COVID 19 refuse to fly?

Subscribe
1  2 
Page 1 of 2
Go to
All guidelines point to the pointlessness of operating commercial flights, particularly to vacation destinations.

Begs the question, who is going to be the first to refuse to fly based on federal, state, and local guidelines?
Reply
Based on what I see hitting open time at my airline, I think pilots are already refusing to fly to the higher risk locations.
Reply
So what do our guys and gals do in the California domiciles?
Reply
Quote: So what do our guys and gals do in the California domiciles?
Flight crew is exempt, due to being part of the vital infrastructure. At least that’s what the memo from UAL just told me.
Reply
Quote: All guidelines point to the pointlessness of operating commercial flights, particularly to vacation destinations.

Begs the question, who is going to be the first to refuse to fly based on federal, state, and local guidelines?
Why don't you? Be our canary in the coal mine, so to speak. If you've got the conviction to, that is.
Reply
Yeah, stay away from CA, much better here in HKG. Just passing thru, but I gotta mask and a paper towel for my stateside doings.
Reply
Quote: Yeah, stay away from CA.
California has a way lower percentage of cases than many states. Let’s stick to the facts.

New York has 4,597 (about half of the US total). Washington has 1,187. Both have smaller populations than California.

California has 652 cases but has a population of 40 million. That doesn’t even put it in the top 10 states for infections per population.

Georgia has 262. Population 10 million.
Illinois has 288. Population 12 million.
Louisiana has 261. Population 4.5 million.
New Jersey has 427. Population 8.8 million.

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, Wisconsin, and several more because I don’t care to keep doing the math all have a higher percentage of infections per population.

CDC site for infections per state:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ses-in-us.html

Wikipedia site for population per state:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._by_population
Reply
Quote: California has a way lower percentage of cases than many states. Let’s stick to the facts.

New York has 4,597 (about half of the US total). Washington has 1,187. Both have smaller populations than California.

California has 652 cases but has a population of 40 million. That doesn’t even put it in the top 10 states for infections per population.

Georgia has 262. Population 10 million.
Illinois has 288. Population 12 million.
Louisiana has 261. Population 4.5 million.
New Jersey has 427. Population 8.8 million.

Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, Wisconsin, and several more because I don’t care to keep doing the math all have a higher percentage of infections per population.

CDC site for infections per state:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...ses-in-us.html

Wikipedia site for population per state:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List..._by_population
Nobody knows what the real picture is.

A family member is a physician in a medical center in a major metropolitan area. They have people in the ICU on ventilators who are symptomatic, but as of yesterday they are not allowed to test them because the local requirement is symptomatic and known contact with someone who tested positive. And with no one other than the rich and famous being tested it creates a Catch-22 for most of the population.

This is in a state that the CDC shows with less than 100 cases.
Reply
Quote: Why don't you? Be our canary in the coal mine, so to speak. If you've got the conviction to, that is.
lol. Only if you double dare me.
Reply
Correction
California has over a thousand cases.

https://www.newsbreak.com/topics/cov...99&pd=01O2GEVg
Reply
1  2 
Page 1 of 2
Go to