>>Here we are talking about Nepal Airlines. The responsibility of towing a plane from the runway to tarmac to clear the runway (I assume he/she is talking about the Turkish Airlines accident) lies to the Airport management authority (in our case Civil Aviation Department of Nepal), not the airlines. Nepal Airlines has all the equipment required to operate an airline. "When the Malaysian Airlines is barely recovering from MH17 and MH370 disasters, the news could not be more ill-timed." >> So how long they should have waited after the Malaysian Airlines' disasters to announce their plan so that it would have been right timed ? Moreover, what has those disasters to do with Nepal Airlines announcement of their future plan ? "Any disasters like the MH17 or MH370 will totally knock out Nepal Airlines out of existence." >> Again, I beg to ask the OP why he/she thinks incidents like those will 'knock out' RA ? Is that because RA will lose its credibility to such extent that it will be 'knocked out' or because of huge financial obligation arising from such disaster. Or because RA will have one less aircraft in its fleet? I understand there will be loss of credibility in case of such thing happening but hasn't Nepal Airlines achieved the reputation of accident free operations of its international flights for decades? And that surely will subside international doubt and criticism should that kind of ill incidents ever occur !. As for the financial loss is concerned, as far as I know nothing is born by an airlines after such incidents because they are covered by third party insurance.