The United States is planning on banning Chinese airlines from using Russian airspace on all flights to and from the United States, though as you might expect, there’s some pushback…
In this post:
US DOT wants to add airspace restrictions on Chinese airlines
Since early 2022, Russian airspace has been closed to aircraft registered in the United States, and vice versa. This is of course related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which has had much wider implications, in terms of sanctions. These airspace closures have posed a challenge for many airlines, given the size of Russia, and the importance of its airspace for reaching some points in Asia.
In many cases, airlines from countries aligned with Russia have had a very nice competitive advantage, as they’ve been able to use Russian airspace on flights to the United States, Europe, etc., while other airlines haven’t been able to.
That’s something that the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) is looking to change, though. The DOT has proposed a new condition on the foreign air carrier permits held by the six Chinese airlines that fly to the United States, prohibiting them from using Russian airspace on flights to and from the United States.
The DOT is proposing that this take effect 30 days after the issuance of a final order in this matter. The DOT gave parties two business days to file comments on the tentative decision (not exactly a long commenting period!).
The DOT justifies this by referencing the air services agreement that exists between the United States and China. Article 2(4) of the agreement explicitly stipulates that “the operation of the agreed services by the designated airline(s) on routes over third countries shall be conducted on routes available to the airlines of both Parties, unless otherwise agreed.” So of course the United States is within its rights to add these restrictions.
As you’d expect, Chinese airlines have come out against these changes, arguing that the proposed ban would “harm the public interest” and “inconvenience travelers” from both China and the United States. The airlines also argue that the added flight time would result in higher costs and more expensive tickets, increasing the burden on all travelers.
My take on this potential Russia airspace ban on US flights
I think the DOT’s proposal is fair enough, and that it wouldn’t be unreasonable for this to be implemented:
- I can understand the concept of how unfair the current policy is, and how US airlines are at a disadvantage by not being able to use Russian airspace
- Russia has very high overflight costs, so by using Russia airspace, it’s helping to fund Russia’s attack on Ukraine
- There’s the general question of potential safety issues if a flight were to divert to Russia (then again, it has happened multiple times on Air India, without incident)
At the same time, this isn’t something I’m overly enthusiastic about:
- This seems more about a trade war with China than about punishing Russia, because notice how this order is only about airlines in mainland China, and not about Air India, Cathay Pacific, etc.
- The practical implications here would actually be fairly limited, given that some routes from Chinese airlines are either already banned from using Russian airspace, or choose not to use it
- I don’t love the whole “airlines need to have a level playing field” concept, because that’s never going to be the case; it’s also not “fair” how US airlines can essentially operate their flights at a loss while still making money, thanks to their lucrative credit card agreements, which airlines in no other countries have access to in the same way
So yeah, I’m not opposed to this, and I’d be more in favor of this if it were a blanket ban, rather than only targeted at Chinese airlines (which makes it more about China than Russia). However, I have a hard time getting too enthusiastic about a “yay, an extra three hours of flying just to punish China” policy.
Bottom line
The United States plans to add new restrictions on Chinese airlines, whereby they can no longer use Russian airspace for any flights to or from the United States. I have to imagine that this will be implemented, and is part of the overall escalating tensions between the United States and China.
The policy change is reasonable, in line with the air services agreement between the two countries. However, it definitely seems to be more about punishing China than about punishing Russia, given the airlines for which these restrictions are being proposed.
What do you make of new restrictions on Chinese airlines using Russian airspace?
Russia has already shot down 2 civilian airliners and the Soviet Union before it shot down KAL007. Russia is a war zone. Any airline that flies to a Russian airport, or overflies it, is a serious safety risk and should be banned from flying to every Western country on breach of safety grounds.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine started in 2014. Remember MH17? That didn't bother the first Trump administration. And why change a rule that requires 30 day notice, when the war might be ended in a day?
How about banning everyone and everything. And while at it, ban men from pissing standing up.
The dog in the manger.
The cronies and the airspace.
https://x.com/xJonNYC/status/1978305988999401577
UA wants these restrictions applied to Cathay Pacific too.
Seems reasonable. No carrier flying to the USA should route through Russia. Yeah, India, Turkey, UAE, Qatar, that means you, too. Enough 'playing both sides' and risking lives.
