Peter wrote:
I know you don’t mean it this way but that is the traditional anti-capitalist argument. As is repeatedly demonstrated in the US*, a bizjet can be a really good tool for doing business and thus generating a great deal of wealth* which in turn generates some vast number of jobs.
That probably the case somewhere in the US, and I don’t want to make a case from my experience, but I sometimes flies as FO on a Bizjet whose owner run a rich pharmaceutical company, he’s living in Monaco but his company has factories and offices in northern Europe. It’s half to one third of his flights. Other ones are south Europe for vacation. It even goes to 30m flights to places (around south of France/North italy) for 2h meetings. I try to not judge, we are just not in the same world of this type of use of Aviation. I know what I fuel and consume when making flights, these very rich owners just don’t care even the price (3000e for just a night parking with fuel in Lisbon last time…)
But I can also perfectly understand the use of it for business. The Crew we are, are comitted to make it run smoother and fast – and it can be something, eg. in Cannes. Owner/passenger jumps out of their taxi and go straight to the plane, get the clearance and TO in 5 minutes…
Another comment from the editor of a German (where it happened) GA magazine:
The insurer can also go after the perpetrators as usual, for recovery, but these people are usually not worth much – why is not surprising given that they hold these views.
In the UK, FWIW, you are entitled to peaceful protest. Some of that is EU law and anyway is interesting to read. The remaining route – a criminal procedure – is going to be tricky, especially if they pull some of the other cards which are currently in vogue. If one of the protesters is a trans, forget it. A difficult childhood is a bonus.
The interesting bit for us GA pilots is that if your plane is vandalised in this way, it may not be regarded as vandalism by the insurer!
gallois wrote:
So eco terrorists
This is definitely criminal and also doesn’t help the environmentalists’ cause, but let’s not water down the term “terrorism”. If spraying paint on an aircraft is terrorism, what is blowing up a night club with hundreds of people inside?
Both are terrorism. Both are aimed at intimidating others to bend to their way of thinking.
The standby days for time critical organ transplant flights of the damaged aircraft had to be canceled, the organs will now have to be delivered to patients by railway.
That banner with „Your luxury = our drought“ is pathetic.
Co2 is only a factor in absolute quantities. The adverse effects on the environment of just European low cost airlines is magnitudes greater than all private aircraft in the world combined. Let’s take 250 million passengers divided by 160 seats average load giving 1.5 million flights. Average sector around 1.5 hours = 4-5 tons of jet a. Do the math.
gallois wrote:
Both are terrorism. Both are aimed at intimidating others to bend to their way of thinking.
That is not the generally accepted definition of terrorism. Criminal gangs also frequently try to intimidate people but that’s not “terrorism” either. Words have meaning. Don’t ruin them.
One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. So the world continues 
There are actually loads of terrorism definitions. To some extent they vary according to who the country’s enemies are, and how hard a crackdown the current govt there wants to implement.
EU definition of terrorism:
unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act. seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.
Based on that, this was not a terrorist act. It is just organised vandalism.
Peter wrote:
EU definition of terrorism:unduly compelling a government or international organisation to perform or abstain from performing any act. seriously destabilising or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social structures of a country or an international organisation.
Based on that, this was not a terrorist act. It is just organised vandalism.
Peter, individual act – yes, agree. The whole set of activities – probably might be able to fit the definition.
I think the degree of provocation of the State will depend on the sophistication of the organisation.
If I chuck paint over 1 plane, and I am mentally disturbed, or one of the “threatened minorities”, that is fine, and it is depicted by the BBC as a “cry for help”.
If I chuck paint over 1 plane, and I am mentally ok, that is vandalism (“criminal damage” in the UK). Even if there is a group.
If I organise a group to do the above, with social media coordination, that is usually still as above. Probably the problem is that there is a lack of escalation options for the prosecution.
I think modern countries try to avoid using “terrorism” because it dilutes the term and thus creates a bad precedent for going after proper international groups. And, crucially, getting a conviction for (German equivalent of) criminal damage is probably easy but getting one for anything stronger is poor, especially as these people will get a fairly good lawyer pro bono. The legal profession is full of civil liberties / eco types. Reach for the sky and you will end up short – as the CAA found with the Shoreham Hunter crash pilot
The whole set of activities – probably might be able to fit the definition.
IANAL but it seems too loosely organised. I mean, there isn’t one bin Laden at the top directing the show. This is a load of mostly misguided, definitely misinformed, gullible, useful idiots, who hang out in social media bubbles, not really different conceptually from those where your 10 year old is being told to have gender reassignment surgery, but equally dangerous collectively.
Also if they used explosives, that would draw some additional attention
