Slashdot Mirror
Was Flight Ban Over Ash an Overreaction?
HaymarketRiot writes "Richard Branson has claimed that the flight ban, due to the eruption of the volcano Eyjafjallajokull, was an overreaction on the part of the authorities. Britain's government has even called for the airlines to be compensated. This does look like a perfect excuse for already greedy airlines to try and get more money ... any experts care to comment on the effect of volcanic ash on planes?"
We already have evidence of at least one plane nearly crashing due to volcanic ashes. Is this guy saying that we should take the chance? Would he say that to the families of those who could die because of it?
Exactly. It does make you wonder what costs are being cut at his budget airline that might also be a danger to passengers.
and their passengers, not the government.
whats next, prison sentences for those who don't rotate their tires?
I'm a little curious about what that comment is based on. Actually, I'm not quite sure what it means for a company - an entity that exists for the sole and express purpose of making money - to be considered greedy. Are there many generous companies, too?
sic transit gloria mundi
That would be stupid. The test flight didn't have any passengers. They risked no passengers' lives, even though some (as I) would gladly have. As for the pilots, I am sure they appropriately incentivized them, hazard pay and what-not. You can stick with the spineless airlines if you wish, but I am thankful for airlines like KLM (or whatever that Dutch one is) and Lufthansa; if it hadn't been for them, I might still be stuck in Germany.
And while my anger is definitely affected by how much I hate Frankfurt (although, after visits to some universities and institutions in the surrounding area, I don't hate Germany itself as much), my reasoning itself has little to do with the fact that I was stuck at Frankfurt—except that, unlike those whose U.S. to Europe flight may have gotten canceled, I have a first-hand experience with the threats of these volcanic ashes, at least in southern Germany: none. During the whole stay in the area (and on the return flight), I saw no volcanic ashes on the ground, in the air, on in the sky (and we had a very clear weather for many of the days). During the whole week, it was entirely possible to route flights through regions of sky with little or no volcanic ash; it was only a matter of volume, and it was the regulators' entirely senseless and brainless decision to bring that volume down to practically zero.
British NHS problems: (just a few of them) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1033832/The-Dirty-Secret-Your-NHS.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5955840/Patients-forced-to-live-in-agony-after-NHS-refuses-to-pay-for-painkilling-injections.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6092658/Cruel-and-neglectful-care-of-one-million-NHS-patients-exposed.html Spain under Franco, Italy under Mussolini, Germany under Hitler, Czechoslovakia under Communism, Hungary under Communism, East Germany under Communism, Poland under Communism I could go on and on, yep, trust the government they are looking out for you!!! ((To head this one off at the pass, you have to keep a very critical eye on corporations also))
If you cherry-pick your data, of course, you can make your favorite country look as good as you want to make it look.
Look at the long-term unemployment rate in France here. If you judge a "recession" by unemployment alone (you shouldn't; unemployment is not the leading indicator of economic ups and down), France has been in perpetual recession since late 1980s. If you think 10% average unemployment is normal for a developed economy, look at United State's historical unemployment rate. The reason 10% unemployment in U.S. is making news these days is because it's so exceptionally bad given what's the norm here. Heck. During the Bush years, 5, 6% unemployment was criticized as "jobless recovery" (and critics were, to a degree, right).
I may not have had the exact numbers (I didn't want to bother looking it up until you provoked me with your uninformed statement), but I stand by my statement: 10 to 20% unemployment (sure, on the lower end, closer to 10% than it ever was to 20%, at least according to official numbers that do not include discouraged workers), even during boom times (i.e. the 90s). As a rule, Europe has at best anemic growth—that's what you pay for tightly regulated socialist economy; you are lucky to get stability under that regime, as U.S.S.R. countries found out decades earlier.