Seems reasonable. No carrier flying to the USA should route through Russia. Yeah, India, Turkey, UAE, Qatar, that means you, too. Enough 'playing both sides' and risking lives.
Of course they do - they want to kill HKG-JFK so they can get more traffic via SFO and LAX. It will be a shame if that comes to pass, but my guess is CX will continue flying to JFK bypassing Russian air space, as they did in the early days of the Ukraine war, but probably not at the 3X daily frequency they have now.
I'm just tired of 13-15 hours of flight time between East Asia and Europe.
European pilots and cabin crew "unfairly" receive great benefits and vacation days compared to their American colleagues. Let's ban those airlines too.
Asian airline personnel receives meager wages compared to their American counterparts. Let's ban all Asian airlines until waged are equivalent to those in the US.
Nice strawman and false equivalence. You must be a GRU agent, because you're well-versed in whataboutisms and logical fallacies.
Separate issue, but, yeah, you bet that American workers, and all human beings, generally, not just in aviation, deserve better protections for healthcare, retirement, family-leave, and not just a 'living' but a 'thriving' wage, wherever they may be.
This should've existed for three years already. Ever since Russia banned EU (and US) airlines out of its airspace, EU and US should've reacted by forbidding flight plans to/from EU/US to include Russian FIRs. This would both work as a sanction towards Russia (fewer ATC fees for them) and ensure a level playing field for all airlines flying to/from Europe, therefore rendering Russian sanctions useless.
Exactly. Thank you. The Biden administration should have done this since February 24, 2022. I may not agree with Trump on much, but, this is wise.
Aviation has and always will be closely linked to national policy; airlines were largely foreign owned and/or heavily controlled for much of their existence.
It isn't a surprise that requests like this are surfacing. It is a bigger issue why Indian airlines continue to be exempted from Russian overflight restrictions - and, I understand that the US has Open Skies with India but not with China or the PRC.
as to the comment below about...
Aviation has and always will be closely linked to national policy; airlines were largely foreign owned and/or heavily controlled for much of their existence.
It isn't a surprise that requests like this are surfacing. It is a bigger issue why Indian airlines continue to be exempted from Russian overflight restrictions - and, I understand that the US has Open Skies with India but not with China or the PRC.
as to the comment below about CX, UA also said it would love to restart EWR-HKG service if Russia airspace restrictions were dropped. The question is whether DL ever decides to use its 35Ks to start JFK-HKG if Russia airspace restrictions remain in place; the latest versions of the 35K can fly many of the routes that UA used to serve from NYC to Asia that it now cannot.
We know that most US-carriers have a financial interest in dropping these restrictions, namely, less fuel and labor costs for shorter flights over the Pole. However, the risk is another MH17. So, Tim, while airlines might be able to 'insure' against this... do you wanna be on *that* flight?
United just put a request to include Cathay Pacific!
As they should! Cathay is no longer the icon of a free, independent Hong Kong. Rather, the CCP has eroded freedoms and cracked down significantly since squashing the Umbrella movement in 2014, and especially during the pandemic with the new national security and elections laws. It's not the same Hong Kong (or Cathay) that many of us once knew. And, a lot of expats (and Western companies) have moved away to relative safe-havens in Singapore, Sydney, etc.
How well do you know HK? when were you here last? I'm not a fan of the CCP, but as a long-time HK resident, I find this simplistic narrative frustrating.
Ben - are you really suggesting that US airline are unfairly advantaged by their credit card programs? Really? First, any airline can develop and grow a co-brand program - yes, interchange rates are capped in many parts of the world but there are certainly opportunities for non-US carriers to lean in.
But more importantly, what about the host of subsidies that non-US carriers receive - everything from government bailouts (TP, AZ to name just...
Ben - are you really suggesting that US airline are unfairly advantaged by their credit card programs? Really? First, any airline can develop and grow a co-brand program - yes, interchange rates are capped in many parts of the world but there are certainly opportunities for non-US carriers to lean in.
But more importantly, what about the host of subsidies that non-US carriers receive - everything from government bailouts (TP, AZ to name just a few) to the subsidies and other "incentives" offered to the Gulf carriers (yeah, I know they are "profitable" but we all know there is funny business going on there)
Lastly, what about labor costs? Should those be taken into account as well? Obviously, the US labor costs are among the highest in the world. Should we include those when deciding if Russian overflights are "fair" as you suggest with credit card revenues?
