Edit:
I will list my concerns, points of view, and arguments (to the limits of my knowledge):
1. I am not saying that refugees shouldn’t get out of the warzone if they want or that there are constant fights everywhere that stop civilians from having a pretty much normal life. I am saying that there are other ways of moving in and out of warzones that are maybe safer (idk) and that they don’t have such high safety standards that would prevent their activities.
2. I am talking from a civil aviation authority pov. I understand that since they are not taking the kind of measures that i am talking about, there is a logical explanation that i am trying to find out.
3. I am not talking about how the war should be handled or about what decisions regarding the situation should be taken by other authorities. I am talking strictly about how different (mostly geographic) civil aviation safety institutions work with warzones, considering the size, dynamics, or density of the conflict.
I am sorry if i still haven’t made myself clear, english is not my first language.
I am not trying to argue or make a point. I am just trying to find a pretty mutch on-point answer, a direct answer to my question, if there is one.
In: Other
Because people still want or need to go there. War doesn’t stop anything else, the schools still teach, the hospitals still heal, the factories still produce. People and goods still need to move so the transportation still has to move people.
I mean, like a permanent no-fly zone instead of companies just canceling flights for some time?
Because there are still people living and working there. Even in Gaza people aren’t in bunkers 24/7, shops reopen hours after an airstrike. Kids walk to school as the rubble is swept from the roads.
Evacuating people and stopping all travel into the warzone actually makes things worse as it creates more refugees and makes it impossible for society to function and harder to return to normal when the war ends.
People don’t realise that life goes on, even in war. When war breaks out, the country isn’t just a battlefield with soldiers fighting like Call of Duty. Civilians are still there and they have to carry on, because yes even during war people work, they need to do their jobs, provide for their families. Food and goods continue arriving at ports and airports, trucks still deliver to stores, and people still need to get in or out of the country. Flights are only cancelled when there’s serious fears of a plane being shot down. Otherwise if the safety of airspace can be guaranteed, flights carry on as normal.
Because wars can go on for a long time, and the world keeps on turning and people need to get there.
One of my peers at work is a U.S. citizen living in Detroit, but his wife is from/lives in Yemen. They’re working on the immigration process, but it isn’t quick or easy. He took a 2 month leave of absence to fly over there and see his wife for the first time in 2 years.
2 weeks later he was back at work. Turns out he made it as far as Saudi Arabia, but the last flight into Yemen kept getting canceled due to the fighting. He waited a month for things to cool down, and is gone again, hopefully for the 2 months this time.
Because life doesn’t stop for however long a war takes place. Even during WW2, life went on for non conscripted folks. Low intensity wars can go on for decades. Technically north and South Korea are still at war, and so are China and Taiwan. Just very rare instances of flare ups. Countries like Nigeria , Myanmar, Ethiopia, and the Sahel nations are constantly at war with domestic armed groups since the birth of those nations. It Doesn’t make sense to cut off entire nations like that.
If you suddenly find yourself in the downtown of a large city in a country at war you might not even realize there’s war. Life goes on. Music plays, delivery men walking around, cars driving, people living their happy life and in general nothing out of the ordinary except for occasional air sirens and explosions.
The war does NOT look like post-wwII Berlin anymore.
Source: am Ukrainian.
I feel like I have not made myself very clear. I’m not talking from a people point of view. I am talking about how aviation authorities treat this kind of thing. Their decision-making process, as a principle, is not affected by feelings towards refugees, by the profit that the airlines are missing (Maybe in special situations when everybody agrees on a ceasefire for evacuating). Their laws should prohibit the airlines that they govern from flying in high-risk zones except for situations like the one mentioned above. It feels like it should be by default a measure to prohibit flights and allow them only in special situations.
In Ukraine there is no flying for a while, although between the official start of the conflict and when it became a full-scale war, in years 2014-2022, there was. Even after russians shot a Malaysia-Netherlands plane in July 2014. But after that fuckers started a full-scale war, all flying was cancelled, partly because many airports are completely destroyed, but for the most reason that russians will most probably shoot planes, so no one wants to risk.
My parents lived through the civil war in Beirut and went to college during it. One day he couldn’t go home because snipers were shooting at anyone who went down a street that was the only path home, so he had to stay at the college overnight for a few days. And then he went back home and back to school.
Life basically just goes on in most war zones unless it becomes total chaos. It’s horrible.
Latest Answers