4 ms·

Worth noting that the EU has banned entire nations (such as Kazakhstan and others) from flying in EU airspace before for not meeting safety expectations. It is

Worth noting that the EU has banned entire nations (such as Kazakhstan and others) from flying in EU airspace before for not meeting safety expectations. It is absolutely within possibility to ban Belarus for an overt Chicago convention violation.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Aperocky 5y ago
Only the airlines, not the nation. You can fly from Kazakhstan on an European carrier to Europe. Europe previously have also banned shoddy Soviet era airliners that are both incredibly loud, toxic and quite unsafe, which is the right thing to do.
- motives 5y ago
  I feel this is a fairly pedantic correction, though of course you're very correct nonetheless. My opinion is that banning all of a nations major airlines from operating in your airspace is functionally equivalent to banning that nation. Belarus is much like Kazakhstan in that the vast majority of routes from its airports are by its national airlines. Most of the routes to the EU are flown by Belavia (Belarus' national airline) https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-minsk-msq https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-minsk-msq.
  - Aperocky 5y ago
    Well, I feel like it's important to point out that people can still fly direct from $nation to Europe despite the ban.
    - varjag 5y ago
      Most of flights to Europe are codeshares with Belavia, so not really.
aphextron 5y ago
>It is absolutely within possibility to ban Belarus for an overt Chicago convention violation. EU did the same thing in 2013 by forcing the Bolivian president's plane to land in an effort to catch Snowden. They have no moral or legal standing here whatsoever. https://euobserver.com/justice/120734 https://euobserver.com/justice/120734
- hulitu 5y ago
  No. You don't underestand. Snowden = american criminal. America = our friend. This guy = belorussian criminal. Lukashenkon - until some months ago our friend, now - our enemy.
- ryanlol 5y ago
  This wasn’t even remotely similar. Those EU countries didn’t allow the plane into their airspace, encouraging it to land in a third country to refuel. Belarus called in a fake bomb threat and used their fighter jets to force a passenger flight to land in their territory, not to mention the KGB officers on board making a scene. Outcome might be similar, but it’s specifically the tactics used which make this unacceptable.
  - aphextron 5y ago
    >Those EU countries didn’t allow the plane into their airspace, encouraging it to land in a third country to refuel. Seems like a trivial difference. Denying access to your airspace comes with the implicit threat of fighter interception.
    - ddalex 5y ago
      In the event that you are not a Russian troll, let me explain two key differences: The Morales jet was warned ahead of time in a legal way, not intercepted and forced to land in an unintended destination. No persons from the Morales jet were detained. One is an lawful act (perhaps imoral in some way) , and one is an arbitrary act outside of any lawful framework . I hope this clears the confusion.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Aperocky 5y ago

Only the airlines, not the nation. You can fly from Kazakhstan on an European carrier to Europe. Europe previously have also banned shoddy Soviet era airliners that are both incredibly loud, toxic and quite unsafe, which is the right thing to do.

motives 5y ago
I feel this is a fairly pedantic correction, though of course you're very correct nonetheless. My opinion is that banning all of a nations major airlines from operating in your airspace is functionally equivalent to banning that nation. Belarus is much like Kazakhstan in that the vast majority of routes from its airports are by its national airlines. Most of the routes to the EU are flown by Belavia (Belarus' national airline) https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-minsk-msq https://www.flightconnections.com/flights-from-minsk-msq.
- Aperocky 5y ago
  Well, I feel like it's important to point out that people can still fly direct from $nation to Europe despite the ban.
  - varjag 5y ago
    Most of flights to Europe are codeshares with Belavia, so not really.

aphextron 5y ago

>It is absolutely within possibility to ban Belarus for an overt Chicago convention violation. EU did the same thing in 2013 by forcing the Bolivian president's plane to land in an effort to catch Snowden. They have no moral or legal standing here whatsoever. https://euobserver.com/justice/120734 https://euobserver.com/justice/120734

hulitu 5y ago
No. You don't underestand. Snowden = american criminal. America = our friend. This guy = belorussian criminal. Lukashenkon - until some months ago our friend, now - our enemy.
ryanlol 5y ago
This wasn’t even remotely similar. Those EU countries didn’t allow the plane into their airspace, encouraging it to land in a third country to refuel. Belarus called in a fake bomb threat and used their fighter jets to force a passenger flight to land in their territory, not to mention the KGB officers on board making a scene. Outcome might be similar, but it’s specifically the tactics used which make this unacceptable.
- aphextron 5y ago
  >Those EU countries didn’t allow the plane into their airspace, encouraging it to land in a third country to refuel. Seems like a trivial difference. Denying access to your airspace comes with the implicit threat of fighter interception.
  - ddalex 5y ago
    In the event that you are not a Russian troll, let me explain two key differences: The Morales jet was warned ahead of time in a legal way, not intercepted and forced to land in an unintended destination. No persons from the Morales jet were detained. One is an lawful act (perhaps imoral in some way) , and one is an arbitrary act outside of any lawful framework . I hope this clears the confusion.