Missing Plane Air Asia

originally posted by: Daughter2

originally posted by: AthlonSavage
If they search for the plane as rigorously as MH370 and three months from now find no trace, will people be thinking there is foul play afoot or put it down to coincidence, two mystery disappearances. Im just wondering what peoples thoughts are?

I would say the majority of the population will accept what ever the MSM tells them to accept. If they come up with some story that's based on a bunch of highly unlikely series of events - they'll accept that over the simple explanation of sabotage.

And some people will reject all the evidence and common sense because they want to believe it is sabotage.

Reports appearing of 'wreckage' seen. Also that it was an oils slick unconnected to the incident. Reports also of some fishermen hearing an 'explosion' near the area.

www.reddit.com...

'Wreckage' of missing AirAsia jet is spotted in sea by search plane... as it emerges pilot may have been flying too SLOWLY and stalled in storm before it vanished off radar

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... le-set-resume-light.html#ixzz3NHfxUU99

a reply to: Dark Ghost

The same thing happened for MH370, there wasn't any ELT pings , no distress signals, nothing from the transponder, nothing indicating it hit water, nothing. Suspicious.

a reply to: theabsolutetruth

The same could be said of AF447, yet the cause was discovered when they finally found the final resting place of the black-boxes. That is why it is so important to continue the search for the wreckage well after any reasonable chance of finding survivors. To prevent the NEXT crash...hopefully.

I'm going to go full out conspiracy so come at me ATS debunkers

Does anyone think that all 3 related Malaysian air tragedies is part of a big insurance scam to recover losses.

It's emerged Allianz is the lead reinsurer on AirAsia flight QZ8501, which has just disappeared above the Java sea - the crash will be the third major air disaster the company has paid out on in the past year.

Shares in Allianz fell a modest 1.36 per cent in mid-morning trading, as the company confirmed it was the "lead reinsurer for AirAsia, for aviation hull and liability insurance".

The company has already paid out on claims relating to the losses of Malaysia Airlines flights MH370 and MH17.

Source

Here is the interesting part.

On top of that, it will pay out up to $165,000 per passenger - that's about $27m in total for all 162 passengers on board the flight. Although if the airline is found to have been at fault (admittedly unlikely, given the disappearance has largely been put down to bad weather), those claims could be higher.

Mh370 and mh317 was not found to be the airline company fault meaning a huge pay out. Malaysia Airline was losing money 5 years straight and have been struggling to produce any type of profit.

a reply to: takers888

It is certainly suspicious. I wouldn't be surprised if it was something of that nature.

a reply to: takers888

Interesting point. If I were the insurer, I'd seriously consider dropping my client after paying the claim though. The premiums should be sky high - get it - by now.

a reply to: StoutBroux

I'm sure that the premiums would only go up if the company is found at fault.

I cannot believe they have not fitted all ocean flying aircraft with some advanced beacons by now. You know some beacon that detects it is submersed then detaches from aircraft and floats to top and sends a Satellite signal for a few weeks/months. It is ridiculous. Hope the airlines get sued for incompetence by the families. You could get real fancy and equip it with a depth finder and report the depth and location it detaches.

a reply to: takers888

I'll bite, Cui bono in your scenario? Not the airlines and not the insurance companies, so whom?

a reply to: Xeven

Governments and manufacturers have been trying for years. The problem is that the airlines cant afford it. The current system that was to be installed on most of the world's fleet by 2020 probably wont be for another decade.

A significant part of the problem is the cognitive dissonance that exists within the mind of the travelling public: They SAY that safety is the most important factor when choosing an airline, yet they BUY based on price. I know that you are different, no doubt, but the fact remains that safety takes a back seat to price when the vast majority of the flying public make their decisions.

(Full disclosure: I have to fly to Vladivostok from Seattle in late January. My choices? Aeroflot or Air Asia for the final leg of the flight. I bought my ticket to avoid a Sukhoi Super 100...which will put me on an Airbus 320 flown by Air Asia.)

a reply to: takers888

So, Air Asia may be a Malaysian owned company but it has nothing to do with Malaysia airlines, unless you're trying to say Allianz are the ones doing this, in which case is pretty stupid, as they're the ones paying out...insurance companies don't like paying out claims.

And then, how do you explain the one getting shot down, someone paid Russians/Ukranians to shoot it down?

Most airlines are struggling to make money if you didn't know too, bad publicity is a sure fire way of losing money as well..

So I'm struggling to see anything at all in your theory!

a reply to: Leonidas

The airlines will mostly meet the deadline, the issue is GA. They can't get enough of them, and the cost is something like $25-2700 a transponder.

a reply to: Leonidas

The shareholders obviously, most of them are the big equity firms and hedge fund companies who hates losing money on bad investments so the only way to leverage their risk is with a scam. These people are pure evil in the pursuit of profits.

a reply to: takers888

I think suggesting this is an insurance scam is a bit of a reach, just a bit.

How would this be profitable for the companies involved?
The only common denominator here is the insurer, which is a large company insuring across the industry, so saying they were insurers in three cases is not that shocking.

And how does anyone benefit from this if this is suspected of being an insurance scam? The money goes to the families of the people lost, to lawyers defending the airline and to maintain operations. There is no "profit" here.

a reply to: takers888

8% of the shareholders are the employees..

Pure evil are they?

Seriously, it's all well and and good to present a theory, but do at least do a bit of research first

a reply to: Chadwickus

And then, how do you explain the one getting shot down, someone paid Russians/Ukranians to shoot it down?

Why did the pilot changes his flying rout over a war zone when other airlines was still flying the safer rout just below of east Ukraine

Most airlines are struggling to make money if you didn't know too, bad publicity is a sure fire way of losing money as well..

Bad publicity can also be good publicity in the future. Look at all the free advertising that MA has receive.

a reply to: takers888

Shareholders of what companies? Allianze? Air Asia? Malaysia Air?

How do they benefit?

An Airbus 330 (Air France 447) and this plane, an Airbus 320, both go down in the area of thunderstorms along the ITCZ.

The AF447 air speed issue. Wonder if something similar happened with this flight. At this point it would seem to be a long shot though with so much time having passed. As we all know, sometime times events that might look related have very different causes.

From Wiki on AF447...

After May 2008, nine previous incidents involving the temporary loss of airspeed indication appeared in the Air Safety Reports (ASRs) for Air France's A330/A340 fleet. All occurred in cruise between flight levels FL310 and FL380.

The problems primarily occurred in 2007 on the A320 but, awaiting a recommendation from Airbus, Air France delayed installing new pitot tubes on A330/A340 and increased inspection frequencies in these planes

a reply to: Leonidas

I've explained it in my original post. To recovery huge losses for the Airline company.

You debunkers are all the same with your vague question and no research strategy.