Travel during the continuing PANDEMIC

[IFG]

6 hours ago, UpperDeck said:

One or more of you can help me with numbers and percentages:

The GTAA reports in 2020 total transborder/int'll arriving and departing pax was 208,000. Assume 50% arriving= 104,000 or 8600 per month or 289 per day. That number is lower in 2021.

If 2.7% of travellers ... that's ALL travellers but let's just blame int'll/transborder....are infected that equals 8 people arriving in Toronto on average per day with Covid. BUT...that was before pre-arrival PCR testing.

Ontario is now reporting about 1700 cases per day but just assume over the month of January there were 2000 averaged per day. If 2.7% of all cases in Ontario were attributed to travellers that would be approximately 50 pax per day. Since we "know" 8 of those came from outside Canada then 42 were domestic travellers ....

NEXT....if there ARE an average of some 300 arrivals/day the proposed hotel quarantine rules would require 1000 rooms. Hey! If I'm paying $2000. I want my OWN room. I'm not sharing with my significant other!!

At 200 rooms per facility...that requires 5 hotels to sign on to "the plan". Are there that many "No tell motels" near the airport? Lol

Hi, UpperDeck - I suspect studying epidemiology at Internet University is likely no better than Internet Law School for substantiating 'strongly' held opinions in either discipline 

But that said, & FWIW, I doubt those very low %#'s tell the whole story. The largest causal factor by far is "unknown", and "close contact" does not illuminate the prior generations of infection. There also seems to be strong correlation between stronger measures and better infection control (say, Oz/NZ vs US/Sweden?). And let's not cart-before-horse those low numbers; they're much more easily argued as substantiating the success of restrictions, and certainly cannot be taken as diminishing the prior problem.

To mitigate the damage restrictions are causing, the airline/travel industry must argue very persuasively on the cost/benefit of these policies. Carelessly cited statistics will weaken rather than strengthen the case?

 

7 hours ago, boestar said:

No source given but does this include a correction for the "make up" numbers over the last several weeks?  The reported daily numbers from Toronto included number from previous days which skews the outcome.  Something to do with a software issue or some excuse.

Apologies for 'missing link'. But embarrassment is mitigated by your own lack of citation ... Oh wait! No data to cite, just your own assertion of incorrect info. 

Alas, I can't find that chart now (not devoting too much time to it), it was a ON gov't webpage tho', and the data it held is available all over the place (Kip found some OK). IAC, below is another displaying same over a longer time frame.

It shows that indeed positivity rate ran 4-ish% for a month or two (not "all along"), before spiking almost to 10%, and declining again after Ford's quasi-lockdown.

The chart does state that it's # of tests, not # of people, but that is the standard measure, and applied consistently should reliably show the delta of the rate, which is the important part for going forward.

IAC, yes it's back around 4% for now, but the target is 3%, the healthcare system is still under strain, and more virulent variants are not (yet?) dominant. Hope for the best, plan for the worst might be wise?

Cheers, IFG 

https://www.publichealthontario.ca/-/media/documents/ncov/epi/covid-19-daily-epi-summary-report.pdf?la=en

 

Edited February 4, 2021 by IFG

[Fido]

On 2/3/2021 at 2:35 PM, IFG said:

????? - Cheers, IFG

I find it interesting that as the number of tests goes down the positivity rate goes up

[Fido]

20 hours ago, Kargokings said:

take a look at the increase in infection / deaths of those under 50 to confirm that

The older ones are already dead

[Guest1]

Not aviation but Alaska has developed a reliance on Cruise Ship traffic during the spring/summer/fall to jump start local economy. Because of the Jones Act, the ships operating between the US and Alaska (unless American Registered) must stop in a foreign port before returning the the US.  Canada has just announced that the Cruise Ships ban will now extend until Feb. 2022.  Unless the US relaxes the Jones Act that means the economy of a lot of the Alaska ports will continue to be decimated  .  It will be interesting to see how this develops. Economic impact by region | CLIA Alaska (akcruise.org)

Quote

Not the Jones Act. That's for cargo. But another beast of a similar species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Vessel_Services_Act_of_1886

Edited to reflect a correction from Dagger.

[Guest1]

4 minutes ago, Fido said:

The older ones are already dead

Those of narrow minds may think so but the reality is that the Majority of older folks are still around .