US labour costs are the 30th highest in the World according to this website https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/labor_cost/
Using aviation as a political pawn often results in unintended consequences. The sanctions on civilian aviation technology exports to Russia were ill advised to begin with and have put safety at risk. Expanding them to overflight by third party countries is escalating the situation. Russia and China are not going away, so isolating them simply raises the risk of a new multipolar world order developing - which is the opposite of the stated intention.
Hi Sean, it's been a little while, but it is good to see you, again. I respect your work as COO of an airline in Africa.
That said, on geopolitics, I must respectfully disagree, because Putin's illegal war of aggression (in violation of international law, generally, and also the Budapest Memorandum, specifically) also 'put safety at risk.'
Even more concerning is Russia and its apparent allies (China, Iran, North Korea, and any third...
Hi Sean, it's been a little while, but it is good to see you, again. I respect your work as COO of an airline in Africa.
That said, on geopolitics, I must respectfully disagree, because Putin's illegal war of aggression (in violation of international law, generally, and also the Budapest Memorandum, specifically) also 'put safety at risk.'
Even more concerning is Russia and its apparent allies (China, Iran, North Korea, and any third parties that facilitate it) use of sanctioned components from the West to develop their attack drones, which are often used against civilian targets (war crimes).
I know, this is all a bit messy, and far more complicated than banning flight routes. Clearly, most of us would prefer peace, prosperity, and the safe, free movement of people and commerce.
For once, I totally agree with you. Isolate Russia until they stop.
In fact, any airline that still flies to Russia should be sanctioned.
Steve K, if you were referring to me, I take this topic quite seriously (and, apologies for anything I said that may have upset you on the recent 'dogs on planes' post.)
Rogue nation states shooting down passenger jets (most Russia these days, and formerly the USSR, KA007) is a big deal for aviation and geopolitics. If we cannot fly places safely, that harms many of our jobs and the things we enjoy doing (like...
Steve K, if you were referring to me, I take this topic quite seriously (and, apologies for anything I said that may have upset you on the recent 'dogs on planes' post.)
Rogue nation states shooting down passenger jets (most Russia these days, and formerly the USSR, KA007) is a big deal for aviation and geopolitics. If we cannot fly places safely, that harms many of our jobs and the things we enjoy doing (like overseas travel).
Personally, I'm still livid about MH17 in 2014, and AHY8243 in 2024, and the lack of accountability there. Putin clearly is willing to 'shoot down aircraft' as he did with his own former 'henchman' Prigozhin's flight in 2023 (Wagner Group plane crash).
Also, whether negligently or purposely, the Russians certainly 'contributed' to the Smolensk air disaster in 2010, which killed much of the Polish government at the time, including their President, who was a vocal opponent of Russian aggression.
@1990 You raise an understandable point, but I don’t think this issue is primarily about safety.
Let’s look at how Russian airspace restrictions actually affect the other side of the world — East Asia to Europe. The ones most impacted are Japanese and South Korean carriers. When the war began, many flights were cancelled, and even now their routes are significantly longer. This situation benefited the Chinese “Big Three” airlines (CA and MU in particular),...
@1990 You raise an understandable point, but I don’t think this issue is primarily about safety.
Let’s look at how Russian airspace restrictions actually affect the other side of the world — East Asia to Europe. The ones most impacted are Japanese and South Korean carriers. When the war began, many flights were cancelled, and even now their routes are significantly longer. This situation benefited the Chinese “Big Three” airlines (CA and MU in particular), because they can still fly over Russia, while JL, NH, KE, and OZ cannot.
As a result, passengers are simply voting with their wallets — a layover in China often means cheaper and faster travel. So far, not a single Chinese aircraft has been shot down, which shows that operationally, the airspace remains safe for them. And are NH or JL lobbying against Chinese airlines’ access to Russian routes? No, because they lack the leverage to do so.
So why is United Airlines pushing so hard to ban every Chinese carrier, including Cathay? It’s about money, not safety. UA has long dominated U.S.–China routes and stands to lose profits as competition increases. “Safety” and “reciprocity” make convenient public justifications for what are ultimately commercial interests.
