Afaik a country doesnt profit from transiting airspace either does it??
the financial grounds would be for the airlines surely, as they would have to fly further.
Afaik a country doesnt profit from transiting airspace either does it??
[TW]Fox;28683735 said:Have you got a link to the confirmation that closing the airspace above FL300 was discussed, the risk was acknowledged but that the decision was made not to purely on financial grounds?
You're not just speculating, right?
[TW]Fox;28684106 said:No mention of financial grounds.
I'll take your answer as 'Yes, I am just speculating' then.
You asked for "confirmation that closing the airspace above FL300 was discussed, the risk was acknowledged but that the decision was made not to purely on financial grounds". I will admit I only provided "confirmation that closing the airspace above FL300 was discussed, the risk was acknowledged but that the decision was made not to".
However as the only explanations for not doing it are either that they didn't want to lose a substantial amount of money or that they are grossly incompetent, highly negligent and very stupid
[TW]Fox;28684182 said:So speculation.
Yeah but to be fair most of those were shot down by manpads not Buks. They should have closed the airspace though, the report is clear about that.
The BND has intelligence indicating that pro-Russian separatists captured a BUK air defense missile system at a Ukrainian military base
How could they lose millions by shutting airspace?
Airlines using the airspace pay overflight rights to the Ukrainian government, at ~$1000 a flight they would have lost millions by closing it for just a month.
Airlines using the airspace pay overflight rights to the Ukrainian government, at ~$1000 a flight they would have lost millions by closing it for just a month.
160 flights a month over the region the report says, so that's closer to 160k than millions.
Airlines using the airspace pay overflight rights to the Ukrainian government, at ~$1000 a flight they would have lost millions by closing it for just a month.
[TW]Fox;28684683 said:Google quickly tells me you are just parroting something you read on a random website (That same $1000 figure) - it seems that actually nobody knows that the fee is because it isn't public information. Therefore you cannot say with any certainty it was financially motivated, its just a guess. Washington Post for example seems to think it was the airlines themselves that wanted to continue overflying.
Exactly. They wouldn't.
The plan was to blame it on the Russians.
[TW]Fox;28684683 said:Google quickly tells me you are just parroting something you read on a random website (That same $1000 figure) - it seems that actually nobody knows that the fee is because it isn't public information.
[TW]Fox;28684683 said:Therefore you cannot say with any certainty it was financially motivated
Well I mean our understanding of Space is just one big educated guess.
its much more likely the untrained rebels couldn't tell what they were shooting down.
the issues is though where did they get the missiles.
if they got them from the Russians its understandable the Ukrainian government did not know about them.
if they got them from capturing them from the Ukrainians then they certainly knew about the weapons being in the hands of the rebels and should have shut the airspace.
Hindsight is a nice thing.
IL-76 shot down over Donetsk 14 June 2014, IL-76 is a transport aircraft that has ceiling of 45 000 feet. It is not said what it was shot with but its hardly a close air support plane.
I mean it seems to be clear that Ukranians knew about rebels having BUK systems and yet did not shut down air-space to civilian aircraft. This is essentially man-slaughter.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...loodiest-day-missiles-bring-down-military-jetA Kiev military analyst later reported that the empty tubes of two Igla handheld surface-to-air missiles had been found...
Vladimir Inogorodsky, spokesman of the self-declared Luhansk People's Republic, confirmed rebels had shot the plane down with Igla missiles...
The available evidence suggests it was shot down by an Igla, not a Buk missile system:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...loodiest-day-missiles-bring-down-military-jet
Such a system only has a range of a few kilometres, there were also reports of it being shot by machine gun fire, so it was low altitude.
So yes, Ukraine probably knew they had low altitude anti-air assets, however the higher altitude attacks only started 2-3 days before MH17 was hit, so if Ukraine knew they had a Buk it was not until later on, not during June like you are claiming.