British Airways to make 12000 redundant

[richard s]

Poor people..


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52462660

[papa smurf]

Thats 12,000 families lives ruined by lockdown.

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Thats 12,000 families lives ruined by lockdown.

Even without the lockdown international flights aren't going to be in huge demand for a while.

The first of many such annoucements I would think.

Lockdown is going to kill many businesses, a lot are on life support atm, and wont survive if we dont start becoming customers again soon.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Paul

The first of many such annoucements I would think.

Lockdown is going to kill many businesses, a lot are on life support atm, and wont survive if we dont start becoming customers again soon.

Reminds me of the 'Buy British' campaign from years ago, everyone said it was a great idea . . then bought cheap crap from abroad

We can either use this as a reason to build up a UK business plan, with the intention of being less reliant on foreign goods, or continue to support the economies of other countries.

Nobody is saying it will be easy, but with both Covid and Brexit on the go we'll never get a better opportunity to change things.

I'm probably just spouting crap though

[BenMcr]

What's that got to do with BA though? You can't 'buy British' if there is nowhere to fly to. All airlines are in the same situation and will all be making tough choices about their staffing levels and routes.

And IAG who own BA are a Spanish company anyway.

[Carth]

yeah you're right . . probably posted in entirely the wrong place . . who'd want British shit anyway

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

Thats 12,000 families lives ruined by lockdown.

Exactly, which is why the lockdown has to be lifted soon.

Virgin Atlantic is soldiering on with government help and Richard Branson has said he's prepared to put up the Virgin Islands as collateral to secure the money it needs to keep going. But this cannot carry on for much longer.

As far as BA is concerned, I presume they are consulting their staff over these 'proposals' as required in any redundancy situation in the UK.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Exactly, which is why the lockdown has to be lifted soon.

Virgin Atlantic is soldiering on with government help and Richard Branson has said he's prepared to put up the Virgin Islands as collateral to secure the money it needs to keep going. But this cannot carry on for much longer.

As far as BA is concerned, I presume they are consulting their staff over these 'proposals' as required in any redundancy situation in the UK.

Less than the 250,000 deaths you'd cause by lifting lockdown prematurely.

Anyway, this has little to do with lockdown and in more the fact that Foreign Office advice is against all travel for UK nationals. We don't want or need further outbreaks of Coronavirus into our shores.

Travel insurance companies will equally not offer travel insurance that covers illness due to the pandemic.

Actually the more I think about it the opposite of your statement is true. This is why we need the lockdown, to support those in the underlying economy and deal with the virus. Then, and only then, will we return to normal.

When we have the second highest death count behind the USA I don't see many countries rushing to let us in to undermine their own efforts. In the event of cancellation who issues refunds?

Originally Posted by jfman

Less than the 250,000 deaths you'd cause by lifting lockdown prematurely.

This is pure speculation.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Paul

This is pure speculation.

Well it was the Imperial College London figure that led the Government thinking. If nothing meaningful has changed since then there’s no reason to expect any different.

Originally Posted by jfman

Well it was the Imperial College London figure that led the Government thinking. If nothing meaningful has changed since then there’s no reason to expect any different.

It was just a prediction, over a month ago, based on a model [of dubious accuracy] - lots of things have changed since then.

Its rather like models to predict the weather, rarely accurate over more than a day or two, and always changing based on new information.

[jfman]

On that basis it could be much higher?

That’s equally as speculative as any suggestion it could be lower. I suppose 50,000 have died since then when ‘credible’ Government estimates were we could have kept the deaths below 20,000.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

On that basis it could be much higher?

That’s equally as speculative as any suggestion it could be lower. I suppose 50,000 have died since then when ‘credible’ Government estimates were we could have kept the deaths below 20,000.

Have you actually read the report? The 250,000 was without lockdown and where social distancing was only for those over 70.

The report details that for the first scenario (slowing the spread), the optimal policy would combine home isolation of cases, home quarantine and social distancing of those over 70 years. This could reduce the peak healthcare demand by two-thirds and reduce deaths by half. However, the resulting epidemic would still likely result in an estimated 250,000 deaths and therefore overwhelm the health system (most notably intensive care units).

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Have you actually read the report? The 250,000 was without lockdown and where social distancing was only for those over 70.

I’m not sure how your point contradicts mine. There’s no reason to expect any different if the economy just opened up with no restrictions tomorrow.