[Goose]

It probably would have meant consolidating international travelers into a handful of locations (maybe NY, Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Chicago, and LA) and closing to international flights outside of the dedicated ports of entry.  That is not a trivial task, and would have required massively reducing the number of flights and travelers to cope (of course, the volume of travelers would have reduced dramatically anyways had people known they would have to quarantine for 14 days).

BC

Yes, and this would have required rescheduling/re-routing the aircraft, which would have been a nightmare and required international cooperation. Eventually it is true that passengers would be reduced, but not initially, as the rush of US citizens returning home would have dwarfed the one we had anyway in response to the China travel ban. There would have been an even greater crunch, as there wouldn't have been about a month for prudent travelers to return home. I hesitate to imagine what LHR, FRA, CDG, or FCO would have looked like. The limited capacity into the reduced number of airports would have people waiting for days to get a flight. Re-issuing tickets to different cities where the airline you originally booked on didn't serve internationally (or maybe at all) before boggles the imagination.

Is it any different than a hastily arranged press conference announcing a 30-day suspension of all travel from Europe (excluding the UK)?

BC

Yes, three important reasons. The travel ban from Europe didn't apply (and cannot apply) to US citizens. First, in the scenario that matches Taiwan, all US citizens would have been quarantined under government supervision on their return CONUS. That was not done at all in the Mach 12 travel ban, and was not even attempted. This was a serious problem with how the ban operated. Second, no ports of entry were closed, so the airlines could operate basically "normally". You could return to where you intended at least, and the flights didn't need to be rescheduled or rerouted. While there was a crush for people who wanted to return ASAP, they were not constrained by fewer flights to fewer places on airlines they didn't have tickets on. Third, the China travel ban was instituted on Jan 31. Many travelers saw that ban and either canceled their travel plans to Europe or came home as soon as they could. Italy wasn't a disaster yet, but it was getting there and people saw that. Lots of reason to come home. Therefore when the actual European ban went into effect, there were many fewer USA citizens traveling than there were on Jan 31. Made repatriation easier.

For these reasons I would say the disorganized return to the USA of travelers that we saw was a very bad thing because they were stuck in long lines at the airports/customs and didn't get quarantined. Doing the same on Jan 31 with fewer airports and more people would have been an even larger catastrophe and to add a quarantine under government supervision would have made it totally impossible.

[Goose]

It probably would have meant consolidating international travelers into a handful of locations (maybe NY, Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Chicago, and LA) and closing to international flights outside of the dedicated ports of entry.  That is not a trivial task, and would have required massively reducing the number of flights and travelers to cope (of course, the volume of travelers would have reduced dramatically anyways had people known they would have to quarantine for 14 days).

BC

Yes, and this would have required rescheduling/re-routing the aircraft, which would have been a nightmare and required international cooperation. Eventually it is true that passengers would be reduced, but not initially, as the rush of US citizens returning home would have dwarfed the one we had anyway in response to the China travel ban. There would have been an even greater crunch, as there wouldn't have been about a month for prudent travelers to return home. I hesitate to imagine what LHR, FRA, CDG, or FCO would have looked like. The limited capacity into the reduced number of airports would have people waiting for days to get a flight. Re-issuing tickets to different cities where the airline you originally booked on didn't serve internationally (or maybe at all) before boggles the imagination.

Is it any different than a hastily arranged press conference announcing a 30-day suspension of all travel from Europe (excluding the UK)?

BC

Yes, three important reasons. The travel ban from Europe didn't apply (and cannot apply) to US citizens. First, in the scenario that matches Taiwan, all US citizens would have been quarantined under government supervision on their return CONUS. That was not done at all in the Mach 12 travel ban, and was not even attempted. This was a serious problem with how the ban operated. Second, no ports of entry were closed, so the airlines could operate basically "normally". You could return to where you intended at least, and the flights didn't need to be rescheduled or rerouted. While there was a crush for people who wanted to return ASAP, they were not constrained by fewer flights to fewer places on airlines they didn't have tickets on. Third, the China travel ban was instituted on Jan 31. Many travelers saw that ban and either canceled their travel plans to Europe or came home as soon as they could. Italy wasn't a disaster yet, but it was getting there and people saw that. Lots of reason to come home. Therefore when the actual European ban went into effect, there were many fewer USA citizens traveling than there were on Jan 31. Made repatriation easier.

For these reasons I would say the disorganized return to the USA of travelers that we saw was a very bad thing because they were stuck in long lines at the airports/customs and didn't get quarantined. Doing the same on Jan 31 with fewer airports and more people would have been an even larger catastrophe and to add a quarantine under government supervision would have made it totally impossible.