IATA is claiming that the ash crisis cost $1.7 billion. That's history. But what about the future? Are we going to see some airlines disappearing because due to bad behavior during the stoppage, they won't be able to convince passengers they can be trusted? I wonder. Good performance could have resuscitated them from the economic effects, but if they were so concerned about finances that they acted cold, their reputation may be worthless in the future.

That's anybodys guess.

I think some airlines might get into serious financial trouble over the closures, but their reputations should be fine, as long as no ash related accident occurs (also because of wear afterwards).

It's a mixed blessing... who acted right, who acted cold? On one hand, I thought it was a good move that BA announced flights to be cancelled longer than the airspace was closed (due to safety concerns and additional aircraft checks), as a stranded PAX I would probably also appreciate LH's approach to flying in closed airspace in order to get stranded PAX home asap.

Is this the same BA who sent a dozen flights towards the UK at a time when UK airspace was closed and wasn't going to open until the following day

Yeah, BA was playing a game of chicken with the authorities. They're lucky the authorities blinked first.

Yes, they were playing chicken with the authorities, but they had already established contingency plans if the authorities hadn't blinked.

I can see why the reputation for safety would benefit. But the crisis has definitely shown the "character" of a lot of airlines. I.e., how the act when a customer represents an unexpected expense. A lot of threads touch on this in many ways.

I wouldn't read too much into it. Many airlines, if put in the same situation, would be doing the same things.

BA was a very visible airline, because its main hub was basically closed. If that had happened to some other airline, they probably wouldn't have been so different either. I think it's more how much money/safety margin an airline has to cover such expenses, and how much its network potentially suffers from such events that dictates how they behave.

They're not so different.

So you'd equate AA, BA, and LH in terms of handling the crisis? I wouldn't, based on the writings of stranded people here.

Associated Press published an article wondering what if the Iceland volcano intermittently belched ash for months or years. It was full of dire predictions, like EU back in recession. The one thought that seemed to be missing was the one I thought was obvious: The world would adapt. When flights are routed, jet fuel is bought, tickets are priced, and so on, likely business scenarios are taken as assumptions. If volcanic ash is a known hazard, it will join the other assumptions. It might be enough to actually cause rerouting. Centuries ago, when the Turks controlled the easter Mediterranean, the Portuguese began searching other routes. For Europe,the cost of spice was highest if gotten through Turkish-controlled lands, somewhat less high if gotten around the tip of Africa. Once Columbus stumbled onto America and conquered enough indigenous people to make it practical, people started sailing WEST to get spices.

I'm not suggesting we will reach Europe via Asia in the future. But I'm thinking the modeling done in computers will consider a variety of routings to optimize normal costs while minimizing the possible costs of closed airports.

If it weren't for our ability to do these things, humans might not even exist as a species. It is "what we do". We've pushed our way through one unexpected crisis after another by treating it as a challenge and meeting the challenge. Till life shows me different,that is what I fully expect to happen with the ash problem. The ash can't beat humanity that easily.