Links wouldn't stop crashes
Imagine my amusement to a recent article which suggested that opposition officials have used direct links as a solution to China Airlines's (CAL) troubles ("Yu says despite opposition claims, direct links must wait," May 29, page 3). While we don't know the cause of the crash, there is some evidence to suggest that there needs to be procedural changes in Taiwan to lessen the probability of future air disasters.
However, speaking from common sense (as well as from experience as a pilot), that answer doesn't rest in the direct links.
Chinese officials suggest that not adopting direct links after this disaster is "tantamount" to criminal conduct. What exactly do these officials mean? Are they implying that direct links would have somehow prevented this crash? Surely China isn't trying to convince me that flying to Hong Kong is more dangerous than to Xiamen, Beijing, Shang-hai or other Chinese cities.
Flying is flying, and instead of crashing on its way to Hong Kong, CI611 would have crashed on its way to Shanghai. If anything, I'd take my chances flying to Hong Kong because there are no air defense batteries in Hong Kong. And what's more, I'd rather crash outside of Chinese territory because imagine the red tape you would have to go through in the Beijing bureaucracy in order to get rescued inside Chinese territory.
"Pan blue" legislators have also suggested that direct links would somehow solve the problem. Ignorant statements such as these only serve to reaffirm my opinion that the quality of Taiwan's legislators is sorely lacking. It doesn't take a doctorate to win office -- nor, apparently, does it take much common sense. If anything, the only way direct links would solve the problem would be because all the ex-air force mainlanders would retire to their home provinces and leave Taiwan for those that actually appreciate her. I guess that would solve CAL's woes.
Or, could it be that both the Chinese officials and "pan blue" camp are superstitious and somehow believe that flying to Hong Kong is bad luck?
No, as someone suggested, the solution to CAL's woes lies in privatization and introducing competitive forces into an organization that is otherwise a retirement farm for air force and other senior military officers. If we want to focus on supersti-tion, then I would suggest re-flagging the airline as "Formosa Air" and painting the planes green. Oh, and maybe hire pilots that don't treat their 747s as F-104s. Civilians planes don't have as responsive flight controls and a tri-cycle configured landing gear will scrape its tail if you pull up too fast -- even an amateur like me knows that. Those would be solutions to CAL's woes, not some imaginary benefits derived from direct links or superstition.
Ryan J. Shih
Stanford, California
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS