However, a no-fly zone is only as good as the will and muscle to engage in military operations that risk lives and planes (etc.).
The last no-fly zone was against the Iraqis. You know, the country that buried the remains of their air force in order to protect it?
Now, as for the air base the report I heard was that two planes took off. That might be all the mission that the Syrian air command thought appropriate. It might also be all that the Syrians had left on the ground. Or it might be that people confused a Russian take-off from a nearby base. After all, the report came from the London-based, opposition "observatory", reporting on leaks.
We accept that it was a large mission because we want it to be; we accept that the report of two planes taking off from that base is true without independent verification because we want it to be. We assume that they're Syrian planes. And we assume that the runways must not have been intact because, well, who could possibly repair a runway in 12 hours?
https://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/821003/FID581/pubs/af/10/afpam10-219v4/afpam10-219v4.pdf indicates procedures that the US had 20 years ago for repairing crater damage in 4 hours. If the Russians had advance warning they could have had materiel en route before the missiles were launched. (And meaning that many Syrian planes may have been relocated or quickly moved under cover to avoid being targetted.)
Moreover, the Syrians cited by the "observatory" had a vested interest in showing, for reasons of honor and pride, that the attack had minimal effect. Honor and pride are potent reasons for being intentionally mistaken as far as the truth is concerned. Yet their word is gold.
What's mostly important is what we're not being told. Now, what, exactly, aren't we being told. That would be strictly speculation, and we've had too much of that passed off as fact already.
= new reply since forum marked as read