

Italian and French jets escorted hijacked plane because Swiss AF was off work - bane
http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/18/ethiopian-air-def-response/

======
ctdonath
There may also just be a cultural difference. Dramatic & tragic as it is, a
hijacked commercial plane is not an existential threat to a nation. "9/11"
aside, most hijackings are resolved peacefully as fuel runs out and
perpetrators discover surrender is the only survivable option. Viewed as a
police problem and not a military concern, I can see those in charge deciding
it wasn't worth pouring enormous resources into for little more than an
irrelevant show of force.

This in contrast to the US's increasing approach of militarizing absolutely
every criminal transgression down to growing the wrong kind of plant.

Cultural choices.

~~~
hangonhn
They sent fighters up to escort it. I don't think their response has been any
different than the US. Pre-9/11 that wouldn't have been the case. 9/11
affected the whole world.

9/11 is not considered an existential threat to the US. No one believes al
Qaeda or any terrorist group has that kind of power. However, they are capable
of a lot of tragedies. Sending fighters up is part of a calculus that we will
rather take the lost of a smaller group of people over a larger group. I don't
think it's reasonable to draw a larger conclusion than that.

~~~
ctdonath
The point of this thread is they _didn 't_ send fighters up to escort it. They
welcomed other countries doing so, but being outside office hours they were
not inclined to scramble jets themselves.

I didn't say 9/11 was an existential threat. Knowing it would be used as an
objection for my lack of encyclopedic completeness, I exempted it from the
observation that most hijackings end peacefully. As for your "calculus", the
only thing they can do is aggressively assure the hijackers don't turn it into
a 9/11-style attack; shooting down a loaded airbus is not preferable to
closing most airstrip options and letting lack of fuel force a landing where
subsequent takeoff cannot happen.

~~~
hangonhn
The plane was already escorted by fighters from friendly nations. So long as
the Swiss trust that the Italians and French are competent, why bother. That
has little to do with 9/11.

Shooting down a loaded Airbus is definitely not preferable and the US has
never done that. The right action is as you said to escort it to prevent a
9/11 type attack. In similar situations, the US has done precisely that. The
US has escorted jets down.

I don't see how the actions of the Swiss is really all that different from
anyone else. The current norm of escorting hijacked airlines with fighters
seems appropriate. The only difference here is that the Swiss was willing to
rely on the military of friendly nations to do it. It would be a whole other
matter if the Swiss told the French to turn back and let the airliner land
unescorted.

Are we talking past each other? Or maybe I'm not appreciating the differences
you're trying to point out. I'm wary of any attributions to culture, etc. Most
of what happened was fairly procedural.

------
sentenza
This is one major advantage of the EU. Not everybody needs to prepare for
every eventuality, since their neighbors have their back.

Articles like this are helpful now, because the Swiss (well at least some of
them), seem to have forgotten what benefits their close cooperation with the
EU brings.

~~~
hangonhn
That's a bit of a jump I think...

Had it been Canada and the US, I'm sure they would have done the same for each
other and they're not part of any union.

I don't think we can make generalizations like this because while EU is good
for some things, it has also been devastating for other things like the
disparity in economies in Germany vs Spain, Italy, Greece.

~~~
jleyank
I have no clue how European air defense works, but I thought US and Canada
have been part of Norad since the bad old days? Thus, while they're not part
of a union (as far as I can tell), they share military duties in some areas.

~~~
hangonhn
I might have used a poor example but I think most countries on good terms with
their neighbors would help each other out in an emergency without them being
part of any formal union.

------
jmnicolas
This is stupid Swiss bashing : Switzerland is such a little country surrounded
by peaceful neighbors that they don't need to maintain a costly air-force in
peace times.

I think they have agreements with France to cover their air space and probably
Italy too judging by the article.

~~~
mpclark
I don't see this as _bashing_ \-- it's incredibly civilised and rational, and
a sign of a country that is relaxed about its position in the world. If only
we were all like that.

~~~
jmnicolas
English is not my mother tongue maybe I was unclear : the bashing was from the
journalist ;-)

------
ck2
I thought the new line of thinking was that if the passengers don't stop the
hijackers it is basically game over.

According to a poster on reddit, the way the copilot controlled the passengers
was to turn off oxygen in the cabin.

------
rikacomet
This is kinda symbolic, of the fact that why Switzerland is the venue of most
major peace summits, various UN offices, and what not.

Additionally, probably people are thinking that Switzerland should have 2,
only two aircraft at least for such emergencies of civil nature, which is
viable. It would be better than relying on others since its possible that
there can be major problems on a coordination level in case of civil emergency
in future. Though it seems unlikely this time around, it could be a problem in
future, if Swiss culture and of its neighbors grow in different direction
(even if not hostile).

Someone sitting somewhere can say in that case, "umm.. should I take help from
country X or Country Y.. who should have operational command? "