As for China’s role in the war, I don’t think it’s “helping” Russia directly. Its stance is more comparable to the U.S. before 1941 in WWII — not directly involved, just maintaining neutrality while continuing trade. Russia, meanwhile, isn’t reckless enough to antagonize multiple major powers at once (especially comparing to Imperial Japan), and China is cautious too, given that the Soviet Union was once the only country that openly threatened to nuke China.
Jason, the flight path restrictions can be justified for all-the-above. In-part, safety (not getting shot down, becoming hostage); in-other-part, economic fairness, to stop benefitting certain airlines, while punishing others. So, I still believe the USA, EU, and Canada, should restrict flight paths to their airports (avoid Russia, Iran, etc.). Also, in addition to those other East Asian airlines (JAL, ANA, Korean, Asiana, EVA, CI, etc.), some EU carriers, like Finnair, have also had to take...
Jason, the flight path restrictions can be justified for all-the-above. In-part, safety (not getting shot down, becoming hostage); in-other-part, economic fairness, to stop benefitting certain airlines, while punishing others. So, I still believe the USA, EU, and Canada, should restrict flight paths to their airports (avoid Russia, Iran, etc.). Also, in addition to those other East Asian airlines (JAL, ANA, Korean, Asiana, EVA, CI, etc.), some EU carriers, like Finnair, have also had to take far-longer routes (adding fuel and labor costs) as well.
As to your comments about China and Russia... to quote the HBO miniseries 'Chernobyl,' it's as if you told me that there's nothing to worry about... just '3.6 roentgen... a light chest x-ray'... sir, those are the propaganda numbers! You are not a serious person if you think Xi and Putin are not allied and materially aiding each other (Russia supplying cheap oil, China supplying parts, North Korea personnel, Iran drones.) Following the WWII analogy, if you have to wait for Pearl Harbor, or a formal declaration by Berlin, you've waited too long.
@1990 That’s fair — there are indeed multiple dimensions (safety, fairness, politics).
But I still find it ironic that when the market outcome becomes inconvenient, people suddenly abandon “free market principles” and start calling for restrictions. Passengers are literally voting with their wallets — if a route is cheaper and faster, that’s what they’ll take. You can’t have a free market only when it benefits your side.
And if normal trade automatically counts as...
@1990 That’s fair — there are indeed multiple dimensions (safety, fairness, politics).
But I still find it ironic that when the market outcome becomes inconvenient, people suddenly abandon “free market principles” and start calling for restrictions. Passengers are literally voting with their wallets — if a route is cheaper and faster, that’s what they’ll take. You can’t have a free market only when it benefits your side.
And if normal trade automatically counts as an “alliance,” then the U.S. must have quite a few questionable allies — from countries with poor labor rights in South and Southeast Asia, to those that kidnapped a journalist at their embassy abroad and killed him (and are still hosting major expos). And of course, to China itself, given how deep the trade ties remain.
Maybe after adding up all the human rights violations involved, the only ethical options left to buy in the U.S. would be $20 tote bags and $40 badly painted T-shirts.
@Jason
Just an FYI regarding China's role in the war, China is supplying pretty much all the fiber-optic cable Russia is using for tethered suicide drones and observation drones. China is directly supplying other drone parts as well. The only reason Russia is still in the game at this point is Chinese assistance. This isn't comparable the USA's 1941 neutrality trade, this is closer to US Lend-Lease to the USSR in 1942-44. Without it,...
@Jason
Just an FYI regarding China's role in the war, China is supplying pretty much all the fiber-optic cable Russia is using for tethered suicide drones and observation drones. China is directly supplying other drone parts as well. The only reason Russia is still in the game at this point is Chinese assistance. This isn't comparable the USA's 1941 neutrality trade, this is closer to US Lend-Lease to the USSR in 1942-44. Without it, Russia's military would be far less deadly and far less capable than it is. Because of that, China absolutely should be facing whatever kind of pressure we can put on them. Preventing their flights from overflying Russia on routes to/from the US is a sensible option, and something that isn't going to massively harm US consumers like the tariff insanity is.
And this should be obvious, but the Sino-Soviet split was half a century ago, and occurred when Russia was a far more powerful country and China far weaker. The roles are reversed, and China is happy to have Russia as both its dependent client that will pay any price out of necessity, and as China's test-case as to US and western will to intervene in a future invasion of Taiwan. Buying cheap Russian gas and selling them weapons in return is a win-win for China.
