Which airlines avoided Eastern Ukraine overflights
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Queensland
Age: 75
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Disingenuous of QF that they say they are not flying over Ukraine for some months. Since their capitulation to EK, they haven't flown a route that would take them within miles of Ukraine, unless blown incredibly off course. Iraq now.......?
It's ridiculous to pick on individual airlines when you have no idea what information they did or didn't have access to, on a given day.
It's a load of ignorant crap suited only to after-the-fact experts and tabloid journalists.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Dan. I must say, I do wonder if some of those ranting as part of the "stupid question to ask club" could be ones who were part of the decision-makers of the "willing to fly over and take a chance club". Or are they defending a company they work for that chose to do so. Perhaps it hit a little closer to home for me as I know some people(pax) that were very close to the action that day. One a good friend.
Based on this thread and subject to corrections, I would like to add another airline taking the time to analyze, willing to spend more diverting around, and reducing the threat of Ukraine to nil....and especially to those decision-makers.
Cathay Pacific
Congratulations.
Based on this thread and subject to corrections, I would like to add another airline taking the time to analyze, willing to spend more diverting around, and reducing the threat of Ukraine to nil....and especially to those decision-makers.
Cathay Pacific
Congratulations.
Last edited by JammedStab; 22nd Jul 2014 at 10:27.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: .
Age: 34
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luke ST - you’re letting the airlines off the hook far too easily. I don’t know why.
They have a duty of care to their passengers and crew and the buck stops there. Nobody forces them to fly into or through war zones.
Saying, as some airlines have, that ‘it was legal because the airspace was open’ is crazy. Its legal for me to jump off a cliff, but I wouldn’t do it. When the lawsuits begin we will find out whether it was legal or not.
Passengers want to travel with an airline that takes a conservative approach to safety. That includes being proactive and thinking about military risks and taking the right advice. Your and others assertion that this is tabloid stuff is almost like saying passengers are too stupid to understand or care – that is not the case, its just that they don’t have the information..
They have a duty of care to their passengers and crew and the buck stops there. Nobody forces them to fly into or through war zones.
Saying, as some airlines have, that ‘it was legal because the airspace was open’ is crazy. Its legal for me to jump off a cliff, but I wouldn’t do it. When the lawsuits begin we will find out whether it was legal or not.
Passengers want to travel with an airline that takes a conservative approach to safety. That includes being proactive and thinking about military risks and taking the right advice. Your and others assertion that this is tabloid stuff is almost like saying passengers are too stupid to understand or care – that is not the case, its just that they don’t have the information..
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: NSW Australia
Age: 63
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tough choice to avoid area when a fly around wil add approx $18000 to the flight and especially when told you are safe above F320 was it? Would be a good safety culture to fly around after that. Of course $18000 is nothing after what happened.
Question for me is why did they give the seperatists that kind of weapon if you are trying to knock down AN26's, even a Ukranian SU27 would surely fly much lower to strike ground targets? Russia needs to face music for giving that kind of system to those vodka swillers, recipe for disaster.
Russia supplying tons of deadly weaponry to rebels/terrorists/seperatists (whatever), I'm sure there are a couple of Rhodesians sitting around their scooners in a Aussie pub saying "now where have we heard of that before?"
Question for me is why did they give the seperatists that kind of weapon if you are trying to knock down AN26's, even a Ukranian SU27 would surely fly much lower to strike ground targets? Russia needs to face music for giving that kind of system to those vodka swillers, recipe for disaster.
Russia supplying tons of deadly weaponry to rebels/terrorists/seperatists (whatever), I'm sure there are a couple of Rhodesians sitting around their scooners in a Aussie pub saying "now where have we heard of that before?"
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Off track, again
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Dan. I must say, I do wonder if some of those ranting as part of the "stupid question to ask club" could be ones who were part of the decision-makers of the "willing to fly over and take a chance club". Or are defending a company they work for that chose to do so. Perhaps it hit a little closer to home for me as I know some people(pax) that were very close to the action that day. One a god friend.
Based on this thread and subject to corrections, I would like to add another airline taking the time to analyze, willing to spend more diverting around, and reducing the threat of Ukraine to nil....and especially to those decision-makers.
Cathay Pacific
Congratulations.
Based on this thread and subject to corrections, I would like to add another airline taking the time to analyze, willing to spend more diverting around, and reducing the threat of Ukraine to nil....and especially to those decision-makers.
