logo
Expanding missile threats and airspace closures are straining airlines

Expanding missile threats and airspace closures are straining airlines

Japan Timesa day ago

Proliferating conflict zones are an increasing burden on airline operations and profitability, executives say, as carriers grapple with missiles and drones, airspace closures, location spoofing and the shoot-down of another passenger flight.
Airlines are racking up costs and losing market share from canceled flights and expensive re-routings, often at short notice. The aviation industry, which prides itself on its safety performance, is investing more in data and security planning.
"Flight planning in this kind of environment is extremely difficult. ... The airline industry thrives on predictability, and the absence of this will always drive greater cost," said Guy Murray, who leads aviation security at European carrier TUI Airline.
With increasing airspace closures around Russia and Ukraine, throughout the Middle East, between India and Pakistan and in parts of Africa, airlines are left with fewer route options.
"Compared to five years ago, more than half of the countries being overflown on a typical Europe-Asia flight would now need to be carefully reviewed before each flight," said Mark Zee, founder of OPSGROUP, a membership-based organization that shares flight risk information.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East since October 2023 led to commercial aviation sharing the skies with short-notice barrages of drones and missiles across major flight paths — some of which were reportedly close enough to be seen by pilots and passengers.
Russian airports, including in Moscow, are now regularly shut down for brief periods due to drone activity, while interference with navigation systems, known as GPS spoofing or jamming, is surging around political fault lines worldwide.
When hostilities broke out between India and Pakistan last month, the neighbors blocked each other's aircraft from their respective airspace.
"Airspace should not be used as a retaliatory tool, but it is," Nick Careen, International Air Transport Association (IATA) senior vice president for operations, safety and security, told reporters at the airline body's annual meeting in New Delhi on Tuesday.
Isidre Porqueras, chief operating officer at Indian carrier IndiGo, said the recent diversions were undoing efforts to reduce emissions and increase airline efficiencies.
Worst-case scenario
Finances aside, civil aviation's worst-case scenario is a plane being hit, accidentally or intentionally, by weaponry.
In December, an Azerbaijan Airlines flight crashed in Kazakhstan, killing 38 people. The plane was accidentally shot down by Russian air defenzes, according to Azerbaijan's president and sources.
In October, a cargo plane was shot down in Sudan, killing five people.
Six commercial aircraft have been shot down unintentionally, with three near-misses since 2001, according to aviation risk consultancy Osprey Flight Solutions.
Governments need to share information more effectively to keep civil aviation secure as conflict zones proliferate, IATA Director General Willie Walsh said this week.
Safety statistics used by the commercial aviation industry show a steady decline in accidents over the past two decades, but these do not include security-related incidents such as being hit by weaponry.
IATA said in February that accidents and incidents related to conflict zones were a top concern for aviation safety requiring urgent global coordination.
Tough choices
Each airline decides where to travel based on a patchwork of government notices, security advisers, and information-sharing between carriers and states, leading to divergent policies.
The closure of Russian airspace to most Western carriers since the outbreak of war in Ukraine in 2022 put them at a cost disadvantage compared to airlines from places like China, India and the Middle East that continue to take shorter northern routes that need less fuel and fewer crew.
Shifting risk calculations mean Singapore Airlines' flight SQ326 from Singapore to Amsterdam has used three different routes into Europe in just over a year, Flightradar24 tracking data shows.
When reciprocal missile and drone attacks broke out between Iran and Israel in April 2024, it started crossing previously avoided Afghanistan instead of Iran.
Last month, its route shifted again to avoid Pakistan's airspace as conflict escalated between India and Pakistan. Flight SQ326 now reaches Europe via the Persian Gulf and Iraq. Singapore Airlines did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
Pilots and flight attendants are also worried about how the patchwork of shifting risk might impact their safety.
"IATA says airlines should decide if it's safe to fly over conflict zones, not regulators. But history shows commercial pressures can cloud those decisions," said Paul Reuter, vice president of the European Cockpit Association, which represents pilots.
Flight crew typically have the right to refuse a trip due to concerns about airspace, whether over weather or conflict zones, IATA security head Careen said.
"Most airlines, in fact, I would say the vast majority of them, do not want crew on an aircraft if they don't feel comfortable flying," he said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Polls: 82% of Ukrainians 'categorically against' Russian peace plan
Polls: 82% of Ukrainians 'categorically against' Russian peace plan

