British Airways Lambastes Quarantine as Unscientific in Court

(Bloomberg) -- British Airways parent IAG SA kicked off its legal fight against the U.K. policy of forcing visitors to self-isolate for 14 days, saying even the government’s own scientists acknowledged that the quarantine would have little impact on virus transmission.

The quarantine was introduced in early June to guard against a resurgence in coronavirus cases as lockdowns eased. The approach was slammed by airlines and holiday firms that said the rules would destroy demand just as they’re trying to salvage some business from the crucial summer travel season.

But a lot has changed since BA teamed up with its rivals EasyJet Plc and Ryanair Holdings Plc to sue the U.K.’s health department.

Last week, the U.K. said it would scrap quarantine requirements for people arriving from countries including France, Greece and Spain. A full list of nations that will link with Britain through so-called air bridges will be published Friday. The new regime, to be introduced in the coming week, will cover more than 50 countries, Transport Secretary Grant Shapps told BBC Radio 4.

Yet the airlines remain determined to fight their case in court, with an attorney saying that the quarantine was the most severe restriction to international travel in peacetime.

In their filings for Friday’s hearing, the airlines said the government’s own scientific adviser, Professor John Aston, noted that compulsory isolation should only be imposed “on people arriving from countries that have a higher prevalence” of coronavirus.

In a radio interview on Monday, Willie Walsh, the CEO of IAG, said that the quarantine and the legislation behind it were “irrational” and “disproportionate.” IAG and EasyJet declined to comment on the lawsuit.

In a statement, Ryanair said it expects “the U.K. government’s ineffective and useless visitor quarantine to be overturned” by the court.

The government was entitled to take a “precautionary approach,” government lawyer James Eadie said, and took account of the scientific advice. Even the scientists believed that judging the “tipping point” at which border controls should be introduced was not a scientific question “but a matter of policy,” he said.

Should the airlines succeed in their challenge, the court still shouldn’t quash the entire regulations -- especially as the airlines recognize the need for border controls for countries with a high incidence of the virus, Eadie said.

‘Political Football’

“It’s a game of political football,” said Stephen Furlong, an airline analyst at Davy Securities in Dublin. “For the government, it’s a tough task of balancing health concerns with reopening the economy, while for the airlines, they’re looking for certainty in planning their schedules.”

The industry has been ravaged by the effective shutdown of air travel brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic. European airlines have set plans to slash almost 75,000 jobs since the coronavirus pandemic started, based on a Bloomberg tally. British Airways, EasyJet and Ryanair account for about a quarter of those.

They want the government to change its plan to earlier rules, which required only travelers from “high risk” countries to self-isolate. The carriers will likely point to the impact the quarantine rules have had on the industry and wider economy.

Courtroom Setting

The hearing, known as a judicial review, allows the public and corporations to hold the government accountable for policy decisions. On Friday, the judge must first decide to grant permission for the judicial review itself to proceed in court. If successful, both sides will then make arguments about whether the government’s decision-making process was fair and rational.

“It’s important to have a coordinated policy as consumers are confused by the flip flops in the policy, and so are holding off bookings,” Furlong said. “The air bridges might well dilute some of the arguments, but I would assume it’s a point of principle for the airlines as so far, it has been quite an uncoordinated effort.”

The process is designed to weigh the lawfulness of how a government decision was reached, rather than on whether the decision is right or wrong. Public bodies that lose judicial review cases can make the same decision again as long as they do so using correct procedures.

This week, the European Union loosened travel restrictions for residents of countries including Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand. Still, the bloc extended the restrictions on Americans, deeming the U.S. response to Covid-19 insufficient to allow its citizens to enter the bloc for non-essential reasons.

The U.K.’s air bridges will also exclude the U.S. for now, Shapps said.

The EU restrictions, which are non-binding on member states, recommend that visitors only be allowed into the bloc from countries where the average number of infections per 100,000 inhabitants over the past two weeks is similar to or below the level of the EU, and that the trend of new cases is declining.

While border controls are a responsibility of individual governments, it commits member states to coordinate their approach and not lift the ban for countries outside the list.

©2020 Bloomberg L.P.