First World, Second World, Third World. I am not even going to get into a debate in trying to qualify these very unclear titles. A Google search will reveal plenty of sites with rambling discussions about what these normally titles (often with political-alliance overtones) mean when applied to countries.
From a purely business standpoint, the proverb is that "money talks & B.S. walks."
If Gulf Air was yours, including it's profits and debts, and you could increase profit by deploying the entire fleet on flights to a country like, say, India, or China, you would. There are no shortage of airlines who have lost their shirts in so-called "First World" countries such as the United States or Australia, while markets like India and China are the lands of opportunity for aviation.
As a stakeholder (an employee) of Gulf Air, I really don't care much where we fly to-- sure, I would love to have 3 day nightstops in Dublin or Johannesburg, even better if we could have 5-days in Bangkok, but it doesn't mean much if this is an unsustainable model. Better for the Company to do well even if it means flying to less attractive (from my standpoint) destinations, make more money, pass along the benefits to us in the form of higher salaries & good benefits. Then I will visit these places on my vacation days.
P.S., one place that I would be unwilling to fly to under the current situation is Bagdhad.
