Malaysia Airlines shot down by the Ruskies.

That is a rather sad and questionable knee-jerk reaction, in my view. Your company appears to assume that Malaysia Airlines are somehow responsible for this outrage. The flight departed from Schipol, one of the most secure airports in Europe with an excellent safety record, and its flight plan took into account the warnings contained in the Notams. The airway over the Donetsk border region did have a restriction as did the connecting airway - inside Russian airspace - both were closed to civilian traffic from 0 to 26,000 feet (iirc) but the 777 was some 10,000 feet higher when it was struck by the missile. You could blame Eurocontrol and IATA for underestimating the threat posed by the rebels but in this case, Malaysia Airlines itself is an innocent victim.

Where Malaysia Airlines might come unstuck though is if, to save money, there was insufficient or no war zone insurance coverage for the flight - this is totally separate from the plane's hull, cargo and passenger insurance policies and is bought from a special group of insurers on a per flight basis. In the absence of such insurance and it is proven that the plane was brought-down by a hostile act, the claims against the company will be eye-wateringly massive and would almost certainly bankrupt the airline and since it is part-owned by the State, the country will suffer financially too.

Your company's decision is, I read, being mirrored by others and the airline is reportedly facing mass cancellations; this will only serve to hasten its demise.

I appreciate what you are saying, but I dont speak for my companies directors. They have a base in Malaysia and have done so for a number of years and they feel that as things stand the risks involved in travelling Malaysian Airlines are unacceptable just now. I believe that their travel arrangements will remain under review.

It wont affect me as I wont be flying anywhere on company business just now. A colleague of mine will be flying to Malaysia soon so will be interesting to see what he says. He is in Japan just now doing a bit of earthquake and typhoon dodging.

I think there is a lot of this "negative perception" about just now.

"In the wake of the MH17 and MH370 disasters, Malaysia Airlines now faces a massive struggle to recover as a business and win back the public's confidence.

This comes as the airlines' share price plummeted by 17.8% Friday morning, as investors rushed to sell their stock in the carrier after it suffered its second deadly incident this year.

"I can't comprehend of anything they can do to save themselves," said Mohshin Aziz, an aviation analyst at Maybank Investment Bank in Kuala Lumpur. "Perception-wise it really hits home, it's very difficult to fight against negative perception."

“In the history of aviation there’s never been an airline that had to go through two huge disasters in the span of four months, so I don’t think there’s any historical evidence that they can get out of this," he told Dow Jones Newswires."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...ane-disaster-malaysia-airlines_n_5598334.html

I think it would be a mistake to make any advance bookings on Malaysia Airlines as the company may not be able to fulfil their part of the contract; on Friday afternoon, BBC World reported that the airline's share price in KL fell through the floor. I would be surprised if the airline survives beyond the end of the year.

Whilst it is probably an innocent victim as far as MH17 is concerned, the airline's senior management are guilty of being economical with the truth in respect of MH370 and especially with regard to its cargo. And there have been two other fairly serious incidents involving its aircraft since MH370. Maybe it is an airline that should be avoided.

I too will be typhoon dodging - or rather the pilot of my KLM flight will be, twice as it happens: first enroute to Taiwan and then as we leave Taiwan heading for Hong Kong and the southern trans-China air corridor. As for earthquakes, we had one last week: 6.3 on the Richter Scale but no damage reported here in Davao even though the epicentre was less than 60km from the city.

John, I take back any criticism of your company's decision not to fly its employees with Malaysia Airlines. Having read this morning's press, it would appear that the airline's management failed to respond to crew concerns regarding overflying the Ukraine. Indeed it has denied that there were any!

Following the shooting down last week of two Ukrainian military aircraft in the Donetsk region, Britain's CAA issued a warning (Notam) to avoid the area but Eurocontrol, the International Civil Aviation Organisation, IATA and Ukraine's ATC have failed to impose any bans or restrictions. That route was heavily used by flights between Europe and South East Asia as it is direct; the even more direct airway over the Crimea had already been closed following Russia's "invasion". All American carriers along with British Airways, Asiana, Lufthansa, Air France/KLM and Qantas modified their flight plans to divert around Ukrainian airspace, adding around 20 minutes extra flying time to their flights. But not Malaysia.

One has to assume that Malaysia's decision not to divert its aircraft was one taken by accountants rather than by aviation professionals and these faceless wonders placed profits before people. It was prepared to risk the lives of its passengers and crew for a few paltry Ringits and I think it may be safe to assume that the flight did not have war zone coverage since the premium would have more than wiped-out the fuel savings.

Let's consider the international response which, at best, is muted. Within the EU only Britain has spoken out and I'm tempted to suggest that the lack of any condemnatory statement from other EU leaders is prompted by their needs for cheap gas from Russia. Considering that one of the basic rationales for the EU is supposed to be to prevent wars and other hostile actions and considering that there is supposed to be a European Rapid Reaction force, why have Europe's leaders failed to deploy to at least secure the crash site; this is, after all, an act of war against all those countries whose citizens were aboard that flight, many of them EU citizens. I am not surprised that NATO isn't involved given that Obama has demonstrated time and again he's a man of many words but his actions don't match his rhetoric. As rebel thugs continue to refuse crash site access to OSCE inspectors whilst at the same time their colleagues and local villagers are combing the scene, rifling baggage and looting cash and valuables, there is clearly a need for the area to be secured. Worryingly there are reports that the rebels have seized 38 bodies from the scene and transported them to a morgue in Donetsk but they have refused to allow government emergency teams to remove any of the 186 bodies they have so far recovered.

Whilst the blame for this tragedy can be firmly placed on pro-Russian irregulars armed, equipped, trained and supported by Putin, the airline, EU, ICAO, IATA and Eurocontrol have all played some part by failing to prevent it.

For the record, MH17 was a KLM code-share flight: KL4103.

Yes. My employers are businessmen and run a fair sized company now, across the globe. I am sure they thought fully before implementing the decision, having not only themselves to consider but their employees and their liability insurance. Why make such a decision if you don't need to. The oil industry itself is complex enough without making it unecessarily more complicated. I am sure they felt compelled to go down that route.

Found out yesterday that I know one of the guys who was killed when MH17 was shot down, I knew him from a bank I worked at in Luxembourg. He and his family were on their way to Malaysia for a holiday.

Small world...
RIP

...and as I suggested before, the airline will struggle after the effects of the two catastrophes.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28978881