bocastephen

Fine, but SARS had roughly 8,000 cases and 774 deaths - not exactly worth comparing to coronavirus.

lsquare

Agreed and I'm pretty sure that in due time, the numbers will be revised due to better testing and research. Then there's also China, where the numbers may not actually be reliable or believable. It is what it is at this point, but when you have some of the brightest minds in the western world working on this, I'm sure we'll have a better understanding in due time.

Boraxo

We will have to agree to disagree. In my business (and many others) in person meetings are essential and remote meetings are a poor substitute and not efficient or effective. In my current job I've travelled to 30 countries in 12 years. These were not pleasure trips or mileage runs but necessary to gather information and protect the company's position. Some of these meetings could have been done by video but none as effectively (not to mention logistical challenges with multiple participants, paper documents, etc.)

I'm sure the 1918-19 flu pandemic was ingrained in everyone's memory but it did not stop the roaring 20s even though no vaccine was found. Now I agree that it will take some time for flight schedules to recover, based on demand. Business and leisure travel will not recover as quickly as it did after 9/11 or 2008. But it won't take a decade. In fact with empty middle seats we may need even more planes For trips >500 miles, there is no real alternative for air travel, particularly in the USA where rail is nonexistant outside northeast corridor.

lsquare

I get your point. It's also the politics were different at the time. The science and medicine were different at the time so perhaps policymakers did what they did. I think going forward things will be different no matter what. However, to what degree the changes will be remains to be seen.

cricketer

I'm with you on this. We will definitely be reducing our travel, and further reducing our physical workspace footprint (we were already headed in that direction pre-COVID-19). We're smallish - single digit millions of travel expenses - but as I speak with others in executive roles, there's not one who intends for their organization or company to return to prior travel patterns. Every one of them says something along the lines of "we've realized that a lot of our travel really wasn't necessary" or that "clearly some of our team just like earning airline miles." Just think of all the meetings that 3/4/5 or more people fly in for, where almost certainly 1 or 2 could do the job. I know, because I've been in so many of them over the years where half the troop that flew in doesn't say a single word in the whole conversation, joins in a fancy dinner, stays at a nice hotel, and then flies back home the next day.

bocastephen

Exactly - this is what it will come down to, not a complete elimination of business travel, but a dramatic decrease per pre-virus levels, perhaps mirroring the 2007 era recession, or slightly worse - but never coming back. It will be a new reality for airlines to deal with, especially after suffering billions in losses for the foreseeable future.

narvik

I must admit that I am amazed to read all these stories about all this business travel that was superfluous.
I was firm in the belief that business travel would bounce back to where it was (or close thereto), but if there really was all this non-essential travel going on these last few years; yeah, I will definitely have to revise my prediction!

ryman554

There is no question that COVID is on a level above SARS/etc. However, I specifically asked about the influence on travel *in asia*, by those affected the most by a world-changing (to them) epidemic. Make no mistake, SARS changed society in asia, even with the fewer deaths. Do you know what it didn't change? The appetite for air travel.

The biggest difference between COVID and SARS isn't the death rate. It's that COVID isn't killing as many as SARS. Yes, I wrote that correctly. SARS has death rates in the 15% range. COVID does not. What COVID has is the asymptomatic / mild symptoms that the others never did. It's far far from a bad flu in terms of outcome, so much so I hesitate to write the previous words, but for many (most?) that's exactly what it looks and feels like, which makes is so widespread and hard to trace. And why so many more are infected. And, unfortunately, die.

I am a scientist, so I absolutely believe that you need to look at past data and learn from it. The similarities are far more than their differences, and while I also understand "garbage in, garbage out", the preponderance of the evidence indicates that travel will resume. The remaining question is how fast. It's not the 3 months or so it took after SARS, since the tracing and testing has yet to be identified. Thermal imagers aren't going to cut it this time like it did for previous rounds. (it's also why taking one's temperature before entering hospitals or places of business is only kabuki theatre, and not necessary nor sufficient.).