NHK

time8 hours ago

  • NHK

Polls: 82% of Ukrainians 'categorically against' Russian peace plan

Recent public opinion polls show most Ukrainians are strongly opposed to accepting Russia's peace plan. The Kyiv International Institute of Sociology has published the results of surveys conducted in May and June. One survey conducted from May 2 to 12 asked about the Russian peace plan putting some of Ukraine's eastern and southern regions under Russian control. Some 82 percent of respondents said they are "categorically against" the plan. Only 10 percent said they are "ready to accept" it. Another survey conducted from May 15 to June 3 found that 52 percent agreed with the statement, "Under no circumstances should Ukraine give up any of its territories" to Russia. A total of 38 percent chose the statement, "In order to achieve peace as soon as possible and preserve independence, Ukraine may give up some of its territories." The institute said, "Ukrainians want peace." It added that they "are ready for difficult discussions and compromises," but "reject demands for surrender." Editorial Note: An earlier version of this story said the two surveys were conducted from May 15 to June 3. But they were conducted in different periods. One of the surveys asked about the Russian peace plan, not the memorandum presented by Russia on June 2.

Golden Dome is a glittering gamble — and a likely mistake
Golden Dome is a glittering gamble — and a likely mistake

Japan Times

time13 hours ago

  • Japan Times

Golden Dome is a glittering gamble — and a likely mistake

U.S. President Donald Trump has a dim view of nuclear weapons. 'We're all spending a lot of money that we could be spending on other things that are actually, hopefully, much more productive,' he said earlier this year. He worries about the threat they pose, however. Days after taking office, he issued an executive order (EO) that proclaimed a shift in U.S. missile defense (MD) policy and called for 'a next generation missile shield.' The 'Iron Dome for America' is now the 'Golden Dome.' This project shifts the U.S. focus on defending against the threat from rogue states to a policy that ultimately seeks to deter attacks from peer or near-peer adversaries, like China and Russia. Predictably, those governments issued scathing attacks on the proposal. They needn't worry. Solutions to the technological demands of such a system are decades away — if ever. More to the point, we've seen this story before. Golden Dome is a retread of former President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, better known as Star Wars and it too succumbed to financial and physical reality. That doesn't mean that Golden War can't do extraordinary damage to strategic stability in the interim.

Could U.S. and Israel destroy Iran's nuke program? Yep, here's how.
Could U.S. and Israel destroy Iran's nuke program? Yep, here's how.

Japan Times

time14 hours ago

  • Japan Times

Could U.S. and Israel destroy Iran's nuke program? Yep, here's how.