[Turbofan]

Not sure how accurate this article is since yesterday on the news it was reported quarantine on arrival in YYC had already started.  This article seems to paint a picture that most sun destination travellers will dodge quarantine.

 

 

Thousands of sun-seeking Canadian travellers dodge hotel quarantine

Vacationers returning to Montreal through Feb. 14 are able to quarantine at home because the federal government's plan is not ready to be rolled out.

 

 

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMib2h0dHBzOi8vbW9udHJlYWxnYXpldHRlLmNvbS9uZXdzL2xvY2FsLW5ld3MvdGhvdXNhbmRzLW9mLXN1bi1zZWVraW5nLWNhbmFkaWFuLXRyYXZlbGxlcnMtZG9kZ2UtaG90ZWwtcXVhcmFudGluZdIBnQFodHRwczovL21vbnRyZWFsZ2F6ZXR0ZS5jb20vbmV3cy9sb2NhbC1uZXdzL3Rob3VzYW5kcy1vZi1zdW4tc2Vla2luZy1jYW5hZGlhbi10cmF2ZWxsZXJzLWRvZGdlLWhvdGVsLXF1YXJhbnRpbmUvd2NtL2ZlYzk0NDk2LTA0NGMtNDhmZi1hYTRkLWU3ODdjNzI4MzJkMi9hbXAv?hl=en-CA&gl=CA&ceid=CA%3Aen

[CanadaEH]

Who's shocked by this? As of 2 days ago the government hadn't selected a hotel for the quarantine camp in YYC yet. So...... 

[J.O.]

The policy is supposed to have been in place since Wednesday night but as of last night there was no guidance on it on any government website. Epic fail.

[Guest1]

Cathay Pacific Exempts First And Business Class Passengers From Mask Requirement

• byAndrew Curran
• February 8, 2021

Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific is winding back the rules on wearing face masks for some of its premium…

[Guest1]

I understand some folks think they are safe in the US than in Canada when it comes to the virus.... well..

[dagger]

On 2/4/2021 at 6:06 PM, Kargokings said:

Not aviation but Alaska has developed a reliance on Cruise Ship traffic during the spring/summer/fall to jump start local economy. Because of the Jones Act, the ships operating between the US and Alaska (unless American Registered) must stop in a foreign port before returning the the US.  Canada has just announced that the Cruise Ships ban will now extend until Feb. 2022.  Unless the US relaxes the Jones Act that means the economy of a lot of the Alaska ports will continue to be decimated  .  It will be interesting to see how this develops. Economic impact by region | CLIA Alaska (akcruise.org)

 

Not the Jones Act. That's for cargo. But another beast of a similar species.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_Vessel_Services_Act_of_1886

[Guest1]

Alaska lashes out after Canada extends cruise ban until 2022

Move was 'unexpected, unacceptable, inconsiderate'

Author of the article:

Shari Kulha

Publishing date:

Feb 09, 2021  •  2 hours ago  •  4 minute read  Alaska lashes out after Canada extends cruise ban until 2022 | National Post

[Airband]

On 1/31/2021 at 8:56 PM, UpperDeck said:

It would be difficult to establish that the denial of " liberty"; the "arbitrary detention" of citizens; and restriction on mobility was demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.

Mandatory hotel quarantine violates citizens' mobility rights: civil liberties group

Civil liberties group also says the $2,000-price for a mandatory hotel quarantine could prevent lower-income Canadians from taking essential flights abroad

Tue Feb 09, 2021 - National Post

OTTAWA — The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is questioning Ottawa’s move to require hotel quarantines for international travellers, saying it may harm lower-income Canadians and infringe on citizens’ mobility rights.

Cara Zwibel, a lawyer who heads the organization’s fundamental freedoms program, is calling on the federal government to produce any evidence that returning passengers are breaching the current requirement to self-isolate at home, which she suggests is the only fair basis to toughen the rules.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced more than two weeks ago that travellers flying back from abroad will have to quarantine at a federally mandated hotel for up to three days at their own expense, though he acknowledged that only a fraction of COVID-19 cases appears to stem from overseas trips.

Zwibel suggests that the cost — $2,000 or more, according to the government — could be prohibitive for lower-income Canadians who need to care for sick relatives or receive specialized medical care abroad.

Health conditions that would make isolating in a hotel particularly challenging are another concern.

