The outsized impact of Ukraine war on aviation: a counter-view

Last week I had a call with Pasha, my SimpliFlying team member based in Russia. He is hardworking, passionate about aviation and always cheerful. But when we spoke, he seemed depressed and desolate. Russia had decided to invade Ukraine over the past weekend and it was having a deep impact on this pilot-in-training. In addition to his dreams of being a commercial pilot in shamble, there were issues in him getting his salary due to Russian banks being blacklisted. More importantly, he couldn’t reconcile the fact that his own country was the aggressor. This war thrust upon Ukraine isn’t just having an outsized impact on a key staff of ours but on aviation as a whole.

Due to the sanctions being placed on Russia, over 700 aircraft are set to be repossessed by lessors based in Europe and the US. Flooding the market with hundreds of serviceable aircraft would depress the value of each aircraft, an issue not just for leasing companies but also for the assets on the books of commercial airlines around the world that suddenly find the value of their fleets depreciating. Not only is repossessing aircraft a complicated process conducted across multiple countries, but it also pegs back an entire aviation ecosystem by decades.?

Young people training to be pilots, like Pasha, will no longer have modern aircraft to get their hours on. Which makes them unemployable in global markets for many years to come. Russian airlines will be flying older, fuel-inefficient aircraft for much longer. Not to mention that they may not be as safe as newer aircraft. The lives and livelihoods of many people may be impacted - after all, it’s not just Russians who may end up flying on Russian airlines in the future.?

There’s also the issue of entire supply chains being disrupted. Both Airbus and Boeing have announced the suspension of parts and services to the Russian fleet, effectively cutting off maintenance support to Russian airlines. This includes parts for the Sukhoi SuperJet, which depends on French parts.?

Yes, crippling the aviation ecosystem of a country may appear to be effective retaliation, but is it the most effective method?

Are airspace closures effective?

The US banned Russian aircraft from its airspace as a symbolic gesture, despite knowing that with the European and Canadian airspace already closed, barely any Russian aircraft could fly over the US. Russian billionaires who fly private just need to change to a non-Russian registered aircraft before they continue their journey to the US via a third country. So the measure is primarily for show and doesn’t hit those who need to be hurt the most. It’s the common Russians, like Pasha, who may need to jump on an overpriced Air Serbia flight via Belgrade to get to Europe or beyond due to these airspace closures.?

Moreover, since Russia has issued tit-for-tat airspace closers for other countries, the likes of United and American Airlines have had to cancel their India flights from the US. Japan Airlines cancelled its codeshare with its European airline partners. The Finnair CEO had to issue a profit warning after cancelling almost its entire Asia network due to its inability to fly over Russia. Airspace closures are reciprocal and often work in Russia’s favour given that it’s the largest country in the world.?

What about sustainability??

When airlines take longer to get to a destination, they also burn more fuel and emit more carbon in the air. The same Western countries that have been pushing for sustainable aviation are the ones imposing sanctions on Russian aviation that tremendously increase the amount of carbon emitted by their airlines and Russian ones too. A flight from Moscow to Cuba recently took 15 hours. The only Finnair flight operating to Tokyo from Helsinki is set to take 13.5 hours to cover the distance, instead of the usual nine hours. If it’s operated by an A350, then load factor restrictions will come into place due to A350 capacity issues with the maximum take-off weight as well. That’s going to result in a much greater fuel burn per passenger. Japan Airlines flew over Canada and Greenland from Tokyo to London. Emirates flights to the West Coast of the US may need a re-fuelling stop in Europe before continuing their journey if the airline has to avoid Russian airspace. Each additional landing and take off burns more fuel. From a sustainability perspective, airspace closures do more harm than good in the long term.?

Why is aviation the first industry to be targeted during a political conflict?

Simple. Low-hanging fruit. Aviation is high profile and visible.

When Saudi Arabia and Qatar had a political conflict, airspace closures were one of the first tools used. Now, as the iron curtain falls hard around Russian aviation, world leaders are making a statement by hitting aviation hard. But should repossessing aircraft, stopping the supply of spare parts and closing airspace be the most effective steps the world takes towards aggressors?

Overtly punishing aviation doesn’t address the issue at hand - it doesn’t hit the people who support Putin. The Russian people like Pasha are not the enemy but victims of Putin’s evil and propaganda. But through sanctions focused on the aviation industry, they tend to bear the brunt. Along with airlines of most of the countries imposing these sanctions in the first place. Perhaps Western countries should ban imports of Russian oil and vodka, rather than rushing to close their airspaces.