Middle East Airspace Diversions/Cancellations

[jase05]

Also haven’t lobbed any missiles at runways, as far as I’m aware.

I’m not sure if it was confirmed or not but I thought Qatari forces intercepted missiles that was set for DOH

 

[justinbrett]

Just announce that they will or might shoot down an airliner, or even say that this is a ‘serious risk’. That’ll get reported!

I think the attack on DXB last week and the events yesterday might just have the same effect.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Easiest way for the Iranians to close ME commercial airspace and keep damaging the ME3 economically and reputationally?

Just announce that they will or might shoot down an airliner, or even say that this is a ‘serious risk’. That’ll get reported!

Also haven’t lobbed any missiles at runways, as far as I’m aware.

Wonder why they don’t do that?

Do we know it was an intentional target? Out of the thousands fired, this one (and one earlier in the week) hit the airport. If they wanted to close the airport they could probably damage the buildings or runways. If that was their aim.

Just read that the Australian government is resisting the call for special charter or military evacuation flights, urging passengers to fly commercial.

I’m not sure an Australian military aircraft, with its limited capacity is going to offer any greater reassurances than commercial?

The government also notes ticket prices for flights ex the ME are high, and is advising pax not to cancel their original bookings which should then protect those pax against increases (ie, use the ticket you already have).

 

[prozac]

Do we know it was an intentional target? Out of the thousands fired, this one (and one earlier in the week) hit the airport. If they wanted to close the airport they could probably damage the buildings or runways. If that was their aim.

Just read that the Australian government is resisting the call for special charter or military evacuation flights, urging passengers to fly commercial.

I’m not sure an Australian military aircraft, with its limited capacity is going to offer any greater reassurances than commercial?

The government also notes ticket prices for flights ex the ME are high, and is advising pax not to cancel their original bookings which should then protect those pax against increases (ie, use the ticket you already have).

I don't think anyone in Iran now has detailed coordinates when firing drones or missiles. IMO they are conducting desperate actions as to do nothing carries certainty.

 

[33kft]

Being around war comes with its risks, so you take that into consideration when flying; that is on you, not the airline. My 2c.

Bit of a difference between the airlines level of intelligence and risk assessment capabilities, and the general public's. I'd much prefer if the experts were calling the shots and not leaving it up to me, personally

 

[futaris]

Hemmed in by wars, here's how some airlines are still flying from Australia to Europe

Travel routes between Australia, Asia and Europe are narrowing. Here is how airlines are still flying the Kangaroo route despite wars in the Middle East and Ukraine.

www.abc.net.au

Interesting how this is portrayed in the media.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Bit of a difference between the airlines level of intelligence and risk assessment capabilities, and the general public's. I'd much prefer if the experts were calling the shots and not leaving it up to me, personally

And i have the complete opposite view!

We saw from MH17 that the authorities - governments and air traffic control - got it wrong. We saw that airlines got it wrong. We’ve seen regulators and manufacturers get it wrong (Boeing).

Yes, experts have an input, but people shouldn’t stop using their own resources to determine what level of risk is acceptable to them. You can’t expect anyone else to provide you with a guarantee in a war setting.

 

[transpactraveller]

Hemmed in by wars, here's how some airlines are still flying from Australia to Europe

Travel routes between Australia, Asia and Europe are narrowing. Here is how airlines are still flying the Kangaroo route despite wars in the Middle East and Ukraine.

www.abc.net.au

Interesting how this is portrayed in the media.

QF9 new route in red (when not diverting via Singapore), old route in blue.

 

[33kft]

We saw from MH17 that the authorities - governments and air traffic control - got it wrong. We saw that airlines got it wrong. We’ve seen regulators and manufacturers get it wrong (Boeing).

Sure, but the existence of these errors don't prove the absence of much, much worse consequences if we didn't consult experts. I don't know if you've stepped back and considered the general public's knowledge of these things before coming to this conclusion, but it isn't about you or I, it's about the lowest common demoninator. The people who get in car accidents because they didn't want to let someone else merge ahead of them, that's who would be risk assessing if they should fly out in the presence of missiles and drones so they can make it back to work on time.

The fact we are even debating this really, really confuses me. I'm sure all of you know how conservative general aviation regulation is at the best of times. I can't pass security with a bottle of water but should ultimately carry the decision of whether my pilot could negotiate a flight path with a recalcitrant neighbour repeatedly flying explosive drones into the airport? Sure sure, good idea

 

[prozac]

And i have the complete opposite view!

We saw from MH17 that the authorities - governments and air traffic control - got it wrong. We saw that airlines got it wrong. We’ve seen regulators and manufacturers get it wrong (Boeing).

Yes, experts have an input, but people shouldn’t stop using their own resources to determine what level of risk is acceptable to them. You can’t expect anyone else to provide you with a guarantee in a war setting.

No-one highlighted to MH17 passengers before they boarded there was a distinct possibility they could be shot down by a missile? I know I wasn't advised this possibility when I boarded in AMS Oct 2013.
Edit: I suppose the incursion had not commenced at that time.

 

[Quickstatus]

The fact we are even debating this really, really confuses me

And don't forget that when people buy tickets for a seat on a commercial airline, price is the main purchasing decision factor. "Safest airline in the world" is a distant factor or actually not even a factor at all.

No-one highlighted to MH17 passengers before they boarded there was a distinct possibility they could be shot down by a missile?

MH17/Mh370 did not significant affect post facto seat loads AFAIK. Neither did EK crash at DXB , EK near miss at JFK and OZ crash at SFO. There are others