In a letter to Canada’s transport minister and attorney general, the civil liberties association is demanding Ottawa carve out quarantine exemptions and fee waivers for Canadians who seek to look after loved ones or receive treatment overseas, particularly people in narrow financial straits.

“For these individuals, travel is not a luxury,” Zwibel says in the letter.

“The government’s definition of what constitutes ‘essential travel’ for these purposes will be important.”

Ottawa has not announced when mandatory hotel quarantines will come into effect, one of several measures aimed at choking off viral spread at the border and deterring non-essential travel.

Trudeau announced on Jan. 29 that Canadian airlines had suspended flights to Mexico and the Caribbean until April 30. Residents who do choose to fly abroad now have to furnish negative COVID-19 test results less than 72 hours before departure back to home soil.

Roughly two per cent of cases with “known exposure” have been linked to international travel, and an even smaller proportion in recent weeks, according to the Public Health Agency of Canada. However, there is still virtually no testing at the border and many recent cases do not have an identified source.

Section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that “every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada,” though all rights are subject to reasonable limits.

[Guest1]

Negative COVID-19 test will soon be required at land border: Trudeau

PM says Canadians won't be turned away — but could face fines if they don't have a test result

Catharine Tunney · CBC News · Posted: Feb 09, 2021 11:59 AM ET | Last Updated: 34 minutes ago

 

Travellers entering Canada through the land border will soon need to provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test before arriving, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced today. (Elaine Thompson/The Associated Press)

240

comments

Travellers entering Canada through the land border will soon need to provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test before arrival, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced today.

"As of February 15th, when you return to Canada through a land border, you'll need to show a 72-hour PCR test, just like air travel," Trudeau said today during his regular morning media briefing outside Rideau Cottage.

 

The prime minister said border officers can't legally deny entry to Canadians, including returning snowbirds — but those who show up without proof of a test could face fines of up to $3,000.

"What we can do is in cases of no test to show [is] apply a stiff penalty, a fine and demand and ensure a rapid and complete followup to make sure that they are getting tested, that they are being properly quarantined, that they are not putting at risk the safety of other Canadians by returning home without a clear negative test," Trudeau said.

The new measure comes more than a month after the government announced air travellers will need proof of negative polymerase chain reaction tests — commonly known as PCR tests — three days before boarding their flights home.

Those landing by plane also will soon need to pay for a test after they land as well. The government promised in late January that all air passengers returning from non-essential trips abroad will have to self-isolate in a federally mandated facility for up to 72 hours at their own expense.

It's still not clear when those new restrictive measures come into place.

The testing requirement is in addition to the mandatory 14-day quarantine period for returning non-essential travellers.

The government has had travel restrictions on most foreign nationals in place since March 2020.

[Kip Powick]

The prime minister said border officers can't legally deny entry to Canadians, including returning snowbirds — but those who show up without proof of a test could face fines of up to $3,000.

 

Why "could" ??     Is there a sliding scale for the fine?      If there is, what are the parameters??

[Guest1]

35 minutes ago, Kip Powick said:

The prime minister said border officers can't legally deny entry to Canadians, including returning snowbirds — but those who show up without proof of a test could face fines of up to $3,000.

 

Why "could" ??     Is there a sliding scale for the fine?      If there is, what are the parameters??

Perhaps a free pass to "Registered Liberals.   

[Guest1]

Order No. 2021-A-3

February 10, 2021

 

APPLICATIONS by multiple air carriers for exemptions, pursuant to paragraph 80(1)(c) of the Canada Transportation Act, SC 1996, c 10 (CTA), from the tariff and service schedule filing time periods set out in subsections 115(1) and 138(3) of the Air Transportation Regulations, SOR/88-58 (ATR).

 

Case number: 

20-08779

 

BACKGROUND

[1] On July 17, 2020, the Agency issued the Notice to Industry: Applications for Exemptions from Subsections 115(1) and 138(3) of the ATR advising that the Agency would consider exercising its power to exempt air carriers, pursuant to paragraph 80(1)(c) of the CTA, from the tariff and service schedule filing time periods set out in subsections 115(1) and 138(3) of the ATR.

[2] Subsection 115(1) of the ATR requires air carriers providing an international service to file their tariffs and amendments to their tariffs with the Agency at least 45 days before those tariffs and amendments come into force, with some exceptions. Subsection 138(3) of the ATR requires air carriers providing an international scheduled service to file their service schedules and amendments to their service schedules with the Agency at least 10 days prior to their effective date.

