Yes.
SQ9999 (4 digits).
Website will says "operated by" too
Love Compassion
Earth day - save the world everyday.
(19-07-2014, 03:07 PM)Jacmar Wrote: [ -> ] (19-07-2014, 01:03 PM)corydorus Wrote: [ -> ] (19-07-2014, 12:01 PM)xiang38 Wrote: [ -> ] (19-07-2014, 11:46 AM)corydorus Wrote: [ -> ]One thing i do not understand is why MAS decided to fly over a conflict zone when earlier there have been reportings of Ukraine Military planes got shot down. Isn't safety of passengers utmost important ? I think potentially they will be open to be sued and distrusted by passengers even if they are flying over "legally". Management should step down imo.
Sia was also flying thru the war zone. . . .
I do not think this is a valid excuse.
Furthermore is one thing to fly over Ukraine but is another to fly directly over the the conflict area.
I agree that SIA mgt should step down. For a premium carrier charging premium prices that they would save fuel flying over conflict areas. It's understanable if you are a budget carrier or carriers charging cheap tickets.
So far the information I am aware is that prior to the incident, other airlines that flew through Ukraine are using southern paths. MAS is flying directly above the conflict zone.
Thanks chialc.
I was thinking if there is a way out for MAS after reading the following from the first post of this thread :
(18-07-2014, 11:07 PM) Wrote: [ -> ].....
HIT by two astonishing tragedies in quick succession, the Malaysia Airlines brand may become the airline industry’s equivalent of asbestos: toxic to the public and, experts say, impossible to redeem.
(19-07-2014, 05:00 PM)BlueKelah Wrote: [ -> ]Tough industry to be in at the moment. According to reports I read about 100 flights / day still flew through Ukraine airspace, so saving fuel is common practice. Any of those 100+ flights could have been the target. Unfortunately MAS took the hit. At that altitude I don't think whoever fired the missiles knew which airline they were taking out.
Read that too but strange to me because if thats the case the guy operating the missile would have seen all these planes flying across. At which point does he say this is a valid boggie?
This is not a standard manual missile like the infamous stinger, but one that can hit 33k feet, the height of Mount Everest. Is 33k feet too "low" and hence considered a possible threat???
Kiev side yesterday claimed 3 Russian Buk M1 missle systems were detected trespassing at the border warzone area, so Russian backed rebels could have taken out multiple planes if they wanted. I think mh17 really unlucky. Wrong place wrong time.
It was unlikely MAS plane was mistaken for a cargo plane. With over 100 passenger airplanes passing by that area everyday, it is unlikely they just fired on "any passing target". Don't forget Russians also have very sophisticated satellite imaging and radar. Normally rebel soldiers are only provided ground weapons and shoulder mounted RPGs. Those missile systems are very expensive and I am sure Russia would not provide rebels with one unit, not to mention the 3 units detected.
Ukraine also uses Russian systems as evidenced by their SU-25 Fighter jet and Ilyushin Il-76 transport plane which were shot down last week, both are Russian designed. They also have multiple BUK-M1 SAM units at the border conflict area.
Once again, I do think USA should have had some record of what happened on their satellite imaging systems.
So which side shot the plane down? Just like MH-370 we may never find out.
Photos are taken the Russian pulling their Buk Missile System back and even with with some missile slots empty.
"There is no gold under my feet " ?
Hope nothing more than just trade restrictions / embargo against Russia or Ukraine..
Escalation in anti-Russia sentiments
Somewhat similar to 007 south Korean flight during the cold war..
VIP or spy on the flight? - wild guess
$66 more each was enough to bypass Ukraine
STEVE CREEDY THE AUSTRALIAN JULY 21, 2014 12:00AM
IT would have cost Malaysia Airlines about $66 a passenger to divert around the Ukrainian airspace where it was shot down, sources have told The Australian.
A former flight planner calculated that the diversion would have added up to 45 minutes to the journey, and with the direct operating cost of a Boeing 777-220ER estimated to run at up to $25,000 an hour, this would have added between $14,500 and $18,750 to the overall cost of the flight, or $66 per paying passenger.
Direct operating costs include expenses such as depreciation, insurance, interest, fuel, ground services, flight and cabin crew costs and maintenance.
