Of Ukraine, Russia and QF9
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kent
Age: 65
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why avoid Russian airspace? Avoid the area around the Ukraine by all means, as per FAA Notams etc but the greater part of the Russian FIR is as “safe” as it has been.
Putin has no interest in picking a fight with any other nations by endangering their aircraft. The risk is around Ukraine only.
Putin has no interest in picking a fight with any other nations by endangering their aircraft. The risk is around Ukraine only.
Almost all EU countries have announced overflight bans today with turn back of LH & KL flights planned to cross Russian airspace.
Last edited by Max Tow; 27th Feb 2022 at 02:12. Reason: Update re more countries avoiding Russian airspace
What happens if there's an emergency over Russia and a 787 from a NATO-member country has to land in, say, Novosibirsk? Would you trust Putin with a couple of hundred stranded hostages
I recon it will be a non-event from the political side of things if an Indian plane needs to divert Pakistan or a western plane into Tehran with a fire.
ICAO rules are very clear.
ICAO rules are very clear.
Just published in The Australian:
Qantas will stop sending its London flights through Russian airspace following similar moves by other carriers amid the worsening conflict in Ukraine.
As recently as Saturday, Qantas confirmed it was maintaining a flight path over northern Russia, more than 800km from the border with Ukraine.
Airlines that operate through the airspace of foreign countries pay a fee to do so and Qantas confirmed it was paying Russia to operate in its airspace.
Qantas’s Darwin-London flights will now fly through the Middle East and southern Europe to the south of Ukraine instead, adding about an hour to the flight time.
“Given the current circumstances and complexities, we’re opting to use one of our alternative flight paths that doesn’t overfly Russia while we continue to monitor this evolving situation,” a Qantas spokesman said.
“We regularly review our flight paths and make any *adjustments we consider prudent.”
The first flight to operate on the alternative route is flight QF2 from London to Darwin, which is due to takeoff on Sunday just before 9pm AEDT.
As recently as Saturday, Qantas confirmed it was maintaining a flight path over northern Russia, more than 800km from the border with Ukraine.
Airlines that operate through the airspace of foreign countries pay a fee to do so and Qantas confirmed it was paying Russia to operate in its airspace.
Qantas’s Darwin-London flights will now fly through the Middle East and southern Europe to the south of Ukraine instead, adding about an hour to the flight time.
“Given the current circumstances and complexities, we’re opting to use one of our alternative flight paths that doesn’t overfly Russia while we continue to monitor this evolving situation,” a Qantas spokesman said.
“We regularly review our flight paths and make any *adjustments we consider prudent.”
The first flight to operate on the alternative route is flight QF2 from London to Darwin, which is due to takeoff on Sunday just before 9pm AEDT.
Like MH17?
Mistakes...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrain...nes_Flight_752
Putin didn't order the deliberate targeting of a Malaysian aircraft flying from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur for a specific reason. It was reckless use of force in a civilian heavy area. I believe the West calls it "Collateral damage".
As the routing of the flights were well to the north of Moscow I doubt whether there was any risk to the aircraft. But they couldn't be seen paying overflight fees to Putin, and there is an alternative route that will cost them but is doable.
Interestingly at this very moment United Airlines ORD-DEL is over Russia, no real way to avoid it to make direct US to India flights. As well as Finnair, Korean, Japan and Air France and others that are all speaking against Russia in this conflict. It looks as if the PR benefit to not paying Russian overflight fees is weighed against the ability to route your aircraft around it's airspace and still be able to perform direct flights.
As the routing of the flights were well to the north of Moscow I doubt whether there was any risk to the aircraft. But they couldn't be seen paying overflight fees to Putin, and there is an alternative route that will cost them but is doable.
Interestingly at this very moment United Airlines ORD-DEL is over Russia, no real way to avoid it to make direct US to India flights. As well as Finnair, Korean, Japan and Air France and others that are all speaking against Russia in this conflict. It looks as if the PR benefit to not paying Russian overflight fees is weighed against the ability to route your aircraft around it's airspace and still be able to perform direct flights.
