Over and above hull, pax liabilities and third party liabilities insurance airlines carry a 'War' policy, the underwriters will probably have issued a warning regarding the Ukraine and may have increased the premium for such flights, sometimes calculated on a fixed US$ amount per flight. I suspect all war cover has been withdrawn indefinitely for this routing now.


Airlines carry out their own risk management and some airlines are more vulnerable in certain areas and less in other areas and other airlines will be vulnerable or otherwise in exactly the opposite areas. Route selection will take this into account. Such a policy doesn't leave any room for accidental shooting down though, it is based on a deliberate threat.

Captain being the 'final hole' in the cheese. WTF were dispatch/flight planning thinking and the pricks who NOTAMed the airspace or Eurocontrol........the list goes on.

If nothing else, the whole event/s serves to highlight how fortunate we are as a whole in the Australian aviation industry.

That's because it's a sheltered workshop! Aussie airlines rarely fly anywhere extremely challenging in comparison to truly global airlines.

....or our culture that has lead to our envious safety record.

Let's face it, flying straight and level above a war zone isn't 'challenging', it's dumb.

To answer the original post, no I don't think MH will survive but will the next airline be any different. I guess we'll know the answer in a few years.

with that logic Ansett would still be around & govt will bail out Qantas, which is highly unlikely.

No I don't think it will survive in it's present form.It will need to be rebranded and renamed.But will probably be still owned by the government.

I do not think MH will survive in its present form. The same goes for the government there too.

I'm not sure either the press release from MAS claiming 'there was no reason to plan around it', or those people claiming 'SIA and AI went through it too' are standing on very solid ground tbh.

Firstly, an aeroplane got shot down, so patently there WAS a reason to plan around it.

Secondly, if SIA and AI both also decide to play Russian Roulette and manage to survive, is this proof itself that the game is safe practice?

They went the most direct route to make more money. How did that work out for them? The company may not deserve to go under, but people working for it do.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Everyone en route from Europe to Asia flies across Pakistan and Afghanistan, until yesterday I would have said that was the most likely place to get hit by a stray SAM, not Russia / Ukraine at all.

Also, airlines do not generally have the in house capability to assess military threat levels, they rely on the assessment of national intelligence agencies for that, those guys are supposed to determine the appropriate threat level and issue NOTAMs and advice to the airlines / ICAO as appropriate?

Just a minor thought; For an area to be a 'War zone' would there not have to a formal declaration of war from one of the parties/countries concerned?:confused:

I really have no idea; just asking.

Will MH survive?
 

Asian aversion to "Loss of Face" will ensure MH survives. Just like the former KAL, now Korean, has.

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_0...allation-1561/

url]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nato-general-warned-of-russian-anti-aircraft-training-for-separatists/blogEntry?id=24607368[/url]

[QUOTE]Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Everyone en route from Europe to Asia flies across Pakistan and Afghanistan, until yesterday I would have said that was the most likely place to get hit by a stray SAM, not Russia / Ukraine at all.

[QUOTE]

except it isn't hindsight.
There were media reports 3 weeks ago the separatists had some of these buks. The whole joint should have been shut down then. None of the baddies in Pakistan or Afghanistan have access to this sort of stuff.

Fly to Europe via USA or Canada....

Flights in last 7 days.

http://www.thepilotsblog.com/Pilots%...verflights.JPG

Is it confirmed that a NOTAM was in force advising of possible weapons release in the area? I have seen one such NOTAM in the press advising to cruise above F320 but the press is so full of crap I dont know what is confirmed yet? Was this NOTAM issued following the accident?

Nice diagram showing the 'usual suspects' who regularly grace the front covers of crash comics.

Thanks Plazbot, for a Layman's guide of airlines whose acceptance of risk is more weighted to reward. I assume UAL and FedEx were freighters.

I suppose it's possible that some planning departments did not do a review of the safety case involved in flying through this area and relyed solely on the Notams. This would be very un imaginative considering even I knew from my newspaper that shooting down aircraft was an ongoing situation in the Crimea.

For a local perspective, routes and altitudes flown during Ash Cloud Advisorys can be measurably different depending on the airlines risk matrix.

Not that it has any bearing on this subject but UAL does not operate any freighters.

I did wonder at UAL inclusion in the list, and therefore the veracity of the list in light of reports that US aircraft were not traversing the area.