[3] The Notice to Industry provided air carriers with an opportunity to file applications for exemptions with the Agency, specifying why they believe compliance with these provisions is unnecessary, undesirable or impractical.

[4] The Agency received 28 applications from individual air carriers and trade associations on behalf of their member carriers (applicants).

LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

[5] Subsection 80(1) of the CTA states:

The Agency may, by order, on such terms and conditions as it deems appropriate, exempt a person from the application of any of the provisions of this Part or of a regulation or order made under this Part where the Agency is of the opinion that

1. the person has substantially complied with the provision;
2. an action taken by the person is as effective as actual compliance with the provision; or
3. compliance with the provision by the person is unnecessary, undesirable or impractical.

[6] Subsection 115(1) of the ATR states:

Every tariff or amendment to a tariff shall be filed with the Agency at least 45 days before the tariff or amendment comes into force, except:

1. where a different period is specified in an international agreement, convention or arrangement respecting civil aviation to which Canada is a party; or
2. if the tariff or amendment is filed at least one working day before it comes into force to publish tolls for an additional aircraft to be used in, or to cancel tolls respecting an aircraft to be withdrawn from, a non-scheduled international service, other than a service that is operated at a toll per unit of traffic; or
3. by order of the Agency.

[7] Subsection 138(3) of the ATR states:

Every service schedule or amendment thereto shall be filed with the Agency at least 10 days, commencing on its receipt by the Agency and not on mailing, prior to the effective date of the schedule or amendment.

SUBMISSIONS

[8] The Appendix to this Order lists the applicants who have sought exemptions. Some of the applicants have applied for an exemption from the requirements of subsection 115(1) of the ATR, while others seek exemptions from both subsections 115(1) and 138(3) of the ATR. Some applicants seek exemptions without conditions, while others have asked that the exemptions be granted on the condition that the notice required for filing be reduced to no more than one day before the coming into force of the tariff, service schedule, or applicable amendment.

[9] The applicants make several arguments in support of their assertion that compliance with the filing time periods set out in subsections 115(1) and 138(3) of the ATR is unnecessary, undesirable or impractical.

[10] The applicants submit that the filing time periods established in the ATR over three decades ago have become increasingly inconsistent with the way the industry operates and that the trend in Canada and around the world has been to reduce regulatory burdens of this kind in the civil aviation industry to encourage competitiveness and efficiency in the market.

[11] The applicants submit that the highly dynamic and competitive nature of the air transportation industry requires that air carriers have the ability to quickly and efficiently implement changes to their fares, rates, charges, terms and conditions and schedules. They also submit that this principle has been widely recognized through air transport agreements (ATAs), which have flexible tariff filing language allowing for filing on as few as one day’s notice for prices. According to the applicants, this approach reflects Canada’s Blue Sky Policy that guides the negotiation of ATAs with countries around the world and aims to encourage long-term and sustainable competition.

[12] It is a common theme in the applications that, at the time when notice requirements for international services were imposed, international travel was much more regulated. Now that the majority of ATAs are less restrictive, the applicants submit that there is no longer any reason to keep notice requirements for international travel or to draw a distinction between international and domestic travel.

[13] Several applicants allege that the tariff filing time periods can, in certain situations, tip the competitive balance in favour of foreign air carriers over Canadian air carriers, such as when a foreign air carrier is offering third-country services pursuant to an ATA that provides more open and flexible arrangements than those available to Canadian air carriers.

[14] The applicants also claim that the filing time periods are a barrier to providing more competitive fares and service offerings to the travelling public in an efficient and timely manner.

[15] Further, the applicants submit that contemporary challenges, such as those introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic, highlight the importance for air carriers to have the ability to react quickly to changes in the market and to government directives and requirements.

[16] Finally, the applicants state that the elimination of the filing time periods will not impact the Agency’s powers to raise concerns in respect of an air carrier’s tariff or service schedule, whether on its own motion or in response to complaints filed with the Agency.

ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION

[17] The arguments made by the applicants are persuasive. Because the arguments made across the applications are similar, with respect to matters such as air transport agreements and industry changes, the Agency will not address each application individually but, rather, will deal with them as a group.

[18] The filing time periods were established in the ATR over three decades ago when tariffs and service schedules were managed in a less sophisticated electronic environment. With the advancement of information systems, technologies now exist that allow air carriers to process filings quickly and make them available to the public immediately.

