[bobmoretti]

The scenario described in the article could only have gone down with the support of a state level actor. In foreign affairs, states are mostly rational and risk-averse. The risk involved in such an operation would have been astronomical:

- It stretches the imagination that in the Post-9/11 world, hijackers could access a panel in the cabin without raising passenger and crew suspicion. So the hijackers would have required some way to control the passengers. Smuggling this past airport security is already a huge risk to the operation.

- The northern route may be the optimal route for someone looking to avoid detection, but there is still a massive risk that one of these countries might notice the plane on military or other radar. This would be an unqualified disaster to the sponsors of the operation.

- The most probable final ping locations are so far out that the aircraft was almost certainly at or on the verge of fuel exhaustion. How would the hijackers have known the precise amount of fuel on board? How would they deal with unexpectedly high head winds, or some other in-flight issue? Any crash landing would be difficult to conceal.

The sophistication, danger, and lack of motivation for such an operation makes this sound more like a movie plot than a credible theory.

[jonah]

And if it's that sophisticated of an operation, planned far in advance, they surely wouldn't need to auto-land the plane.

[raverbashing]

" but there is still a massive risk that one of these countries might notice the plane on military or other radar"

And radar coverage is much bigger in the northern arc.

China/Russia/India/Pakistan, etc

[bobmoretti]

Yep, and as someone else mentioned, flying right over one of the more heavily militarized areas of the planet (Kashmir). Also, why would Russia choose to hijack a plane full of Chinese citizens for this? The last thing they want right now is to compromise their relationship with China. It just doesn't make any sense.

[frevd]

Well, at that time the worlds media attention was on the Ukraine conflict, involving Russia. What better way to get media attention away from your plans than to create a mystery about which most of the western world happily cares much more than about watching eversame news about war and invasion.

[kbart]

Exactly. Too much work, risk and investment for a very limited gain. I'd still bet my money on an unknown technical fault, everything else is just speculations with no proof whatsoever.

[socceroos]

To be fair, the point of the theory is that the gain could very well have been worth the investment.

[huherto]

> In foreign affairs, states are mostly rational and risk-averse.

Oh yes. This is a great insight. Thanks. Why would take great risks when you are on top?