Iran has long been subject to Russian like sanctions on civil aviation
I don't see anyone making a fuss about that
Hi Ben, it's not just "airlines from countries aligned with Russia", but airlines from countries not in a trade war with Russia (that includes Turkey, India, UAE, etc.)
Then regarding your take on "it helps funding Russia's war to Ukraine". True, but if you go this route, flying Qatar airways helps funding Hamas' war to Israel (just one example amongst many). Last, I don't understand the safety issue, Russia isn't an unsafe country to...
Hi Ben, it's not just "airlines from countries aligned with Russia", but airlines from countries not in a trade war with Russia (that includes Turkey, India, UAE, etc.)
Then regarding your take on "it helps funding Russia's war to Ukraine". True, but if you go this route, flying Qatar airways helps funding Hamas' war to Israel (just one example amongst many). Last, I don't understand the safety issue, Russia isn't an unsafe country to overfly (assuming you're not overflying regions at war) and for what it's worth European airlines overfly Afghanistan on Europe-Asia routes...
Well i think the difference is Afghanistan does not have a capable anti air network that can shoot down civilian aircrafts like Russia did twice or have the motivation to force western jets to land with jets escorting and kidnap certain pax or even the entire aircraft.
Eve is correct; Afghanistan hardly has those capabilities today (however, they could be armed by our foes to do so... which is concerning.)
The Russian Federation, and the USSR before it, has a history of shooting down commercial aircraft, and murdering innocent civilians. Recall, Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (1983), Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (2014), and Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 (2024). To be fair, the only example of the USA doing this, allegedly by...
Eve is correct; Afghanistan hardly has those capabilities today (however, they could be armed by our foes to do so... which is concerning.)
The Russian Federation, and the USSR before it, has a history of shooting down commercial aircraft, and murdering innocent civilians. Recall, Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (1983), Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (2014), and Azerbaijan Airlines Flight 8243 (2024). To be fair, the only example of the USA doing this, allegedly by accident, Iran Air Flight 655 (1988). Still, to say, 'both sides' here, is not fair, because Putin's Russia is doing this more recently, more regularly. Not to mention, executing its own people (like Prigozhin) via shooting them down, see 2023 Wagner Group plane crash.
So, the concern here is valid.
@1990
If you're going to include military accidentally downing commercial aircraft killing civilians you forgot AA 5342.
Like you said, to say, 'both sides' here, is not fair, because most recently was in 2025.
And on the topic of civilians, remind us how many civilian casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Same goes to Mao and Stalin too, millions?
Everyone has their share of killing civilians and justifying it under propaganda.
Let's not forget Hitler had...
@1990
If you're going to include military accidentally downing commercial aircraft killing civilians you forgot AA 5342.
Like you said, to say, 'both sides' here, is not fair, because most recently was in 2025.
And on the topic of civilians, remind us how many civilian casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Same goes to Mao and Stalin too, millions?
Everyone has their share of killing civilians and justifying it under propaganda.
Let's not forget Hitler had he won the war, writing his version of history and control the propaganda narrative.
We civilians are all victim of these power hungry leaders. Don't let their propaganda brainwash you. Their agenda is not for our best interests.
@Eskimo
Hiroshima and Nagasaki is such a bad faith false-equivalence compared to the literal Holocaust and Hunger Plan, Stalin's purges, and Mao's Cultural Revolution. There is simply no valid comparison in scope, scale, or intent.
And what would you consider a realistic alternative to the atom bombs to be? Invade Japan? You realize the regime was mobilizing literal school children to try and stab Allied soldiers with bamboo spears right? Do you understand...
@Eskimo
Hiroshima and Nagasaki is such a bad faith false-equivalence compared to the literal Holocaust and Hunger Plan, Stalin's purges, and Mao's Cultural Revolution. There is simply no valid comparison in scope, scale, or intent.
And what would you consider a realistic alternative to the atom bombs to be? Invade Japan? You realize the regime was mobilizing literal school children to try and stab Allied soldiers with bamboo spears right? Do you understand that that would have resulted in the deaths of millions more Japanese soldiers and civilians? Maybe a blockade? You're starving tens of millions of people to death, the vast majority of them civilians.
