Which airlines avoided Eastern Ukraine overflights
 

Talking about the ones not landing in that country.

They deserve to be mentioned and commended for being willing to pay extra in order to ensure safety at a time when they were still legally allowed to overfly this space.

Please list below and I suggest that we reward these airlines with our money if we ever pay for a flight or recommend an airline for others to fly on.

From this article :
MH17: Malaysia Airlines flies over Syria instead of Ukraine - Telegraph
I don't think I would judge an airline's potential safety solely or even primarily based on these criteria.

This question has already been asked in the SLF section (http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...war-zones.html).


In summary.... stupid question. Short of setting up your own airline and flying the plane yourself, you have to trust the airline and its staff. "You pays your money and you takes your chances" ... as they say.... but feel free to come join the debate in SLF.

More like a stupid answer.

Certain airlines avoided the airspace and any chance of tragedy. All at a significant financial cost to themselves.

They deserve to be recognized. It doesn't guarantee any safety but it does say something.

I have heard of two so far although they are unconfirmed....

British Airways

QANTAS

What an absolutely stupid, infantile and ridiculous thread to start.

So what of the airlines that are still flying over Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan?? Currently MOST airlines are still overflying these areas, can you guarantee that the rebels / freedom fighters in these areas don't have access to supplied / captured anti aircraft missiles??

It is all about risk analysis, remember 2 years ago Qantas was severely criticised for grounding the fleet after the South American Volcano ash cloud when all other airlines continued to fly.

Sometimes you get it right, other times evidence subsequently shows that you weren't risk adverse enough.

I agree.
Not every airline has to fly exactly through this airspace, for some it could be a tiny detour for other much larger, so it is like comparing apples to oranges.

Ya pays yer money, and takes yer chances...great question, which airlines avoid these danger spots, and which don't? Why is this so stupid a question? This is the sort of thing which should be publicized in advertising, not the hemlines or ages of F/As (although they ARE of passing interest). Sam

For very obvious reasons !

As Capetonian hinted at, there are a million and one other safety factors to take into account when selecting an airline to fly with. The route the airline takes is only the tip of the iceberg.

Also, routing can be changed on a day by day, hour by hour basis, and as SLF there is bugger all you can do about it.... whatever information you may have made your route decision on may well have changed by the time you are strapped into your seat and at 30,000ft !


Or indeed what of the airlines flying into Israel ? Which airline would you pick JammedStab ? ;)

Don't be a company man - let the public know
 

No, stupid answer.

The public deserve to know who was knowingly flying their aircraft through a war zone with surface to air missiles. Half a dozen aircraft were shot down before MH17 - there is no hindsight involved here.

Neither would I - but its a good place to start. Some operators took a gamble over East Ukraine and should pay a price - not just Malaysian.

The public can then "pay their money and take their choice" with somebody else next time, should they choose. The question will get more response from pilots here, not on SLF.

In what respect is this thread either Rumours or News?

Suggest it be transferred to SLF.

Correction, those aircraft that were shot down PRIOR to MH17 were shot down with 'standard' surface to air missiles that had a top ceiling of just above 20,000ft. MH017 was unfortunately the incident that proved the rebels had been equipped or had captured more capable weaponary.

Once again, airliners are flying every minute of the day over areas of the globe where aircraft are being 'shot down' at low to medium levels. In these cases the airlines will still transit as there is no evidence of BAK style weapons being deployed there.

Well, rumors or at least speculation as to why some airlines decided is was not a threat.

I would be very curious to know why LH and LX made the switch only now. A LH spokesman was quoted on Friday saying that the detour had minimal cost and time impact, and LH have a history of implementing extra safety procedures or equipment at extra cost long before they become mandatory if risk assessment shows a safety benefit. So was their internal risk management team fast asleep? Did they not receive foreign ministry assessments of the safety situation or listen to what the Americans were recommending? After all, Air Berlin, which is in economic dire straits, decided to do the right thing some time ago, and while they have a decent incident record, they are not known to be pro-active on the safety front.

Ollie, no offence but that is naive.

Wars with fast jets involved are not nicely compartmentalised above and below 20,000 ft. Wars are messy and confused and things change rapidly - notice how the rebels did not issue a NOTAM saying they'd just acquired some fantastic new russian kit. And even if you were safe above 20,000 - what happens when you depressurise and dive down to 10,000? I hope you wouldn't fly over a mountain range thinking 'oh that wont happen anyway - not an issue'

Don't you see - its precisely that kind of 'risk assessment' which has got the industry to where it now stands?

The Americans (the FAA) made the correct call. They had more intelligence data than anyone and were worth listening to.

It's not a stupid question at all. It's a good indicator as to which take safety seriously. Malaysian decided that it wasn't a threat when others did. Why? Was it cost, or had they just not considered flying over a warzone was a threat? Either way, it was an error which may finish the airline.

Dan

I suspect the latter and I agree that it will finish them.

No-one in their right mind would be filing a flight plan that took them anywhere near eastern Ukraine. Vodka and missile launchers are a deadly combination from ground level to FL 600. Its not as if there were not very public reports of aircraft being downed in that area in recent weeks.

Not at all a stupid question. We are talking safety here. After MH 17 there must quite a lot of bearded guys in the ME region enquiring about the BUK systems price/ training required etc. And the sad part there will be willing sellers from the underworld delivering it to them . Then what do you do ? Close down all flights in the region. Its not so simple as it looks.

ek ai sq tk and tg were all flying the exact
same route on THAT day. more airlines than not continued to fly that route so....

It's a load of ignorant crap suited only to after-the-fact experts and tabloid journalists.

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.

I bet after this week's news though, and the fact that a bunch of ragtag rebels managed to get their hands on this kind of weaponry, the Taliban will be pricking their ears up and putting out a few feelers asking how much to buy that?

What the Taliban DO have that the ukrainian rebels don't of course, is the actual burning desire to shoot down civilian airliners, they'd love nothing better. Unlike the Russian separatists who, it seems, just made a bad mistake, and Putin will be highly unlikely to give them the weaponry to do it again.

Want to avoid that route and travel further south, then you have to choose between Iran, Iraq or Syria.

Airlines don't have in house military threat assessment units, we rely on government intelligence agencies to assess the threats and pass the information on to the relevant national bodies, who will issue NOTAMs and / or airspace closures as they see fit.

If the rest of the world could all agree that the Americans have the biggest and best intelligence agencies, and we should all follow their lead when it comes to issuing warnings about this kind of stuff, then maybe the world would be a safer place. But politics doesn't work like that, and also there's the fact that American airlines are at a higher terrorist risk than Asian ones in general.

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 is a stupid argument to say aircraft fly over war-zones all the time. They don't fly over war-zones where the belligerents have both the capability of bringing down a commercial aircraft at cruising altitude, and where they lack the technical competence or basic command control structure to guarantee safety to civilian aircraft. I've seen articles dated 29th June were the rebels already claimed to have captured and to have the capability of firing an SA-11. If so, the airspace should have been closed immediately, and failing that, the airline risk assessment should have re-routed aircraft.

For anyone who has flown into Kabul recently, they will know that the aircraft are stacked and perform approaches so as to minimize the chance of being attacked with a manpad (shoulder launched rocket). If the capability or intentions of belligerents change, all aircraft risk assessment should change immediately rather than wait for the next monthly update. That it was not seemingly done in this case amounts to negligence.