The presence or lack of a second wave in the summer/fall will go a long way to answering the question. As well as the quarantine restrictions internationally. Once these are eased and the public hysteria (not intending to be pejorative, we're all really scared and concerned for what I perceive as a good reason) will reduce. Society behavior will change -- hopefully we'll wear masks when not feeling well in public. That's when you can look at the SARS model and say that the desire for travel will resume rather quickly.

cricketer

I'm not in it now, thank goodness, but a great industry to look at for this is digital ad tech. Gotta be a few billion in travel spend that nobody will miss other than the fliers themselves. Honestly there's probably hundreds of companies that nobody will miss either, but that's another conversation altogether.

nerdbirdsjc

True, and tbh many frequent travelers don't actually like flying. Few people are eager to be repeatedly hoarded through lines to cram into ever-tighter seats, with great uncertainty on punctuality (often facing indifferent or inaccessible customer service at every step). As FTers, we're an unusual bunch. For most, flying is a necessary chore to get from point A to point B as part of their work, and if they could nix all the flying, they would.

Now, many business trips will still take place once it is safe to travel. But is an ongoing 20-40% cut in post COVID recession/depression business travel spend very likely? Absolutely, for the technology and the business inertia now exist to make it so.

bocastephen

Warren Buffet just dumped all of his airline holdings calling the investment in airline stocks a mistake (I could have told him that). His estimate is people will not be flying anywhere near prior levels for a very long time, if ever. Look for a collapse of the sector tomorrow at market open.

Owenc

Why are people making such alarmist responses? Yes a lot of people won’t fly but we won’t all be using Zoom for eternity.

I plan to fly within Europe when cases die down and flights start back up. I think this is a bit dramatic.

tstauck

At least for me, I still have plenty of personal flying I still intend to do when the time is right. My family lives on the east coast and I'm in CA, so that alone is a few times per year. Looking forward to a few US and Mexico vacations, maybe Europe next year. Still a few business trips once we get the green light.

So I will be back to flying near prior levels.

DMSFCA

I think (we) Americans have a sadly short memory. School shootings, Las Vegas shooter are shrugged off a month later. School shootings don't even make the front page anymore. Being denied for pre-existing conditions, remember that? People quickly forget anything negative.

I suspect it will be light the rest of the year just because so many corporate events and conferences have been canceled but things will pick up in 2021. All this will seem like a decade ago by then. (not that I'm on board with that thinking...)

bocastephen

I don't disagree - many of us on Flyertalk are chomping at the bit to travel again, including me - but as many posters love to point out, we are a minority among the flying public. The smart money is on a permanent 25% reduction in business travel compared with prior peak levels, lasting pretty much forever, and no sooner than 2022 to return to its new peak level, whatever that ends up being. Leisure travel will return slowly, mostly people taking domestic trips to visit family or take vacations within the country or region, international travel is 2021-2022 before anyone has enough data to forecast what it's new peak will look like.

So, if you chop 25% of business travel and maybe 20% of leisure travel on a permanent (a decade or more) basis, the reality of the airline industry is absolutely brutal. The question is how the airlines will react, along with other travel providers like hotels and car rental companies - will they work to incentivize additional travel and try to bring people back, or slash capacity and benefits and make life miserable for those who remain?

My thoughts on how I think United will respond are pretty well known.....I am not expecting any incentives, what I expect are higher redemption levels, surcharges and fees without waivers, accelerated mileage expiration, smaller premium cabins with reduced services, and fewer benefits for Elite flyers, along with more stringent qualifications starting in 2021 where potentially only certain fare classes earn credit towards status. I see the domestic F cabins going to 12 seats systemwide, and perhaps 5 rows of 773 Polaris shifting to Premium Plus with the former Premium Plus seats moving to coach rows, and similar reductions on other aircraft. Ovens out of all domestic non-PS aircraft, with only cold plates or snack boxes served regardless of flight length, and reduced F+B options on PS and Polaris. No more 1K freebies in coach. That's just my short list off the top of my head of how I think Kirby will instruct his staff to react to a failure of customers to return to flying in sufficient numbers to satisfy him.