[19] Moreover, there has been a dramatic change in market realities and the operating practices of air carriers since the filing time periods were introduced. The Internet is now the primary source for the dissemination of information regarding fares, rates and charges, and for the posting of tariff terms and conditions and service schedules. In a competitive market, air carriers should be able to quickly update their fares, rates and charges, terms and conditions, and schedules to respond to operational and competitive considerations, as well as government actions.

[20] Further, maintaining the tariff and service schedule filing time periods as set out in the ATR may limit Canadian air carriers’ ability to provide affordable, convenient, and efficient air services for customers and to respond to changes in demand and competitive pressures in the market in the same manner as foreign air carriers designated under an ATA with less onerous requirements. Among its objectives, Canada’s Blue Sky Policy provides a framework that encourages competition and the development of new and expanded international air services to benefit travellers, shippers, and the tourism and business sectors. It also provides opportunities for Canadian airlines to grow and compete successfully in a more liberalized environment. Providing all air carriers with the same filing time periods is in keeping with the Blue Sky Policy and will help create a level playing field, consistent with the National Transportation Policy set out in section 5 of the CTA.

[21] While a significant number of air carriers have submitted applications individually, and trade associations have made representations on behalf of their members, the number of air carriers offering an international service covered by sections 115(1) and 138(3) of the ATR remains large and not all air carriers to whom these sections apply may have filed an application.

[22] Given that the exemptions requested are related in large part to the need for air carriers to be competitive, allowing some, but not all, air carriers to benefit from the flexibility that such exemptions provide would run counter to the rationale for granting them.

[23] In light of the above, the Agency finds, pursuant to paragraph 80(1)(c) of the CTA, that compliance by air carriers with the filing time periods set out in subsections 115(1) and 138(3) of the ATR is undesirable. The Agency finds it appropriate for air carriers to file their fares, rates, charges and service schedules without any notice, such that they would come into effect immediately once filed with the Agency. However, the Agency finds that terms and conditions of carriage should be filed no less than one day prior to their coming into force to maintain the orderly submission and processing of this information.

ORDER

[24] Pursuant to paragraph 80(1)(c) of the CTA, the Agency exempts all air carriers operating an international service from the filing time periods set out in subsection 115(1) of the ATR, which requires air carriers to file a tariff or amendments to a tariff with the Agency at least 45 days before the tariff or amendment comes into force. This exemption is granted on the condition that terms and conditions of carriage be filed with the Agency at least one day before their coming into force. Fares, rates and charges may come into force immediately upon filing with the Agency.

[25] Pursuant to paragraph 80(1)(c) of the CTA, the Agency exempts all air carriers operating an international service from the filing time periods set out in subsection 138(3) of the ATR, which requires every service schedule or amendment be filed with the Agency at least 10 days prior to the effective date of the schedule or amendment. Service schedules may come into force immediately upon filing with the Agency.

[26] This Order is effective immediately.

[27] This Order does not exempt air carriers from the requirement to file fares, rates, charges, and terms and conditions, as set out in air carriers’ tariffs, pursuant to subsection 110(1) of the ATR, nor from the requirement to file service schedules pursuant to section 137 of the ATR.

[28] This Order does not affect the Agency’s authority to enforce the requirements of the ATR, the Air Passenger Protection Regulations, SOR/2019-150, or the Accessible Transportation for Persons with Disabilities Regulations, SOR/2019-244, including by rejecting, suspending or disallowing any tariff or service schedule at any time before or after the tariff or the service schedule comes into force.

[29] The Agency may rescind an exemption with respect to any individual air carrier if it does not comply with a condition of this Order or if the Agency deems it otherwise necessary.

