????最新一起馬航墜機(jī)事件發(fā)生后，人們不斷地對馬航的財(cái)務(wù)能力、法律責(zé)任以及遇難者家屬的權(quán)利提出了很多問題。

????拋開財(cái)務(wù)問題暫且不談，MH370和MH17這兩起事故之間有一些顯著差異。

????MH370仍是一個謎（而且可能在很長一段時間內(nèi)都是如此）。從保險(xiǎn)賠償?shù)慕嵌榷裕@也是不同尋常的一起事故，因?yàn)樵谌狈Υ_鑿證據(jù)的情況下，很難以過失和追責(zé)提起訴訟。這可能成為史上賠償最少的事故之一。

????但是，MH17墜機(jī)事故完全不一樣。問題不在于是否會提出索賠，而是何時何地提出索賠，將涉及多少名被告?，F(xiàn)在已有一大批潛在被告，從馬來西亞航空公司（在飛機(jī)失事的案例中航空公司肯定是被告）一直到個別政府。還記得泛美航空103航班嗎？最后利比亞政府向遇難者家屬支付了巨額賠償金。但考慮到烏克蘭目前的形勢，此次事故的法律程序可能會變得非常混亂和復(fù)雜。

????如果遇難者的家屬和政府能夠證明俄羅斯為烏克蘭分裂分子提供了肇事武器（據(jù)稱客機(jī)是被烏克蘭分裂分子擊落），最終的判決可能會對俄羅斯政府不利（至少在民事訴訟案件中會是這樣）。這可能需要幾年的時間，而且?guī)缀蹩梢钥隙ǖ氖?，俄羅斯要么上訴，要么干脆無視審判結(jié)果。如果出現(xiàn)這種情況，依據(jù)先例，至少相關(guān)方會試圖沒收俄羅斯在世界各國的資產(chǎn)。那么哪個國家可能會首先提起訴訟呢？荷蘭。可能會出現(xiàn)在沒收目標(biāo)清單上的資產(chǎn)包括俄羅斯航空公司?？吭趪鈾C(jī)場的飛機(jī)以及停泊在外國港口的俄羅斯游輪。

????在短期內(nèi)，有關(guān)方面將再次依據(jù)蒙特利爾公約向遇難者家屬進(jìn)行賠償。該公約于1999年簽訂，規(guī)定每位遇難者的賠償數(shù)額為174,000美元，而且賠償金支付不受事故原因（包括戰(zhàn)爭或恐怖主義）的限制。（此次賠償金額可能高達(dá)4900萬美元，而且可能由馬來西亞航空的保險(xiǎn)公司支付。）

????但索賠人肯定會要求更多賠償。在這種情況下，馬來西亞航空公司本身肯定也會提起索賠。

????除了保險(xiǎn)問題之外，此次事故還將產(chǎn)生其他直接影響。例如，航空業(yè)很快會更改飛機(jī)航線，以避免經(jīng)過任何沖突區(qū)域。這是一項(xiàng)復(fù)雜的舉措，因?yàn)槔@航200-300英里（或更多）將帶來大量的燃料成本和運(yùn)營挑戰(zhàn)。部分長途直達(dá)航班現(xiàn)在可能需要在中途著陸加油。在這個過程中，航班成本將上漲，乘務(wù)人員可能需要重新配置，而且由此產(chǎn)生的航班延誤可能會導(dǎo)致航班之間無法進(jìn)行直連。鑒于這些航行路線的變化，機(jī)票費(fèi)用中到時可能會增加“戰(zhàn)爭風(fēng)險(xiǎn)”或“沖突區(qū)域”燃油附加費(fèi)，屆時您也不用太驚訝。

????從歷史上來看，商業(yè)航空公司的飛機(jī)經(jīng)常在沖突地區(qū)上空飛行。當(dāng)你在讀這篇文章時，至少有20架美國商業(yè)飛機(jī)正飛越古巴上空。飛往約旦的航班是由以色列空中交通管制處理。商業(yè)航班仍在敘利亞、索馬里、伊拉克北部等地區(qū)上空飛行。

????In the wake of the latest disaster involving Malaysia Airlines, more and more questions are being asked about the financial viability of the airline, as well as the legal fallout and the rights of victims’ families.

????But financial questions aside, there are distinct differences between MH 370 and MH 17.

????MH 370 remains a mystery (and may remain so for quite some time). It’s also one of the more unusual crashes from an insurance payout perspective because it’s very difficult to litigate negligence and liability in the absence of any hard evidence. It may turn out to be one of the least expensive cases in history.

????MH17, however, is very different. The issue won’t be whether claims will be filed, but when, where and how many defendants will be named. Already there’s a huge shopping list of defendants, ranging from the airline (always named in cases relating to a plane crash) to individual governments. Remember Pan Am 103? In the end the Libyan government paid large settlements to the families. But given the current situation in the Ukraine, the legal process here could get very messy and very complicated very quickly.

????It could ultimately end — at least in the civil cases filed — with a judgment issued against the Russian government, if families and governments can prove the country armed the separatist rebels allegedly responsible for the crash. That would likely take years, and almost certainly, Russia would either appeal, or simply ignore the judgment. If that happens, there’s precedent to expect at least an attempt by those parties to seize Russian assets in various countries around the world. First country expected to file lawsuit? The Netherlands. The assets likely to be on the target list: Aeroflot planes on the ground in foreign airports, and Russian cruise ships in foreign ports.

????In the short term, the Montreal convention protocols for awarding victims’ families payment will again be applied. The 1999 agreement limits claimants to about $174,000 per death, and will be paid regardless of the cause of the crash, including war or terrorism. (This payment could be as high as $49 million, and would come from Malaysia Airlines’ insurers.)

????But claimants will most certainly seek more damages. And in this case, one of the claimants will most certainly be Malaysia Airlines itself.

????Insurance issues aside, there are other immediate ramifications. For one, the airline industry will move quickly to reroute their planes over any area of conflict. This is a complicated move, because a 200-300 mile diversion (or more) means significant fuel costs and operational challenges. Some long haul nonstop flights may now have to land for refueling. In the process, the cost of the flights goes up, crews may have to be repositioned, and flight schedules may not offer connectivity because of the delays. Don’t be surprised to see a “war-risk” or “conflict” fuel surcharge added to the cost of those tickets because of these navigational changes.

????Historically, commercial airlines have long flown over conflicted areas. As you are reading this, at least 20 U.S. commercial airplanes are overflying Cuba. Airlines flying to Jordan are handled on approach by Israeli air traffic control. Commercial airlines overfly Syria, Somalia, Northern Iraq, to name a few.