this really the aim of the restrictions? Or was the aim of the restrictions to diminish the number of infected persons from ZA entering the NL and thereby reducing the speed of diffusion of the ZA variant? Yes, you can fly to DE and take a train. But, realistically, what proportion of passengers who would have flown on a direct flight from ZA will actually do that? Indirect flights are possible but banning direct flights will nonetheless reduce the number of pax traveling between ZA and NL and, to that extent, slow down the propagation of the variant. Perhaps it will only give them a few more weeks respite but even a few more weeks can be valuable in the propagation of the virus, particularly at this time of year.
Well maybe there are reasons to distinguish but my point is that the "good employer" argument put forward by some to justify the position taken by KLM is wholly unconvincing. If it is unconscionable and not the behaviour of a good employer for KLM to leave crew stranded abroad because they can't return as a result of a negative covid test, I do not see why it would be acceptable for ABN-AMRO to strand its employees abroad for the same reason. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander here. Perhaps there are good reasons to treat air crew differently to business travelers but the "good employer" argument certainly is not one of them.
Jan 21, 2021, 7:29 am
#56
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hong Kong, France
Programs: FB , BA Gold
Posts: 15,552
OK, fair enough. This is not a policy of complete suppression but, nonetheless, it does not follow that it is not justified. What you are saying is that they could have adopted even more restrictive rules which would have been even more effective. That is correct but that is not conclusive. Just because you can have more restrictive rules does not mean that the rules that you have are useless, otherwise the only two choices that we would have would be to either completely shut down borders and let virtual no-one through (a kind of super-Australian approach if you like) or have a complete free-for-all. I do not think that they is a single government on earth that has such an extreme approach. There is a continuum from greater freedom of movement-lesser propagation of the virus to greater restrictions on movement-greater containment of virus propagation and an almost infinity of positions along that cursor. It is a reasonable position that banning direct flights from the UK will, in all likelihood, slow down the speed of propagation of the UK variant in the NL. Would banning all movements from the UK to the NL be more effective in doing so? Probably. Would banning all travel to the NL be more effective in doing so? Even more so. But with each of these turns of the screw come unwanted side-effects and those side-effects increase the tighter the restriction is soa choice has to be made somewhere along that continuum. The choice that the government has made may not be the one you or others would have made. Some would have argued for tighter restrictions, others for less strict restrictions. But just because it is not your choice or just because stricter rules would be possible does not make the choice made necessarily nonsensical.
OK: you have established that the ban on flights does not provide a cast iron guarantee that not a single person who was in ZA will be unable to enter NL. Fair enough. But was this really the aim of the restrictions? Or was the aim of the restrictions to diminish the number of infected persons from ZA entering the NL and thereby reducing the speed of diffusion of the ZA variant? Yes, you can fly to DE and take a train. But, realistically, what proportion of passengers who would have flown on a direct flight from ZA will actually do that? Indirect flights are possible but banning direct flights will nonetheless reduce the number of pax traveling between ZA and NL and, to that extent, slow down the propagation of the variant. Perhaps it will only give them a few more weeks respite but even a few more weeks can be valuable in the propagation of the virus, particularly at this time of year.
Well maybe there are reasons to distinguish but my point is that the "good employer" argument put forward by some to justify the position taken by KLM is wholly unconvincing. If it is unconscionable and not the behaviour of a good employer for KLM to leave crew stranded abroad because they can't return as a result of a negative covid test, I do not see why it would be acceptable for ABN-AMRO to strand its employees abroad for the same reason. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander here. Perhaps there are good reasons to treat air crew differently to business travelers but the "good employer" argument certainly is not one of them.
OK: you have established that the ban on flights does not provide a cast iron guarantee that not a single person who was in ZA will be unable to enter NL. Fair enough. But was this really the aim of the restrictions? Or was the aim of the restrictions to diminish the number of infected persons from ZA entering the NL and thereby reducing the speed of diffusion of the ZA variant? Yes, you can fly to DE and take a train. But, realistically, what proportion of passengers who would have flown on a direct flight from ZA will actually do that? Indirect flights are possible but banning direct flights will nonetheless reduce the number of pax traveling between ZA and NL and, to that extent, slow down the propagation of the variant. Perhaps it will only give them a few more weeks respite but even a few more weeks can be valuable in the propagation of the virus, particularly at this time of year.
Well maybe there are reasons to distinguish but my point is that the "good employer" argument put forward by some to justify the position taken by KLM is wholly unconvincing. If it is unconscionable and not the behaviour of a good employer for KLM to leave crew stranded abroad because they can't return as a result of a negative covid test, I do not see why it would be acceptable for ABN-AMRO to strand its employees abroad for the same reason. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander here. Perhaps there are good reasons to treat air crew differently to business travelers but the "good employer" argument certainly is not one of them.
The UK variant might already be circulating widely in Europe, and it is too late. But the scientific community (wifey is part of it) is extremely worried by the many new variants (ZA, Brazil, US) popping up with many mutations including significant ones in spikes. More nasty variants are to be expected.
Vaccines may be less effective against these new variants. Vaccinated people may not be too severely ill with these new variants, but may transmit them. Vaccination will induce "self selection" among variants, so that variants resistant to the vaccine immunity will spread..
Just like with influenza, vaccines will need to be adapted. Same for many PCR/antigen tests. This can be done faster with the mRNA technology. But this will be a race against time. Closed borders allow to slow the spread of variants across countries and gives more time.
Jan 21, 2021, 8:03 am
#57
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Paris
Programs: AA LT Plat (4m+), AF Plat, A3 Gold, Hyatt Lifetime Globalist, Marriott Plat, IHG Plat/Ambassador
Posts: 2,648
The real gamechanger here will be the upcoming (imminent) saliva tests which will soon gain FDA approval. More accurate and faster, far easier to administer. Yale University has one and the University of Chicago another.
They couldn't come sooner...........
They couldn't come sooner...........
Jan 21, 2021, 8:13 am
#58
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: VIE
Programs: SAS EBS / *A Silver, Hilton Diamond, Radisson VIP, IHG Platinum
Posts: 3,757
That's the opposite of what normally happens with viruses. Variants that cause less damage usually have an evolutional advantage as their hosts are more likely to participate in normal activities, thus spread it to more people. (Whether this is going to apply even under current unprecedented restrictions on life remains to be seen.)
Jan 21, 2021, 8:54 am
#60
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: PAR, TYO, SEL, SIN, SYD
Programs: AF/KLM Platinum Ultimate, VA Velocity Platinum, ALL Platinum
Posts: 716
Are they really more accurate. Japan has been using saliva tests for months and the false positive/negative numbers aren't too impressive ....