Cathay Pacific
Congratulations.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...97.mobile.html
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 399
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the result, this question is substantive.
I suspect it cuts to the culture of MH and the other carriers in the region at the time. To suggest it is just "bad luck" is naïve.
If you cant plan to fly over any region at 10000' due a risk of being shot down ... then you shouldn't be over that region at all ....
I suspect it cuts to the culture of MH and the other carriers in the region at the time. To suggest it is just "bad luck" is naïve.
If you cant plan to fly over any region at 10000' due a risk of being shot down ... then you shouldn't be over that region at all ....
Moderators, please can this thread be moved to SLF or removed completely?
Not only is it on the wrong forum, but its deliberately "leading the witness" title is an example of inflamatory, wise-after-the-event finger pointing of the worst order.
Let the blame for this truly horrific event lie were it really belongs.
Not only is it on the wrong forum, but its deliberately "leading the witness" title is an example of inflamatory, wise-after-the-event finger pointing of the worst order.
Let the blame for this truly horrific event lie were it really belongs.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
afootsoldier in your previous post you said
which I agree with. No system of NOTAMs or government warnings is foolproof either. All I'm saying is that try as I might I can't think of a route between Asia and Europe even now, that has zero overflight risk.
I'm not letting anyone off the hook I'm saying that with silly threads like this, all it does is put all the airlines who chose to fly that airway, into an impossible corner, before any of the facts are even known.
We don't even know yet with 100% certainty which country shot the missile, let alone the exact circumstances involved with how it came to be fired. It literally might have been a bunch of vodka drinking idiot soldiers playing with their new toys. Sounds unbelievable, but then again who would have thought that a captain of a cruise ship would plow onto the rocks trying to show off to his girlfriend? We just don't know enough yet to start naming and shaming airlines that's all.
Assuming however, what seems most likely, that the shootdown was a terrible mistake of some kind, as opposed to a deliberate attack on civilians, how on earth do you quantify the "risk" of that happening? Must be billions to one surely.
Case in point - I flew out of Seoul this very morning. Within a few short miles of that runway is a border that is absolutely bristling with 1970s era Soviet surface-to-air missiles and, by all accounts, a bunch of illiterate, poorly trained, fanatical North Korean soldiers sitting behind them ready to pull the triggers. But presumably we trust them not to, otherwise no airline would fly into the place right?
Surely the fact that the military hardware exists along such-and-such a route, is not on its own a reason to close it, otherwise most of the world would be closed?
Wars are messy and confused and things change rapidly
I'm not letting anyone off the hook I'm saying that with silly threads like this, all it does is put all the airlines who chose to fly that airway, into an impossible corner, before any of the facts are even known.
We don't even know yet with 100% certainty which country shot the missile, let alone the exact circumstances involved with how it came to be fired. It literally might have been a bunch of vodka drinking idiot soldiers playing with their new toys. Sounds unbelievable, but then again who would have thought that a captain of a cruise ship would plow onto the rocks trying to show off to his girlfriend? We just don't know enough yet to start naming and shaming airlines that's all.
Assuming however, what seems most likely, that the shootdown was a terrible mistake of some kind, as opposed to a deliberate attack on civilians, how on earth do you quantify the "risk" of that happening? Must be billions to one surely.
Case in point - I flew out of Seoul this very morning. Within a few short miles of that runway is a border that is absolutely bristling with 1970s era Soviet surface-to-air missiles and, by all accounts, a bunch of illiterate, poorly trained, fanatical North Korean soldiers sitting behind them ready to pull the triggers. But presumably we trust them not to, otherwise no airline would fly into the place right?
Surely the fact that the military hardware exists along such-and-such a route, is not on its own a reason to close it, otherwise most of the world would be closed?
Per Aspera..
You imply that the Russians "gave" the rebels their BUK system. Although it is still conjecture, there are good reasons for thinking that they actually "liberated" it from a Ukraine Army base. This was claimed some days before the MH17 incident.
If the system was acquired in this way, it would be less likely to come with training than if the Russians supplied it.
You imply that the Russians "gave" the rebels their BUK system. Although it is still conjecture, there are good reasons for thinking that they actually "liberated" it from a Ukraine Army base. This was claimed some days before the MH17 incident.