---

APPENDIX TO ORDER NO. 2021-A-3

	Applicant	Application for permanent exemption from the filing time period set out in subsection 115(1) of the ATR only	Application for permanent exemption from the filing time periods set out in subsections 115(1) and 138(3) of the ATR	Application for an exemption without conditions imposed by the Agency	Application for filing time periods in both subsections 115(1) and 138(3) of the ATR to be reduced to one day
1.	A joint application by the National Airlines Council of Canada (NACC), on behalf of member carriers Air Canada, WestJet, Transat, Jazz, and by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), on behalf of member carriers licensed to operate an international service to and from Canada	-	Yes	Yes	YesFootnote*
2.	Air North Charter & Training Ltd.	Yes	-	-	-
3.	Air Tahiti Nui	-	Yes	-	-
4.	American Airlines, Inc.	-	Yes	Yes	YesFootnote*
5.	Cargojet Airways Ltd.	-	Yes	-	Yes
6.	Caribbean Airlines Limited	-	Yes	Yes	YesFootnote*
7.	Cathay Pacific Airways Limited	-	Yes	-	-
8.	Cayman Airways	Yes	-	-	-
9.	China Airlines Limited	-	Yes	-	-
10.	China Eastern Airlines Corporation Limited		Yes	-	-
11.	China Southern Airlines Company Limited	-	Yes	-	-
12.	Delta Air Lines, Inc.	-	Yes	Yes	YesFootnote*
13.	Ethiopian Airlines Group	-	Yes	Yes	YesFootnote*
14.	Eva Airways Corporation	-	Yes	-	-
15.	Finnair OYJ	-	Yes	-	Yes
16.	Gol Linhas Aéreas S/A	-	Yes	Yes	YesFootnote*
17.	Hong Kong Airlines Limited	-	Yes	-	-
18.	Icelandair ehf	-	Yes	-	-
19.	Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij, N.V. (K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines)	-	Yes	-	-
20.	Lufthansa Group (Austrian Airlines AG; Brussels Airlines N.V./S.A.; Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft (Lufthansa German Airlines); Eurowings GmbH; Lufthansa CityLine GmbH; Swiss International Air Lines Ltd.)	-	Yes	Yes	YesFootnote*
21.	Philippine Airlines, Inc.	-	Yes	-	-
22.	Qatar Airways Group (Q.C.S.C)	-	Yes	Yes	YesFootnote*
23.	Sata Internacional - Azores Airlines, S.A.	-	Yes	Yes	YesFootnote*
24.	Société Air France	-	Yes	-	-
25.	Sunwing Airlines Inc.	-	Yes	-	Yes
26.	TYesrk Hava Yollari Anonim Ortakligi (Turkish Airlines Inc.)	-	Yes	Yes	YesFootnote*
27.	Transportes Aéreos Portugueses, S.A.	-	Yes	-	-
28.	Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited	-	Yes	-	-

Footnote

Footnote *

The applicant only requests for the filing time period to be reduced to one day if the exemption without conditions is not granted.

Return to footnote*referrer

 

Member(s)

Scott Streiner

J. Mark MacKeigan

Allan Matte

[Guest1]

England’s New Quarantine Hotel Scheme Comes Into Effect
by
Tom Boon
February 15, 2021  England's New Quarantine Hotel Scheme Comes Into Effect - Simple Flying

England’s new hotel quarantine scheme for high-risk arrivals went live today. The scheme means that some will need to quarantine near their airport of arrival for ten days. Those not required to isolate in hotels will need to pay for a pricy COVID-19 test package.

Hotel Quarantine, COVID-19 Tests, Prison
Those arriving from a red-list country will need to pay £1,750 for a ten-day hotel stay. 
The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way we travel. Indeed, many governments have tried to dissuade travel with travel bans and restrictions. While some governments require quarantine, others take a relaxed view with mandatory COVID testing. While already banning most international travel, the UK government has made it harder to enter England with new rules beginning today.

£1,750 hotel quarantine for high-risk arrivals
The most prominent of England’s new rules going into effect today is the mandatory hotel quarantine for those traveling to the country from 33 so-called ‘Red List Countries’. While direct travel is currently not possible, those coming to England from one of these countries must land at Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Birmingham, or Farnborough (for private jet arrivals) airports.

Having cleared passport control, such passengers are then escorted to their Australia style quarantine hotel. For a ten-day stay in the hotels, passengers must pay the government a flat fee of £1750 for the room, transport, COVID-19 tests, and food. An additional adult will cost £650 if they share the room, with children costing £325. Those receiving income-based benefits may be able to set up a payment plan with the government.

UK, Hotel Quarantine, Arrival Tests
To facilitate private jet arrivals, red-list passengers can land in Farnborough. Unfortunately, the scheme didn’t get off to the greatest start. The booking portal for hotels was due to go live on Thursday afternoon. However, for much of Thursday and Friday, it was not available due to a technical issue. While airlines have been instructed to reject travel if a quarantine package hasn’t been booked when needed, if passengers do slip through the net, they will be fined £4,000, in addition to the cost of quarantine.

