[Gin&Tonic]

The latest news item on BT home page with the comments of Tim Clark gave me a shudder.

“He said: “Some people say planes should be armed with counter devices. That will go absolutely nowhere. If we can’t operate aircraft in a free and unencumbered manner without the threat of being taken down, then we shouldn’t be operating at all.”

Who are these “some people”, who would ever contemplate air travel again if we believed such defences for a civil aircraft was required? Certainly not me.

http://www.businesstraveller.com/news/100694/flight-mh17-emirates-calls-for-airline-summit

[stevescoots]

count me out too,

[CXDiamond]

I can’t help but think that if this missile had hit the SIA plane in the same airspace at the same time there might have been a more direct and robust government response.

That the rebels are now being obstructive is just ghastly, do these people have no morals or values at all?

Putin should but won’t hang his head in shame.

[BigDog.]

Willie Walsh is again making cack-handed attempts at influential leadership by making fatuous comments. He shoots from the hip, seeking self-publicity as opposed to seeking enlightenment and a realistic solution to vulnerable passenger airliners flying over “war zones”.

…”The United Nations should look at banning or prohibiting surface-to-air missiles following the MH17 tragedy, the boss of British Airways’ parent company has suggested”….

If the guy had done one iota of research into banning surface to air missiles in order to avoid a similar incident he would have realised notion of a ban would be pointless as well as a non-starter.

– Apparently the missile likely to have downed MH17 would have been around 20 years old! There are stockpiles of aged ordnance let alone modern.
– Surface to air missiles are in terrorist/rebel hands -people who are unlikely to adhere to any UN directive.
– Surface to air missiles are mainly regarded as defensive equipment to respond to military aircraft attack, never in a month of Sundays would countries agree to a ban on such a defense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/11006792/MH17-BA-chief-calls-for-convention-on-surface-to-air-missiles.html

Walsh goes onto criticise as ridiculous Ian King, the boss of BAE Systems, who mooted anti-missile counter measures for airliners.

Imo Walsh will suggest anything which gives himself the headlines and is of minimal cost to IAG regardless of how infeasible and crude it is whilst pooh-poohing solutions which could well be feasible but are likely to incur sizable cost.

Meanwhile BA and others continue to fly over Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents

[MarcusGB]

It is a striking thought, if another Aircraft such as BA, or KLM, or SQ, EK, EY, LH, QF, had been targeted,. It could have been any of those who were flying in sequence over there in a few minutes, if there would have been a very different response and reaction.?

[MrMichael]

I understand El-Al do have countermeasures for missiles targeting their aircraft. The question is a matter of cost and public perception. I have no idea what it cost El-Al, nor even if it effective. The public perception point of view is a matter of “do I want to fly on an aircraft that feels the need to take such action”. Personally it would not bother me, but those that already have a fear of flying would probably not go near another plane again.

On the subject of Putin, he must stick his neck on the line and insist a truce in that conflict to ensure that the investigators and those recovering the victims can do so in safety and without hindrance. The whole thing is a disgrace, some basic humanity for the victims and their families is essential….and NOW.

[rferguson]

I remember chatting with an El Al Purser at a crew haunt in BKK and it’s always the same questions you ask other airline crews – how long is your slip time, what aircraft did you come in, how long was your flight? I was shocked when he said the flight time TLV-BKK is scheduled at 11 hours (and that’s on a 747 – still pretty much the fastest commercial airliner out there). Having flown QR to BKK from DOH a couple times and it taking in the region of 7.5hrs I asked the El Al purser how could this be? Our flight time from London was only scheduled an hour longer. It was then with a wry smile he explained why – they hava to take such huge detours because in case they had to divert (medical/technical emergency) there is no way they could land in so many different countries. So they had to fly south over Africa, then across and back up to BKK.

[BigDog.]

@MrMichael – 03/08/2014 11:49 GMT
+1
Especially final para.

[MrMichael]

How exactly will emirates according to it’s CX “avoid Iraqi airspace” while still serving Baghdad. This should prove very intersting indeed.

[PegasusAir]

I presume they mean overflying but in fact there are 3 EK flights over Iraq en route to or from Europe as I write this so exactly what do they mean by avoiding Iraq?

[SimonS1]

I always take what Tim Clark says with a pinch of salt. After all it’s the same Tim Clark who indicated that EK would compensate passengers when the A380 flights were grounded, something the airline then failed to deliver.

If they are going to stop using Iraqi airspace then presumably their flights to Baghdad, Basra and Erbil will be pulled?

[Ahmad]

For another perspective on the tragedy have a look at the following Mirror story (please ignore the sensational headline):-

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/aids-cure-been-plane-researchers-3880161

[BigDog.]

@MrMichael – 03/08/2014 11:49 GMT

This gives an idea of the countermeasures.

http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-worlds-safest-airline-2014-3

Clearly BAE Systems CEO Ian King is proffering pragmatic measures/solutions whereas Willie Walsh is out of his depth again merely offering puerile gibes and fatuous headlines.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-2713645/British-Airways-supremo-Willie-Walsh-picks-fight-BAE-Systems-chief-executive-Ian-King-airline-safety.html

[MartynSinclair]

@Big Dog

Whilst I agree El Al are probably the most secure airline flying, I have to admit I am not totally comfortable flying an airline that feels the need to carry anti missile technology.

I appreciate MH 17 “appears” to have been a random hit but I would far prefer the solution to be military based and controlled by the affected nations – I once thought the UN were the peace keeprs!!

[canucklad]

Morning BigDog

My gut instinct tells me that arming civilian aircraft is a step for the worse. Not to dissimilar to the argument about arming our police force…. Like Martyn, EL AL would not be my first choice of airline. I always felt slightly uneasy when departing Schiphol next to an EL AL gate. Sort of like being a rhinoceros with a bulls eye birthmark on your rump.

I have no doubt that MH17 was not the intended target, sadly it was not accidental, and the continuing actions of those who shot it down are about as reprehensible as you could possibly imagine as civilized people. ….But I suppose promoting a Captain of a warship could also be seen by some as reprehensible…. Just depends on what side of the fence you view the world.

http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/america_plane_truth_flight_0Pr7cjGFGT2GcSTqHltjkO

Your link to Business Insider does provoke a decent compelling counter argument, but I’m afraid it smelt a bit like opportunism by the company that manufactures the counter measuring equipment.

And, at the end of the day I want to board an aircraft as a civilian, on a civilian aircraft without needing to worry about some madman wanting to do harm to me….

[Author]

Posts