If the system was acquired in this way, it would be less likely to come with training than if the Russians supplied it.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Playing with the great circle mapper for various Asian hubs to central Europe, the decision to avoid Ukraine was much easier for Cathay to make than for Singapore or Malaysian, since the Hong Kong to say Frankfurt circle does not even touch Ukraine.
If you want to avoid Syria, Ukraine and Iraq altogether, that means flying s-shaped paths for many city pairs. This is particularly true for Gulf based airlines.
Central Europe to NRT seems pretty safe. However, I can remember a FRA-NRT ANA flight taking a detour a few years ago because the North Koreans were testing missiles.
If you want to avoid Syria, Ukraine and Iraq altogether, that means flying s-shaped paths for many city pairs. This is particularly true for Gulf based airlines.
Central Europe to NRT seems pretty safe. However, I can remember a FRA-NRT ANA flight taking a detour a few years ago because the North Koreans were testing missiles.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: .
Age: 34
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let the blame for this truly horrific event lie were it really belongs.
Re: being wise after the event. You're right - some airlines are now wise after the event. But some were wise before and avoided the trouble spot, as a matter of company, or FAA policy. As a future passenger, i would love to know who they are - is that unreasonable?
Luke ST - I take your point that these things are not totally black and white and some things are truly unforeseeable. In North Korea there's no actual air to air / ground to air war right now, although the weapons are there - flying near their border doesn't seem unreasonable. Ukraine was hot as hell though...
Unfortunate that some have taken to aggressive comments above because I believe this is a serious and significant matter for discussion.
Some carriers, eg BA, Air France, etc, had made a risk assessment of the situation and were not using routes over the area which they had hitherto done. Others had not done this. When just about every PR statement coming out of corporate head offices starts off with "safety and security is our first concern" we are right to question why some had analysed the position and taken this decision whereas others had done nothing about it.
The airspace over Eastern Ukraine was closed up to 30,000 feet due to war risk, and Malaysian's (and others) flight planning and cost control accountants were happy to accept a routing at 31,000 feet. That's just 300 metres away from a war zone. BA, Air France, etc seem to have decided to keep away by some hundred miles or more. I think it is quite reasonable to ask what part of Malaysian's "safety and security is our first concern" led to this decision, and to subject their risk assessment to scrutiny as part of the accident investigation.
I think we also need to ask MH, having accepted this routing, what procedures they had in place to handle an engine failure, a pressurisation failure, or similar which might require an involuntary descent from the assigned level.
I am aware that there have been (and still are) comparable issues when transiting Afghanistan and similar. I am also aware that very extensive assessments were done of the situation there, regularly reassessed, and there are specific procedures in place to handle any of these events I have just described happening to an overflight there. As far as I am aware none of these procedures had been put in place for any transits of Ukraine.
Some carriers, eg BA, Air France, etc, had made a risk assessment of the situation and were not using routes over the area which they had hitherto done. Others had not done this. When just about every PR statement coming out of corporate head offices starts off with "safety and security is our first concern" we are right to question why some had analysed the position and taken this decision whereas others had done nothing about it.
The airspace over Eastern Ukraine was closed up to 30,000 feet due to war risk, and Malaysian's (and others) flight planning and cost control accountants were happy to accept a routing at 31,000 feet. That's just 300 metres away from a war zone. BA, Air France, etc seem to have decided to keep away by some hundred miles or more. I think it is quite reasonable to ask what part of Malaysian's "safety and security is our first concern" led to this decision, and to subject their risk assessment to scrutiny as part of the accident investigation.
I think we also need to ask MH, having accepted this routing, what procedures they had in place to handle an engine failure, a pressurisation failure, or similar which might require an involuntary descent from the assigned level.
I am aware that there have been (and still are) comparable issues when transiting Afghanistan and similar. I am also aware that very extensive assessments were done of the situation there, regularly reassessed, and there are specific procedures in place to handle any of these events I have just described happening to an overflight there. As far as I am aware none of these procedures had been put in place for any transits of Ukraine.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now why did KLM and AF decide differently even if they are the same company? Because they have retained separate risk management teams or because their pain level was different, as a results of their routes?
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: .
Age: 34
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's ridiculous to pick on individual airlines when you have no idea what information they did or didn't have access to, on a given day.
Try that approach when you, as a pilot, get questioned by airline management over some misadventure..