[Guest1]

Quote

Two passengers fined a combined $17,000 for allegedly faking negative COVID-19 tests

Ben CousinsCTVNews.ca Writer

@cousins_ben Contact

Published Thursday, February 18, 2021 3:13PM EST

•  

OTTAWA -- Transport Canada has fined two airline passengers a combined $17,000 after allegedly presenting falsified COVID-19 tests before flying back to Canada.

According to a news release, the passengers have been fined $10,000 and $7,000 respectively for “for presenting a false or misleading COVID-19 test and for making a false declaration about their health status.”

•  

• Read the full news release here

“In both cases, the individuals knowingly boarded a flight to Canada from Mexico on January 23, 2021, after having tested positive for COVID-19 only a few days before their flight,” Transport Canada wrote in the release.

Under current regulations, travellers must present a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of boarding a flight to Canada or provide proof of a positive result between 14 and 90 days prior to arrival.

Anyone failing to abide by these regulations can face a fine of up to $5,000 per violation.

“Transport Canada will continue to investigate incidents reported to the department and will not hesitate to take enforcement action where it is warranted,” the agency said.

 

[conehead]

Wonder how they got caught?

[Bobcaygeon]

17 hours ago, Kargokings said:

 

Excellent, fines should have been enforced long ago instead of just warnings for all of these violations. By late last year there many rules that had been place for quite some time and people were still just getting warnings. I understand giving warnings for all the rules that seem to change constantly but some have been in place fo rmany, many months. 

 

From the reaction to quarantine costs it's clear $$$ catches people's attention. 

[J.O.]

11 hours ago, conehead said:

Wonder how they got caught?

They probably had documentation that didn't at all resemble what their fellow passengers presented.

[Kip Powick]

Travel During The Pandemic  and Other Sad Times

One of Trumps strongest advocates, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, decides to go for a vacation in Cancun during the Pandemic  while Texas has massive power outages and a " boil water"  order during a vicious ice, and snow storm in Texas...

 

Words fail me ...you can read about his escapade in any major newspaper or on TV or Google..

A CP/AC retired pilot friend of mine just sent me an email.......finally has water and power after 5 days 

 

[Guest1]

Quote

Three days before new travel rules are set to come into force, the federal government has released a list of hotels where air travellers arriving in Canada can complete the mandatory quarantine period.

As of Monday, all air travellers returning from non-essential international trips will have to isolate in one of the approved facilities, at their own expense, for up to 72 hours while they await the results of a polymerase chain reaction test (commonly known as a PCR test) taken upon arrival.

 

Travellers must also produce negative COVID-19 results from tests taken 72 hours before boarding their flights to Canada.

• How some Canadians plan to circumvent Ottawa's new hotel quarantine requirement

• Hotel quarantine measures for air travellers come into effect Feb. 22: Trudeau

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said the new measures are meant to prevent the spread of coronavirus "variants of concern" — some of which scientists say are more transmissible than the more common strain.

Travellers flying into Canada from abroad will land in one of four cities — Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto or Montreal — and are responsible for booking their own rooms there even if they plan on travelling on to other destinations. Those with negative results on their arrival tests will be able to take connecting flights to their final destinations.

All hotel bookings are being managed by American Express Global Business Travel, a multinational travel company. To book a room, travellers need to call 1-800-294-8253.

Here is the list of approved hotels:

Calgary International Airport (YYC)

• Acclaim Hotel
• Marriott Calgary Airport

Vancouver International Airport (YVR)

• Westin Wall Centre Vancouver Airport

Toronto Pearson Airport (YYZ)

• Alt Hotel Pearson Airport
• Four Points by Sheraton and Element Toronto Airport
• Holiday Inn Toronto International Airport
• Sheraton Gateway Hotel in Toronto International Airport

Montréal-Pierre Elliott Trudeau International Airport (YUL)

• Aloft Montreal Airport
• Crowne Plaza Montreal Airport
• Holiday Inn Express and Suites Montreal Airport
• Montreal Airport Marriott In-Terminal

Government releases list of approved quarantine hotels for returning travellers | CBC News

 

[Guest1]

Published Friday, February 19, 2021 12:27PM EST

Mandatory hotel quarantine rates far lower than $2,000 touted by government | CTV News