SOME airlines took the cautious and financially disadvantageous decision to fly AROUND the allegedly promulgated hazard area weeks ago, before the cargo shootdowns.
SOME airlines, including MH, decided it was an acceptable risk to overfly by 1,000ft, the 32,000ft "lid" atop a hot war zone in order to maximise profits.
Commercial pressure again a contributary cause of a major fatal civil hull loss, but not much about WHY MH17 was flight-planned on such a track?
I doubt if the (allegedly heavy) crew were totally aware of the risk at briefing, bearing in mind the much complained about inadequate reporting times pre-flight and the difficulty of picking out the wheat from all the chaff in modern briefing material and its presentation.
I trust the MH management and flight planning staff can sleep easy in their beds, aware of the consequences of this decision.
And how many of the other airlines who callously sent their crews through this wasps' nest are breathing a sigh of relief it wasn't THEIR beancounting habits which dropped them in it?
Whilst we speculate about missiles, WW3, Vincennes et al, let's just remember the routeing was a normal COMMERCIAL decision which contributed to this awful tragedy.
What part of the word HAZARD does modern airline management NOT understand?!