Despite hopeful signals from U.S. President Donald Trump's administration about a potential nuclear deal with Iran, the fundamentals don't look good. Trump recently said, and rightly so, that the U.S. would not allow Tehran any form of uranium enrichment capability (although top aides have sent mixed signals). Iran, conversely, makes the unconvincing claim that it would use enrichment capacity not to build an atomic weapon, but to feed nuclear power plants. Israel, meanwhile, is sending blatant signals that it is ready and enthusiastic to launch strikes at Tehran's nuclear facilities now, while Iranian air defenses are still weakened after two years of sporadic conflict. Trump is telling the Israelis to cool their jets (literally) while he tries to forge a peaceful arrangement. But he is equally clear that if talks collapse, the next step may well be joint U.S.-Israeli strikes. You can bet that serious planning for strikes is in progress at the Pentagon, U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida, and Israeli Defense Forces HQ. General plans for such an assault, of course, have been in existence for decades and are frequently updated — most recently after the significant Israeli airstrikes months ago. What would joint Israeli-U.S. assaults on Iran's nuclear facilities look like? How effective would they be? In other words, what is the risk-benefit calculus for such an audacious and aggressive move? The most obvious and necessary element of such an operation would come from the air: a combination of cruise missiles, drones and manned aircraft. But before any bombs are dropped over Iranian nuclear sites at Natanz and Fordow, there would be significant military preparation. First would be a comprehensive offensive cyberwar campaign, probably coinciding with an onslaught of cruise missiles and drones attacking Tehran's remaining Russian-supplied S-300 and S-200 air-defense stations and Iranian surface-to-air systems like the Bavar 373 or Khordad 15. The cyber-offensive would best be set off inside Tehran's military electric grid: The Israelis probably have that ability — essentially cyber-boots on the ground. The Israelis would probably also use some level of special forces. The strike they conducted on Iranian missile production facilities in Syria in 2024, Operation Many Ways, is instructive in that they used Shaldag Unit commandos dropped in by helicopters. For the IDF and Mossad (Israel's intelligence agency) to get real ground power in place would require transporting commandos significant distances. One option would be to use an Israeli naval flotilla to get the special forces close enough for helicopter movements. The combination of cruise missiles and drone attacks would be where U.S. combat power would come into play — particularly with long range Tomahawk land-attack cruise missile volleys from Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers. U.S. submarines could also contribute, although their missile inventories are far below those of the surface ships. The cruise missiles would be focused on destroying Iran's air-defense batteries, electric grid, early warning radars and strategic communications nodes. Simultaneously, a wave of drones would be sent to take out the Iranian air force before it could get into the skies. Tehran's planes are mostly old by modern combat standards, including ancient U.S.-made F4 and F14 fighters (think Tom Cruise in Top Gun in the 1980s) and have significant maintenance problems. They would be easy prey in the air, but knocking them out while they are still parked on the ground — much like the Ukrainians did to Russia's strategic bombers last week — would further de-risk the battlefield. This phase would use a combination of Israeli and American aircraft. The most sophisticated planes flown by both air forces are the fifth-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which could operate from land bases in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar and be refueled in the air by KC-135 and KC-46 super tankers. The American aircraft could also come from the sea — it would be best to have at least two aircraft carriers, with 80 combat aircraft each. (Currently there is only one carrier strike group in the region, but another could be there in less than two weeks.) Israel's older F-18s and F-16s, alongside carrier-based U.S. F/A-18 Hornets, could be used to mop up any remaining Iranian aircraft after the air defenses were thoroughly denuded. Then would come the main event: heavy air strikes, probably led by U.S. B-2 Spirit strategic bombers carrying 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators, aka "bunker busters.' The U.S. recently positioned up to eight of the stealth bombers at striking positions on the island of Diego Garcia, southeast of Iran in the Indian Ocean. They were replaced last month by a fleet of venerable B-52s, but could return within a matter of hours. Iran's best defense isn't missiles or planes, however — it is that much of the uranium-enrichment program is buried deep underground and hardened against bombing. Still, I wouldn't want to be in the central centrifuge rooms when the B-2s arrive. Conservative estimates of battle damage indicate the program would be knocked back by at least a year. Unfortunately, the Iranians likely have important sites we don't know about — the "known unknowns' my old boss Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld talked about. Iran is a huge country, almost two and a half times the size of Texas, much of it mountainous and difficult to fully surveil from space. This would be a challenging mission indeed. Iran would respond vigorously to a massive strike. Counterattacks would be both direct and asymmetrical and would almost certainly include another volley of ballistic missiles at Israel (far larger than the ineffective attack last year), alongside strikes from what's left of Hezbollah's inventory in Syria. Bombings at U.S. and Israeli embassies and commercial facilities worldwide would be likely and cyberattacks a certainty. Tehran might close the Strait of Hormuz with mines, small craft and short-range surface-to-surface missiles. This would shut down 35% of the world's oil and gas shipments and it would take perhaps months for the U.S. and allies to reopen it. Tehran might also strike at Saudi or UAE offshore oil and gas facilities or even attack the Saudis' main energy facilities on land. If Tehran goes this far, it would widen the war to potentially include strikes on Iranian naval facilities in the Indian Ocean, major military bases inland or other command-and-control sites. Re-opening the Strait of Hormuz would likely pull in America's European and Gulf allies. But having lost control of its decimated proxies — Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis — Iran has few moves left on the chessboard. It's said that Iran's progenitor, the Persian Empire, was one of the first societies to play the game of chess. If Tehran blows this chance to negotiate with the U.S., it is headed to a very dark endgame indeed. James Stavridis is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, a retired U.S. Navy admiral, former supreme allied commander of NATO, and vice chairman of global affairs at the Carlyle Group.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store