Opinion: Military Conflict Is Taking A Toll On Commercial Air Travel

Airlines have started the year rerouting and canceling flights to avoid airspace corridors suddenly in the center of actual or feared military actions. In some cases, airline pilots have even had to make sharp inflight maneuvers to avoid hitting military aircraft.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of military actions like the US government-ordered incursion in Venezuela at the beginning of the year, or the back-and-forth threats of strikes between Iran and the US, one fact remains: they create an awful lot of trouble and cost for airlines, airports and commercial aviation regulators. And, of course, disruption for passengers, who may become more wary this year about booking flights that go through the airspace of potential conflict zones.

FAA suddenly suspended commercial flight operations to and from the Eastern Caribbean at the start of the year after US strikes in Venezuela to capture that country’s president. The restrictions were short-lived, and airlines moved quickly to add capacity where they could to accommodate passengers whose original flights were canceled. But airports across Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and several Eastern Caribbean nations were widely affected and delays continued for several days after restrictions were lifted. While carriers like American Airlines, which added nearly 5,000 additional seats through extra flights and the use of larger aircraft, and Delta Air Lines, which added nearly 7,000 seats in the region, were quick to react, it wasn’t easy. Physical space restrictions at many Caribbean airports limited what airlines could do. Aircraft and engines were not as readily available as they might have been before the industry supply crisis. And thousands of people were returning from their New Year vacations, so flights immediately after the airspace ban was lifted were already full.

Then on Jan. 16, FAA issued a series of notice to air missions (NOTAM) advising US airlines to operate with caution when flying in airspace around Central and South America, including Mexico, because of potential military activities. In December, a JetBlue aircraft narrowly avoided colliding with a US military tanker that flew into its path with its transponder turned off.

Also in mid-January, eyes turned again to Iranian airspace as tensions grew between Tehran and Washington. EASA warned airlines to avoid Iranian airspace and to exercise caution within the airspace of neighboring countries, in a bulletin scheduled to stay in effect until Feb. 16.

“The presence and possible use of a wide range of weapons and air-defense systems, combined with unpredictable state responses and the potential activation of SAM [surface-to-air missile] systems, creates a high risk to civil flights operating at all altitudes and flight levels,” the bulletin said.

Military and/or geopolitical tensions that disrupt airspace and airline operations are not new, of course. Pakistan airspace has been closed to Indian airlines, and Indian airspace closed to Pakistani airlines, since April because of the ongoing dispute between those countries. Russian and Ukraine airspace has been avoided by many airlines, whether voluntarily or because of regulatory bans, since Russia invaded Ukraine.

But the cost to airlines, which have no say in and usually no prior knowledge of these fights, is significant. Re-routing can add hours to flights, deterring passengers and requiring more fuel. Connections can be lost or become unviable, payloads may be reduced—meaning more lost revenue—and airlines can become less competitive on routes they are not allowed to serve while others can, as is the case with Russian airspace.

There seems to be no solution, however. If anything, sudden military actions and airstrikes around the world seem to be proliferating. Staggering as it seems, Greenland—an important air route for northern transatlantic traffic—could be the next hotspot.