Sympathies to the family and all that.
The point which was made but has been skimmed over is just how suitable are these supposed ETOPS/LROPS diversion airfields if a large airliner really does have to divert in there with something other than a non-technical problem such as this.
I understand Longyearbyen in Svalbard is a diversion airfield for the trans-polar route. I went there 15 years ago (by ship) and spent 2 months up there in the 'summer'. The weather was never very stable, always cold, and the facilities at that time were somewhat basic.
Imagine a 777 diverting in there with an engine out. Sod's law says that the weather will be right on minima (and it's not an approach for the faint hearted even in good weather) and blowing a gale. OAT will be -20 C plus windchill. The a/c makes it down OK, and then everybody bales out down the slides. Instant hypothermia/cold shock scenario. Then the need for hotels and undercover maintenance facility to repair the a/c etc. You can imagine the rest, and the situation might well be worse in Greenland..
In the race to get ever shorter transit times and save fuel etc, I fear we are potentially increasing the risk of turning a minor incident into a major one. I wonder how many punters would be happy to be told (irrespective of how many engines their plane has) that in the event of an emergency there is a good chance they will end up with frostbite and be stuck in the middle of nowhere until the plane can be repaired or a replacement flown out.
No disrespect intended to the residents of Svalbard or Greenland!
------------------
"Take-off is optional, Landing is mandatory"