Expert Q&A: The safety of flights to and from Dubai amid escalating regional tensions 

How are airlines currently assessing the safety of routes to and from Dubai given the escalation in the region? Are flight paths being significantly altered and what does that mean for passengers and airlines?

Airlines operating in conflict zones assess safety through established risk frameworks that are fed with real-time intelligence and Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs). They continuously monitor advisories from international safety agencies such as the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), Eurocontrol and national aviation authorities.

Rerouting is already occurring, as several carriers are avoiding conflicted airspace segments. This can add up to 90 minutes to some routes and significantly increase fuel burn. For passengers, this means longer journey times and tighter connections. For airlines, the financial impact is considerable, given that fuel represents 22–28% of operating costs.

Longer routes also require compliance with crew duty-time legislation, which may mean additional crew positioning. Over time, the cumulative cost pressure may force some carriers to suspend routes entirely.

After incidents like MH17, the aviation industry said conflict-zone risk management would improve. Has it actually improved or are airlines still relying heavily on fragmented intelligence and commercial judgement?

Progress has been real but uneven. After MH17, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) established clearer frameworks for conflict-zone risk assessment, and the EU conflict zone alerting system improved the flow of threat intelligence to airlines.

However, the fundamental architecture remains problematic. States are not legally obliged to share military threat intelligence with civil aviation authorities, and airlines still largely carry out their own assessments. The recent conflict has exposed persistent gaps, with some carriers receiving delayed airspace warnings.

Commercial pressures also continue to influence risk decisions, as route suspension is enormously costly. The honest answer is that the system has improved at the margins, but the fragmentation that enabled MH17 has not been structurally resolved.

Could geopolitical instability in the Gulf threaten Dubai’s position as one of the world’s biggest aviation hubs, or are airlines and passengers likely to continue operating as normal?

Dubai’s geographic position between Europe, Asia and Africa is a structural advantage that cannot easily be replicated by competitors. The UAE’s national carriers have extensive route networks and strong government backing, which provide additional resilience. However, a continued conflict that directly threatens UAE airspace, or triggers foreign government travel advisories, could redirect passenger flows towards alternative hubs such as Doha or Istanbul. The more likely near-term scenario is continued operation with modified routing, increased insurance premiums and some passenger hesitancy to travel. The long-term threat is real, but it would take more than regional instability to displace Dubai’s hub status.