The bottom line is - the airlines who were still flying there, despite everything, were comfortable rolling the dice
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Tim Clark the boss of Emirates made some interesting points in an interview yesterday, about this very thing, while he was calling for a high level summit involving ICAO / IATA, airlines and government to sort out a new system of airspace management, to avoid the possibility of this tragedy happening again.
The whole interview is at Emirates calls for airlines summit on 'outrageous' MH17 attack | Reuters
"They can't (close airspace), but they can issue advisories and they may be a little more active," Clark said.
Additionally, he said, national regulators "may start getting involved a little more than they have. They have perhaps left airlines to their own devices".
He said he was not aware of any warnings from outside the industry about the escalating threat in Ukraine, which would change the way airlines think about ground-based conflicts and the risk of flying over some of the world's flashpoints.
"Yes, the airline industry was aware there was shooting at a low level and assumed these were low-grade surface-to-air weapons," he said.
"This was wrong as we now know. Nobody in their wildest dreams thought anybody could have done (such a) calculating act of mass murder."
Additionally, he said, national regulators "may start getting involved a little more than they have. They have perhaps left airlines to their own devices".
He said he was not aware of any warnings from outside the industry about the escalating threat in Ukraine, which would change the way airlines think about ground-based conflicts and the risk of flying over some of the world's flashpoints.
"Yes, the airline industry was aware there was shooting at a low level and assumed these were low-grade surface-to-air weapons," he said.
"This was wrong as we now know. Nobody in their wildest dreams thought anybody could have done (such a) calculating act of mass murder."
He said he was not aware of any warnings from outside the industry about the escalating threat in Ukraine
calculating act of mass murder
But all this was known and in the public arena. It was known the missiles had been stolen. It was known that the dissidents have many with substantial military background (ironically, in the Ukrainian military) who might well have been trained on them. It was known that there were NOTAMs out closing many of the routes across the area. It was known that the 30,000 feet closure was in force, and why. And finally, it was known that some better-informed carriers had decided to stay well away, on learning all of this.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Find a route from Asia to Europe that DOESN'T cross a war zone, they virtually all fly across Pakistan / Afghanistan for a start. And yes I know the baddies in those regions "allegedly" don't have high altitude capable SAMs. According to "current intelligence estimates". Yet.
Now why did KLM and AF decide differently even if they are the same company? Because they have retained separate risk management teams or because their pain level was different, as a results of their routes?
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: .
Age: 34
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, the statement is for PR - the Malaysian event could easily have involved another carrier, except the ones who stopped flying there.
Everyone is looking at the airlines who kept flying over East Ukraine and thinking - what on earth were you playing at? So he's trying to regain the initiative and show leadership while deflecting public scrutiny towards ICAO/IATA and away from commercial people who run airlines.
It couldn't be more obvious who is leading and who is following though
Everyone is looking at the airlines who kept flying over East Ukraine and thinking - what on earth were you playing at? So he's trying to regain the initiative and show leadership while deflecting public scrutiny towards ICAO/IATA and away from commercial people who run airlines.
It couldn't be more obvious who is leading and who is following though
I'll come in a little harder.
Carriers who have a good background in worldwide operations and understand what "Risk Asessment" really means seem to have been the ones to make their own decision to route away.
From past experience on this exact routing, there are carriers who route around poor weather etc (and this can be seen on the in-flight map), and those who just plough on straight and put the seat belt sign on. Notably there is a correlation between those who take this second approach and those who were still routing over Eastern Ukraine.
That's a ludicrous overstatement. For the 275 pax on board that's an extra $66 cost each. Given the prevailing fare levels on AMS-KUL that's about 20% of the typical one-way fare. Costs of taking a parallel airway with a 5-10 minute penalty on a 14 hour flight would be nothing like that.
That was never said. It was that up to FL300 was closed due to military threat. A world of difference.
Carriers who have a good background in worldwide operations and understand what "Risk Asessment" really means seem to have been the ones to make their own decision to route away.
From past experience on this exact routing, there are carriers who route around poor weather etc (and this can be seen on the in-flight map), and those who just plough on straight and put the seat belt sign on. Notably there is a correlation between those who take this second approach and those who were still routing over Eastern Ukraine.
a fly around wil add approx $18000 to the flight
especially when told you are safe above F320