Putin is not stupid. What possible motivation is there for him to shoot down a civilian airliner? What does he gain?
The PR benefit? Does that mean the EU will stop buying the Russian gas? No I did not think so. which means...virtue signaling. The new scourge of the western world.
It is partly what got us here, instead of spending time worrying about which comedian is telling unacceptable jokes and what pro noun to use, we should have been anticipating this.
Putin put 30,000 troops on the border nearly a year ago.
The PR benefit? Does that mean the EU will stop buying the Russian gas? No I did not think so. which means...virtue signaling. The new scourge of the western world.
It is partly what got us here, instead of spending time worrying about which comedian is telling unacceptable jokes and what pro noun to use, we should have been anticipating this.
Putin put 30,000 troops on the border nearly a year ago.
Putin is not stupid. What possible motivation is there for him to shoot down a civilian airliner? What does he gain?
short flights long nights
Putin is not stupid. What possible motivation is there for him to shoot down a civilian airliner? What does he gain?
The PR benefit? Does that mean the EU will stop buying the Russian gas? No I did not think so. which means...virtue signaling. The new scourge of the western world.
It is partly what got us here, instead of spending time worrying about which comedian is telling unacceptable jokes and what pro noun to use, we should have been anticipating this.
Putin put 30,000 troops on the border nearly a year ago.
The PR benefit? Does that mean the EU will stop buying the Russian gas? No I did not think so. which means...virtue signaling. The new scourge of the western world.
It is partly what got us here, instead of spending time worrying about which comedian is telling unacceptable jokes and what pro noun to use, we should have been anticipating this.
Putin put 30,000 troops on the border nearly a year ago.
Very well said. Too many people running around worrying about which person to cancel next.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While you all discuss whether or not it is risky for Qantas to fly its aircraft through Russian airspace at this point in time, Qantas have now conducted a security analysis and decided it is not prudent.
My point was that it took them 4 days to make this decision, and even made a recent announcement that they were continuing to fly in the airspace - which they have just backflipped on.
Qantas historically has been very conservative in avoiding conflict zones (WWII excluded). For example, when MH17 was shot down, from memory, QF had already ceased flight planning through that airspace.
So this recent decision to continue flying in Russian airspace was interesting to me. Especially considering the alternate flight path south of Ukraine appears to be not too many more track miles, and indeed less track miles than the original PER-LHR route. So the original decision to continue flying over Russia was based on a drop-in-the-ocean fuel impost.
The Townsville refueller was predicting back in December that Putin was going to go all-out on Ukraine. This was hardly unexpected. And no, Putin wouldn’t waste an S-500 on a QF B787, but if there happened to be a high ranking Australian official on board when they had to make an emergency landing? Well, we all know what happened in Belarus. Some situations are best avoided.
My point was that it took them 4 days to make this decision, and even made a recent announcement that they were continuing to fly in the airspace - which they have just backflipped on.
Qantas historically has been very conservative in avoiding conflict zones (WWII excluded). For example, when MH17 was shot down, from memory, QF had already ceased flight planning through that airspace.
So this recent decision to continue flying in Russian airspace was interesting to me. Especially considering the alternate flight path south of Ukraine appears to be not too many more track miles, and indeed less track miles than the original PER-LHR route. So the original decision to continue flying over Russia was based on a drop-in-the-ocean fuel impost.
The Townsville refueller was predicting back in December that Putin was going to go all-out on Ukraine. This was hardly unexpected. And no, Putin wouldn’t waste an S-500 on a QF B787, but if there happened to be a high ranking Australian official on board when they had to make an emergency landing? Well, we all know what happened in Belarus. Some situations are best avoided.
How exactly would all the people who are busy running around ‘cancelling’ take a break and prevent Russia invading Ukraine?
I’m a bit over the politicisation of every thread here, we saw it on the Covid threads so let’s not bring it in everywhere. There’s a forum called Jet Blast where you can argue about this stuff to your hearts content.
One of the NZ papers had a report yesterday that he has lost the support of the Russian Parliament, but that won't stop him.