Winston Churchill once wrote of a Japanese Admiral (Kurita, after Leyte):
"...only those who have endured similar may judge him...". I think it applies to this particular flight....
Back to the original article - the FAA fine for operating an aircraft in an unsafe manner becomes even more inexplicable when one considers
a. The aircraft had sufficient fuel for the flight as intended (even after departing the LAX area on 3)
b. Adequate terrain clearance could be maintained throughout
c. Suitable en-route alternates were available
d. The FAA
originally certified the aircraft for just such a policy.
It leads me to a suspicion: I have heard through the grapevine that there has been concern expressed in Gov. circles here that there exists an in-balance of trade between US carriers and their foreign counterparts on bi-lateral routes, both in terms of pax numbers (390-ish on a -400 / 220-ish ETOPS twin) and in terms of yield (a function of pathetic service on US carriers and what you can charge for a premium passenger ie: if you have $5K to spend on a 1st class ticket and choice - who do you think that pax is going to chose? It ain't grumpy grannies...). The FAA certainly seem to have their knickers in a twist here.
