With such limited information, I don't think hypothetical questions help in this instance.
Can this thread end now? We will probably have no more information six months from now than today. Nobody knows why the captain decided MIA was the answer to the problem in flight. Until we know that discussion is meaningless.
Sorry, but don't agree. In the face of almost universal condemnation (on very limited information), and a 'BiasedonFacts' testimony of what went on, I felt I had to point out that judgements without further information are not valid, and there could be many instances where a Captain may feel for the safety of the operation, an en route landing would be the best option. I never 'defended' or 'accused' him, just pointed out that there are circumstances where such a decision could be justified.
It does expose something nasty in the core of human relations in some companies. Long festering old industrial grievances permeate some companies. This case is like an iceberg breaking the surface- something is going on in UA. We had another awful example in the 1989 Australian indurstrial dispute- I still get shocked hearing some of the words coming from Australian mouths concerning that. Companies have every need to eradicate such emotions and thoughts, just as they have over the last 20 years eradicated prejudice in race, sex and sexual orientation. They have not done so. The poison permeates industrial relations for 24 years. It's largely a legacy airline thing.