Qatar Airways CEO Akbar Al Baker, never at a loss for words, has argued pilots of Ryanair flight 4978 made a “fundamental error” by flying to Minsk instead of continuing to Vilnius. He called the episode a “hijacking” and yet insisted Qatar Airways would continue to fly over Belarusian airspace.
Qatar Airways CEO Blames Minsk Hijacking Incident On Pilot Error, Will Continue To Overfly Belarus
Al Baker was interviewed over the weekend by Bloomberg.
The forced landing of a Ryanair jet flying over Belarus “is something [that] should have never happened,” says Qatar Airways CEO Akbar Al Baker.
More from @business https://t.co/JXUdgjn9cL pic.twitter.com/8KH12ttH1O
— Bloomberg Quicktake (@Quicktake) May 31, 2021
It’s that last point that I want to start with. Al Baker says that Qatar Airways will continue to fly over Belarus:
“As far as we are concerned, for us business as usual. If we feel we need to overfly Minsk to reach our destination, we will because we don’t like to bring our business, airline business, and mix it with politics.”
For a smart man, I find this statement quite naive. Not because I condemn his decision to overfly Belarus, but because the idea that you can separate business and politics is simply not plausible.
Belarus gains revenue when planes use its airspace. By avoiding Belarusian airspace, Belarus suffers financial consequences. While I question whether a Belavia flight ban is helpful, I do believe the intentions are noble: state-sponsored piracy and hijackings will not be tolerated.
Al Baker himself calls the incident a hijacking. Continuing to use Belarusian airspace is a political statement. It’s also a calculus: what would have happened if the captain of FR4978 simply refused to land and insisted he was continuing to Vilnius?
Would he he have been shot out of the sky in a modern-day Korean Air 007 incident?
Al Baker: “Fundamental Error” By Pilot To Land In Minsk
Al Baker calls the decision to land in Minsk a “fundamental error” that will “create a precedent for other countries to do the same when there is someone on a plane that they want.”
“I think the pilot made a fundamental error by not continuing to Vilnius because that was a closer airport than Minsk. However, from what I understand, there was some kind of communications from air traffic controllers that made him go to Minsk.”
Belarus has released a partial transcript of conversation between FR4978 and air traffic control. It purports to show that Belarus did not force the pilot to land in Minsk but rather the pilot made the decision himself.
I find it disingenuous that Al Baker calls the incident a hijacking, has not even reviewed the air traffic control transcript, yet blames the pilot for trying to do the greatest good for the greatest number by diverting to Minsk with a MiG-29 escort.
> Read More: The Captain Made The Right Call In Ryanair Diversion To Belarus
CONCLUSION
Qatar Airways will continue to fly over Belarus. Would that keep me from flying Qatar Airways? Absolutely not. It’s a risk I am comfortable making, especially with the world spotlight on Belarus following the last hijacking. Nevertheless, I find it curious that Al Baker would call the incident a “fundamental error” by pilots. While the flight likely could have continued to Vilnius had it simply ignored ATC instructions, that is not a risk the pilot was wiling to take…and I don’t blame him for it.
I wonder if His Excellency still on the board of IATA?
When a Malaysian Airlines flight was shot out of the sky, aircraft altered their flight paths and flew over Russian airspace to avoid Ukrainian airspace. Russia received additional revenue from these flights. Why wasn’t there a call to boycott Russian airspace while accusing Russia-backed separatists of downing the aircraft? Perhaps there was – and it went nowhere. Too large a country; impossible to avoid entirely etc.
Plus, ATC specifically said the bomb was set to detonate over Vilnius.
If somebody you presumably trust (ATC) says there’s a bomb on your plane that will explode if you proceed to your destination, the logical thing to do is not proceed to your destination.
That’s not ‘pilot error’
management will sell out the crews in most circumstances. Pass the bull and pin the blame. SOP.
Pilot was a f’ing coward or just fell off the turnip truck. As a passenger, I have a reasonable expectation to have the airline not dump me off in a totalitarian regime.
@Steven I think you also have a reasonable expectation to not be shot down by a MIG or blown up by a bomb. Fairly sure most crews would make the exact same decision with a fighter jet alongside…
Easy to judge from behind a screen, safely on the ground.
“greatest good for the greatest number…” Lives aren’t meant to be traded. This poor dissident will likely die in prison because this pilot was afraid call a really bad bluff. I hope I never am in a situation where this captain needs to make a call to save a life. He will likely just roll over, play dead, show his nuts, and repeat the “greatest good” mantra. That’s the difference between a regulation following employee/pilot and a Captain. Iiiiiii
I strongly disagree that the issue was that simple. Sure, you can call bluffs when playing a card game or negotiating a contract, but when hurdling through the air at 560mph when a fighter jet pulls up next to you?
Easy to judge because the call was so bad….
Why there is no communication release from black box or interview with the pilot?
I’ve been wondering where the pilot is. It’s like a gag order has been placed on him…
@Steve It’s not the pilot’s job to call a bluff from a fighter jet… He made the call to save the lives of all the passengers onboard. You can’t win a fight with a MIG in a 737. You do realise the entire industry is based on following regulations, for that is how you get home safely each time you fly. But keep going with how the pilot is a coward for not risking the lives of circa 180 passengers.
When the same thing happened with a BOAC plane in Libya 50 years ago, the wanted men insisted the Captain divert so as not to put the lives of the other passengers at risk. There is literally nothing to say that they would not have shot down the plane and claimed the bomb exploded… Not saying that would be sensible, but neither is hijacking an airliner by threatening it with a fighter jet.
I sympathise and empathise with the couple who were taken away but, when faced with a fighter jet, it’s not very clever to risk all the passengers’ lives because you are calling a bluff.