tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post9080216630996361268..comments2024-03-01T16:32:41.076+08:00Comments on Sun Bin: Echoes: 2 pieces of news on Taiwan (and how much was wasted by the HKG ATC detour)Sun Binhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08093210384069958083noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-65221632805375296752008-06-19T04:42:00.000+08:002008-06-19T04:42:00.000+08:00I'm anon3, and am responding to anon4 - who I beli...I'm anon3, and am responding to anon4 - who I believe is also anon1 and 2...<BR/><BR/>Firstly, let's start with the security argument anyway. The idea of cluttered airspace, or even civilian/military co-mingling is there for fear factor only. How often has a civilian craft been cover for a military plane? Shootdown incidents of civil planes by the USA, Israel and Russia should tell you that paranoia rules the roost here over commonsense.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, you call it 'optimizing for multiple goals'. I call it an inconsistent flip-flop. If you want limited planes flying over in a narrow corridor so they can be 'scanned' for foes you basically want limited, onerously plotted traffic. You kill the economic advantage, while also losing the environmental advantage that you could otherwise have gained from having few flights.<BR/><BR/>The 'stupidity' solution I outlined actually optimises two of the goals you mentioned - security and the environment. That such a solution isn't on the cards shows that all the parties recognise it would be economic suicide. The KMT chose to maximize the economic goal, and the public chose them - perhaps because they can see the security goal is not really affected by direct, cross-straits flights. The DPP tried to cling to an impotent remnant of the security goal while not maximising the economic goal AND flunking the environment. They didn't show the 'stupidity of only optimizing for one variable', but instead flip-flopped on all three.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-19842257139101473672008-06-18T22:04:00.000+08:002008-06-18T22:04:00.000+08:00anon1,The evidence for DPP's blocking direct fligh...anon1,<BR/><BR/>The evidence for DPP's blocking direct flight (or tried to make it as inconvenient as possible) is the fact that they do not simply want to avoid flying over the strait. When the first CA flight arrived early 3 years ago, by barely touching the HK ATC, DPP cried foul even when that plane did not cross any defense sensitive area.<BR/><BR/>You need to explain this to defend your argument.Sun Binhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08093210384069958083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-8446922485696249542008-06-18T13:37:00.000+08:002008-06-18T13:37:00.000+08:00From one anon to another:You are really on my side...From one anon to another:<BR/><BR/>You are really on my side and disagree with Sunbin too. Read over what you wrote. My point was that you are optimizing for multiple goals. One, the economy, two, the environment, three, security. You agree with me as you show the stupidity of only optimizing for one variable to the extreme.<BR/><BR/>Also, direct flights has been taken to mean not having to land and transfer at a third site. This was a part of Frank Hsieh's platform, so I don't why you are putting that in scare quotes. Flights to Beijing would have been straight anyways. The point is to not clutter up the airspace right across the Taiwan Strait so that a surprise attack would have a longer lead time and could be responded to. It's still a direct flight even if it has to take a 20 minute or so detour to the north for security reasons. In fact, most flights aren't completely straight lines anyways, taking into account large metropolitan areas, military air spaces, sometimes environmental reasons, etc. Are you going to call those non-direct flights too? Stop playing word games, direct flights in the context of Taiwan and China has a meaning already even when the flight path isn't completely straight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-13685006387825003642008-06-18T05:03:00.000+08:002008-06-18T05:03:00.000+08:00So to the double anon above, maybe the best enviro...So to the double anon above, maybe the best environmental solution would be to have no planes flying in or out of Taiwan at all?<BR/><BR/>And maybe the best security solution would also be to have no planes flying in or out of Taiwan at all?<BR/><BR/>And then you ruin it all by suggesting that the DPP were actually for direct flights despite the 'security policy' :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-31902468100443914902008-06-18T01:36:00.000+08:002008-06-18T01:36:00.000+08:00Basically my point was that the amount of fuel "wa...Basically my point was that the amount of fuel "wasted" really isn't much in the grand scheme of things, and if you were only going to optimize for the environment, three links is going to only increase people riding on planes and so overall is creating more pollution and CO2. Again, your argument is quite silly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13378665.post-15077232446730150532008-06-18T01:32:00.000+08:002008-06-18T01:32:00.000+08:00You just don't like Taiwanese independence and the...You just don't like Taiwanese independence and the DPP. Of all the things you could attack the DPP for, you call a security policy environmentally unfriendly. The point is obviously because there's a security problem with cluttering the airspace with passenger planes. I'm not too big on a fighter jet hiding behind a passenger outright, but you can't seriously argue that an airspace where you have to distinguish between passenger and military planes is just as easy to secure as one where you can safely assume anything flying across the airspace is military.<BR/><BR/>How pro-environment the DPP really was in the past eight years is a good question to ask, and an even better one would be whether the KMT can do any better or whether they are going to be beholden to public opinion, Formosa Plastics, and China Steel.<BR/><BR/>Also, the DPP has been for direct flights. The problem was that China wasn't willing to give it to a bunch of "separatists". Taiwan needs it a lot more than China, and China wasn't going to give a goody to the DPP.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com