I'm pretty sure airlines adjust their routes when officially advised of danger by relevant authorities. Fly-over fee schedules are also in place, assuring Kiev of many millions per month. Rather than arbitrarily altering their routes, the airline (not unlike all others) trusted the government in Kiev to warn of any danger to commercial passenger flights, but their trust was misplaced.

I suspect it's not so easy (or cheap) to change a flight plan when no official danger warning has been registered by the relevant government.

The EF NATO-minions will be along shortly to provide a fact-free explanation as to why Kiev is the VICTIM in this charade, and it's all Putin's/Russia's fault (again).

__________________
"Live every day as if it were going to be your last; for one day you're sure to be right." — Harry Morant

Well the government in Kiev could not warn of any danger to commercial passenger flights if they did not know the Russians were supplying the rebels with advanced missile systems

Earlier in the thread, someone mentioned that a couple of Airlines did change their routes before the incident.
Most did not - and I admit it only registered to me at that point that there is weaponry for this specific "use-case" (but I don't fly much and I don't do risk-analysis for airlines for a living).
But I bet every single ounce of liquid over the limit and every nail-clipper was confiscated from the passengers

I'm really sorry for the loss of lives, the hardships and suffering that ensued for the relatives - but from the very beginning it was clear that this incident was going to be used to push the political agendas of the parties involved in this conflict. The casualties are a mere side-effect, but useful for each side to spin the story according to their taste and influence the public opinion accordingly.

Nobody should expect "justice" or that the "truth" gets out.
I know it's easy to say if one is not directly involved, but in a war, you don't always get the luxury of closure.
And it's a war there, after all.

Long haul routes have several route options dependant on fueling and time costs and this is norm published by the airline the day before. There are options to avoid countries if the airline wants to. But it comes down to a few thousand at the end of the day.

As the official Dutch investigation continues, more and more evidence points to Russia...

http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2015/04/01/...ion-team-mh17/

Before anybody repeats the nonsense about this MH17 being shot down by an Ukraine fighter plane, do read the account here of the Korean plane that was actually shot down many years ago.

That jumbo flew for 15 minutes after being hit by 2 missiles; these small fighter planes simply do not carry big enough missiles to stop a jumbo immediately. Totally apart from the fact the MH17 flew too high and fast to be a feasible target.

Providing the misile doesn't hit the fuel tanks and doesn't explode upon impact, you should be ok for a few extra minutes, maybe even enough to join the mile high club

A few minutes would be more than enough time

Maybe in your case

You do not know much about this topic do you?

Did you read the link I posted about the shoot down of the Korean airline . No!

The Russian missile hit the left wing of the Korean airliner which contains the fuel tank, did it explode - No!

Is jet fuel explosive - No!

Why do you post about topics where you have no clue about the facts?

Jet a1 is flammable when atomised and in explosive vapour mixtures. You can put a match out in a puddle of jet a1 just like diesel.

OK I'm a bit late on this one, soIt was shot down by pro-Russian separatists?

"Washington believes that pro-Russian separatists most likely shot down the airliner "by mistake," not realizing it was a civilian passenger flight, U.S. intelligence officials have said."

Sounds a bit like " Oops my bad" Persian Gulf incident or Long Island incident.

http://www.torontosun.com/2015/03/12...e-over-ukraine

Forensic analysis of a metal fragment found at the crash site of flight MH17 by a journalist indicated it was from the warhead of a Russian-made Buk.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-31978578

Didn't the American warship USS Vincense shot an Iranian plane down with a missile although not sure if it was ship fired or from an aircraft ?

Ship fired.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Vincennes_%28CG-49%29

Tom

Did YOU read the wiki article? If so, why do you repeat that half the left wing has been shot off even though the article says that statement by the russian pilot is "probably incorrect".

Comparing the KAL007 situation with MH17 seems rather naive as technology, including russian military and rocket technology, has vastly improved. For instance the Vympel R-77 (russian product) that's been in use since 1994 (only after the KAL007 incident) reaches mach 4.5 and has 160km range, while a passenger plane travels with less than one mach. Taking down a Boeing 777 (any passenger plane, for that matter) with one or more modern rockets seems not far fetched at all, travel altitude of 30k or 40k feet won't be any help at all. Claiming MH17 was too far up and too fast is ... well, a not exactly intelligent claim.

And if a ukrainian plane had approached the Boeing 777 head on, as opposed to from behind or the side, the rockets could well have destroyed the cockpit and killed both pilots immediately.

Doesn't mean that's what happened, it's just one of a virtually unlimited number of possibilites nobody on this board can rule out with certainty - simply because there's not enough information.

The US immediately said the rebels were the culprits and they could prove it. So where is it, that purported proof, why hasn't it been published months ago if it actually exists? And if it didnt' exist, what would that imply about US involvement?

just for the records, here a MIG-29 and its weapons





and here the SU-27

About "why do you repeat that half the left wing has been shot off" I did not repeat that

About "the Vympel R-77 (russian product) that's been in use since 1994" Nice missile; pity it does not fit on any of the current Ukraine fighter fleet.

About "Claiming MH17 was too far up and too fast is ... well, a not exactly intelligent claim." Really!
The Chief designer "Vladimir Babak" of the Sukhoi Su-25 said that "the SU-25 jet did not have the capability to shoot down this passenger plane. He said the fighter jet could have successfully attacked the Boeing at an altitude of 3,000-4,000 meters, but not at the plane’s altitude of 10,500 meters. He added that their air-to-air missiles would have only damaged the Boeing – not completely destroyed it while still in the air. "
As mentioned the Boeing was flying at 10,500 metres at mach 0.84 and the Su25 has a max speed of mach 0.82 and a ceiling of 7,000 metres (only 5,000 metres with a full combat load), the SU25 is a ground attack aircraft.

About "if a Ukrainian plane had approached the Boeing 777 head on..." But nobody has claimed this happened.

About "So where is it, that [US] purported proof" I assume they are waiting for completion of the official accident investigation.

About "it's just one of a virtually unlimited number of possibilities" Not really unlimited It takes a ground based missile to blow a 777 apart so there are only two possibilities, that is - which of the two sides fired it.

Thanks but the Russians were talking about an Su25.

I assume those are not photos of Ukrainian planes? The Ukraine only owns six different types of missiles.

I didn't say it does.

But the standard-equipment R-60 does, with just enough reach (possibly subject to which variant was used, but 5km and 10km should do anyway).

Not to speak of the R-73 with 20-40km reach, which is used by Ukraine and does fit on some SU-25 variants.

See above and below.

The SU25 is said to have been part of a 3-plane raid on eastern Ukraine, only the SU25 returned. And that has SU25 fly towards the 777 as the latter was eastwards bound, which in turn makes the roughly equal max speed irrelevant, as well as the relatively low speed of the R-60.

Being on the way home also means the SU25 was empty, making max reachable altitude reasonably close to max altitude.

Good to know the chief designer of the Sukhoi Su-25 was wrong when he said it could not successfully attack the 777 at 10,500 metres - please do write to him with your correction