• Title, Summary, Keyword: 쿠알라룸푸르 공항

Search Result 3, Processing Time 0.024 seconds

A study on the diversification in revenue sources for Incheon International Airport Based on other airports in the foreign countries (인천국제공항의 수익원 다양화 방안에 관한 연구 - 해외 공항의 사례를 바탕으로 -)

  • Kwon, Tae-Hoon;Kim, Kee-Woong
    • Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
    • /
    • v.17 no.4
    • /
    • pp.63-69
    • /
    • 2009
  • Incheon International Airport as the gateway to Korea is having the happiest time with those honorable prizes. But in these days, the trend of aviation is changing rapidly, so many rival airports in the world as well as north-east asian countries are rushing to find new revenue sources not to be turned over. Hence Incheon International Airport should push into fresh fields or create new sources of business keeping innovation by making foreign airports its role model. This study brings up some new profit models of foreign airports; Malaysia's Kuala Lumpur International Airport, China's Xiamen Aviation Industry Zone, German's Frankfurt Fraport Airports Group. This study analyzes the status of listed airports and presents strategies after investigating whether they are suitable for and compatible to Incheon International Airport.

  • PDF

A Study on the ICAO Conflict Zone Information Repository (ICAO 분쟁지역 운항위험정보 공유시스템의 현황과 문제점)

  • Park, Hyang-Gyu
    • 한국항공운항학회:학술대회논문집
    • /
    • /
    • pp.221-224
    • /
    • 2016
  • 2014.7.17. 암스테르담의 스키폴공항을 출발하여 쿠알라룸푸르공항으로 향하던 말레이시아항공 B777 항공기가 우크라이나의 도네츠크(Donetsk) 동쪽 약 60킬로미터 지점 상공에서 추락한 사고에 관련하여 ICAO가 유사사고를 방지하기 위한 노력의 일환으로 인터넷 웹에 기반을 둔 분쟁지역 운항위험정보 공유시스템(Conflict Zone Information Repository)을 개발하여 2015.4.2.부터 운영하고 있으나, 이 시스템에 현재까지 수록된 12개국의 42개 운항위험정보 중 10개에 대하여 당사국(운항위험 존재국)이 반대하는 것으로 나타나고 있어 이 시스템을 이용하는 국가들의 판단에 혼란이 생길 수 있는 것으로 분석되었으며, 이 문제 해소를 위해서는 ICAO가 국가들 간에 운항안전에 대한 관념의 차이가 발생하지 않도록 모든 국가들이 공감할 수 있는 판단기준을 수립하거나 또는 다른 적절한 대책을 수립할 필요가 있다.

  • PDF

Indonesia, Malaysia Airline's aircraft accidents and the Indonesian, Korean, Chinese Aviation Law and the 1999 Montreal Convention

  • Kim, Doo-Hwan
    • The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
    • /
    • v.30 no.2
    • /
    • pp.37-81
    • /
    • 2015
  • AirAsia QZ8501 Jet departed from Juanda International Airport in, Surabaya, Indonesia at 05:35 on Dec. 28, 2014 and was scheduled to arrive at Changi International Airport in Singapore at 08:30 the same day. The aircraft, an Airbus A320-200 crashed into the Java Sea on Dec. 28, 2014 carrying 162 passengers and crew off the coast of Indonesia's second largest city Surabaya on its way to Singapore. Indonesia's AirAsia jet carrying 162 people lost contact with ground control on Dec. 28, 2014. The aircraft's debris was found about 66 miles from the plane's last detected position. The 155 passengers and seven crew members aboard Flight QZ 8501, which vanished from radar 42 minutes after having departed Indonesia's second largest city of Surabaya bound for Singapore early Dec. 28, 2014. AirAsia QZ8501 had on board 137 adult passengers, 17 children and one infant, along with two pilots and five crew members in the aircraft, a majority of them Indonesian nationals. On board Flight QZ8501 were 155 Indonesian, three South Koreans, and one person each from Singapore, Malaysia and the UK. The Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 departed from Kuala Lumpur International Airport on March 8, 2014 at 00:41 local time and was scheduled to land at Beijing's Capital International Airport at 06:30 local time. Malaysia Airlines also marketed as China Southern Airlines Flight 748 (CZ748) through a code-share agreement, was a scheduled international passenger flight that disappeared on 8 March 2014 en route from Kuala Lumpur International Airport to Beijing's Capital International Airport (a distance of 2,743 miles: 4,414 km). The aircraft, a Boeing 777-200ER, last made contact with air traffic control less than an hour after takeoff. Operated by Malaysia Airlines (MAS), the aircraft carried 12 crew members and 227 passengers from 15 nations. There were 227 passengers, including 153 Chinese and 38 Malaysians, according to records. Nearly two-thirds of the passengers on Flight 370 were from China. On April 5, 2014 what could be the wreckage of the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines was found. What appeared to be the remnants of flight MH370 have been spotted drifting in a remote section of the Indian Ocean. Compensation for loss of life is vastly different between US. passengers and non-U.S. passengers. "If the claim is brought in the US. court, it's of significantly more value than if it's brought into any other court." Some victims and survivors of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case would like to sue the lawsuit to the United States court in order to receive a larger compensation package for damage caused by an accident that occurred in the sea of Java sea and the Indian ocean and rather than taking it to the Indonesian or Malaysian court. Though each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case will receive an unconditional 113,100 Unit of Account (SDR) as an amount of compensation for damage from Indonesia's AirAsia and Malaysia Airlines in accordance with Article 21, 1 (absolute, strict, no-fault liability system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention. But if Indonesia AirAsia airlines and Malaysia Airlines cannot prove as to the following two points without fault based on Article 21, 2 (presumed faulty system) of the 1999 Montreal Convention, AirAsia of Indonesiaand Malaysia Airlines will be burdened the unlimited liability to the each victim and survivor of the Indonesian and Malaysia airline's air crash case such as (1) such damage was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the air carrier or its servants or agents, or (2) such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party. In this researcher's view for the aforementioned reasons, and under the laws of China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Korea the Chinese, Indonesian, Malaysia and Korean, some victims and survivors of the crash of the two flights are entitled to receive possibly from more than 113,100 SDR to 5 million US$ from the two airlines or from the Aviation Insurance Company based on decision of the American court. It could also be argued that it is reasonable and necessary to revise the clause referring to bodily injury to a clause mentioning personal injury based on Article 17 of the 1999 Montreal Convention so as to be included the mental injury and condolence in the near future.