And that's not even getting into what's happening outside of the Japanese islands, something every critic of the bombs ignores because it contradicts their narrative. In 1945 some 8k-14k people were dying each day in the areas under Japanese occupation, to starvation and reprisals from Japanese soldiers. Every 10 days is a Nagasaki in terms of deaths. Every 17 days a Hiroshima. Dropping the atom bombs ended the war in 9 days at a cost of, at the highest estimates, 250k~ Japanese lives lost to the bombs and to radiation effects through the end of 1945.
Embargoes do not help anybody.Just look at the amount of airlines not allowed or choosing not to use Russian airspace increasing flying time and passing fuel costs on to the flying public.It has made no difference to the war the Russians are waging against Ukraine and about time somebody had a rethink.Russian airlines can still fly to most of the world except europe so are not bothered.
Embargoes and sanctions done with intent works, embargoes and sanctions done with your fingers crossed behind your back, which is practicality what has been the case the majority of the time against Russia, off course does not work, for example, proposing ban on purchase of Russian gas and oil, yet still ordering record amount of them order before the ban is implemented and also giving countries like Slovakia and Hungary exceptions
A step in the right direction. Toying with China or punishing Putin, fair is fair.
What is terrifying is that now the President could announce that a Chinese airliner was blown out of the sky because it contained illegal drugs being smuggled in to the USA by foreigners intent on criminal activities... And that would enforce the restriction.
Destroyed and murdered with no more proof than his word.
We have become a rogue nation that continues to commit piracy at sea in international waters. Adding the same in the...
What is terrifying is that now the President could announce that a Chinese airliner was blown out of the sky because it contained illegal drugs being smuggled in to the USA by foreigners intent on criminal activities... And that would enforce the restriction.
Destroyed and murdered with no more proof than his word.
We have become a rogue nation that continues to commit piracy at sea in international waters. Adding the same in the air would be an easy jump for a lawless administration.
Could really mess up all those winter travel plans.
Quite an imagination you have there, Why stop at just Chinese carriers….why not Aeromexico or Avianca while you are at it?
Yeah, that's not good either (anyone, including the USA, shooting civilian aircraft or vessels).
This administration is clearly violating international law, by not investigating or affording those people due process (but, then again, prior admins, including ones some of us prefer, did a lot of bad things with drones, still, doesn't make any of it right; we should demand accountability, regardless.)
Separately, but relatedly, it feels like this administration is also aiming for...
Yeah, that's not good either (anyone, including the USA, shooting civilian aircraft or vessels).
This administration is clearly violating international law, by not investigating or affording those people due process (but, then again, prior admins, including ones some of us prefer, did a lot of bad things with drones, still, doesn't make any of it right; we should demand accountability, regardless.)
Separately, but relatedly, it feels like this administration is also aiming for a "Remember the Maine"-style false flag (1890) in order to attack Venezuela (or Mexico, or Brazil, etc.) Let us hope that Trump doesn't literally copy Putin in this regard. Getting some The Diplomat Season 2 vibes (air craft carrier).
Uh oh, here comes MAGA to defend Russia and attack Ukraine…
I hope not. MAGA occasionally flies overseas, too. Unless they don't mind occasionally 'getting shot out of the sky,' even proud fascists should be against what Russia/USSR has done in the recent past (KA007, Smolensk air disaster, MH17, Prigozhin's jet, AHY8243).
Also, the tactic of forced diversions to detain political opponents is also a valid concern (see Ryanair Flight 4978); and, before some GRU agent goes there, please note that Pavel Durov's arrest in...
I hope not. MAGA occasionally flies overseas, too. Unless they don't mind occasionally 'getting shot out of the sky,' even proud fascists should be against what Russia/USSR has done in the recent past (KA007, Smolensk air disaster, MH17, Prigozhin's jet, AHY8243).
Also, the tactic of forced diversions to detain political opponents is also a valid concern (see Ryanair Flight 4978); and, before some GRU agent goes there, please note that Pavel Durov's arrest in France in 2024 is distinctly different from the 2021 incident involving Ryanair Flight 4978. (Durov was arrested at an airport for alleged crimes related to the Telegram messaging app, while the Ryanair flight was a politically motivated diversion by the Belarusian government to detain a specific passenger.)