European air transport regulations covering passenger compensation never envisaged this situation and now place the carriers in an unenviable situation unless government compensation under national emergency criteria can provide some relief.
And within 3 hours of UK airspace reopening the UK transport minister blaming his experts for failing to accurately detail the problem and benchmark it to previous situations.
The result - the industry forecast to lose $1billion as a direct result and politicians diving for cover to avoid verbal bazookas from all directions.
So was it completely overblown ? I seemed to take forever for anyone in authority to ask the questions:
-What density of ash are we seeing in the upper atmosphere? and how does it compare with the levels that caused the BA and KLM incidents of years ago? Clearly this type of contaminent has the ability to turn any of our large air transports into large gliders.
BUT ---What is an acceptable level of contamination below which safety is not compromised?
It is very frustrating that such a simple question seems to remain unanswerable -- 'Was it all necessary?' Such fundamentally basic questions remain unanswered and result in incremental costs to an already beleaguered industry of banking proportions. The result -- the industry is left with an uneasy feeling and an unexpected hole in the accounts . It seems the pendulum only has 2 political positions- 'ignore the problem' at one extreme whilst at the other extreme, 'close the system down'. Where's the middle ground?
Clearly the issue of aviation safety is absolutely paramount. But the level of condemnation from the operators immediately after the lifting of the ban was also unprecedented and suggests a level of anger at excessive imposition and the extent of the lock down.
Large air transport movements weren't the only casualties with row upon row of business aviation units parked up across Europe.