The calculations highlight why many airlines were still using the heavily trafficked Ukrainian corridor despite the conflict below.
Industry insiders, including pilots, believe airlines would have diverted had they thought they would have been subject to a missile attack at cruise altitudes.
The incident has raised questions about the level of intelligence to which airlines are privy and the need for an international body, possibly through the International Air Transport Association, to give carriers a better indication of the risks associated with trouble spots.
Avlaw chairman Ron Bartsch, a former head of safety at Qantas, said it was difficult for individual airlines to assess the safety of routes. He proposed a system of categorisation similar to that used for cyclones to give airlines an improved ability to assess risks.
“If IATA were charged with the responsibility of making that assessment, it could be very much like a travel advisory,’’ he said.
Ukrainian and Russian air-traffic controllers had put a 32,000ft minimum altitude on the flight path that MH17 was following, with the Russians citing “combat actions on the territory of the Ukraine near the state border with Russian Federation’’, hours before Flight MH17 took off.
Malaysia said over the weekend that its flight plan had been approved by European air-navigation provider Eurocontrol and revealed it had wanted to fly at a higher altitude.
It said it filed a flight plan to fly at 35,000ft through Ukrainian airspace as the optimum altitude but local air-traffic control told it to fly at 33,000ft.
Malaysian Transport Minister Llow Tiong Lai described MH17’s flight path as “a busy major airway” and said 400 commercial flights, including 150 international flights, crossed Ukraine daily prior to the crash.
“The flight and its operators followed the rules,’’ he said.
Some airlines have found themselves in hot water as they try to distance themselves from the route taken over Ukrainian territory by Flight MH17.
Virgin Australia partner Etihad was forced to admit last night that it had been flying in Ukrainian airspace prior to the crash, after initially denying that was the case. The airline said it had now suspended all flights over Ukrainian airspace.
Singapore Airlines also got its fingers burned refusing to comment on whether its flights were over the same route, even though flight-tracking software indicated one of its aircraft was close to MH17 when it was hit by a missile.
Quote:Ukrainian and Russian air-traffic controllers had put a 32,000ft minimum altitude on the flight path that MH17 was following, with the Russians citing “combat actions on the territory of the Ukraine near the state border with Russian Federation’’, hours before Flight MH17 took off.
Malaysia said over the weekend that its flight plan had been approved by European air-navigation provider Eurocontrol and revealed it had wanted to fly at a higher altitude.
It said it filed a flight plan to fly at 35,000ft through Ukrainian airspace as the optimum altitude but local air-traffic control told it to fly at 33,000ft.
A seasoned ex-pilot said on CNN that he personally would NOT have flown that route at that height even though it is approved because in case of emergency (decompression, etc) he would have to descend to a lower level and there is no margin of safety flying at 33,000 ft (though of course in this case the missile was capable of striking even at 33K ft). Just like in investment, aviation also needs an MOS.
Hence ICAO's present rules seem risky - no MOS at all, probably giving priority to commercial profitability of airlines rather than safety. Before we take a flight next, may be prudent to first check if flight path goes over a conflict zone before booking it.
http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/premium/...l-20140721
PUBLISHED JULY 21, 2014
COMMENTARY
Rebuilding MAS for the long haul
Redefining 2014 is within airline's control
BYANITA GABRIELSENIOR CORRESPONDENT
anitag@sph.com.sg @AnitaGabrielBT
Traumatic period: This year could also be when the ailing state-owned airline is jolted into renewal. - PHOTO: BLOOMBERG
TWO plane disasters and 537 lives lost involving crisis-fatigued Malaysia Airlines (MAS) have turned 2014 into a storm-wreck year for the carrier which was earlier on wobbly financial footing but now, simply shaken to the bone.
At just over the halfway mark, this year could also be when the ailing state-owned airline, with some 20,000 people on its payroll, is jolted into renewal. After all, we are strongest at the broken places and after a defeat, it is said.
But what was Khazanah Nasional thinking when it said it would come up with a revival plan for MAS within six to 12 months - following the loss of MH370 on March 8, which led to a reputational fallout, and amid slumping sales and hefty compensation payouts and the worst January-March quarterly loss in two years.
The controlling shareholder doesn't seem to realise that MAS is in dire straits. It simply had no time to lose.