Chances are they won't fly in the same location. Lufthansa has already rerouted flights scheduled to go over around the eastern Ukrainian airspace, I can't imagine Malaysian not following suit. It's not like they have the best track record at the moment.

UPDATE: The FAA just prohibited flying over that airspace. So I would be blown away if your plane continued flying there.

UPDATE: Air France now, too.

UPDATE: Even three Russian airlines are re-routing, which will be difficult for some flights heading west from Moscow. No word from Malaysian... they've probably got bigger fish to fry at the moment.

UPDATE: British Airways and Air Canada, too.

How far out does the FAA's jurisdiction go?

I believe U.S.-based airplanes fly around in a little bubble of U.S. laws, just like ships at sea under the U.S. flag.

They're subject to the jurisdiction of whoever's airspace they're in as well.

> blown away

Lose some $$ and avoid flying over an area where radar guided surface to air missiles are known to hit civilian airliners.

Airlines won't be flying in that area for a while, I'd imagine.

the real question is why in the world were they now?

Fuel savings coupled with a reasonable belief that no party in the conflict would've been expected to want to incur the international wrath resulting from shooting down an airliner.

Anytime there is a incident with a plane the reaction always seems to be intense (bordering on over-reaction) so I seriously doubt any planes will be flying within 100 miles of Ukrainian airspace from this moment forward. I would probably fly if I were you but if you are really worried and can afford not to fly the peace of mind might be worth the loss of $$.

Edit:

Some airlines are already reacting:

"A statement from Virgin Airlines says it "will be re-routing a small number of our flights this evening"."

Statistically, you'll be absolutely fine either way even though I don't buy that "now is the safest time to fly the airline" crap. For myself, having recently flown the reverse flight (KL to Amsterdam) and a handful of other MH flights recently, I would lose the extra money and sleep better on another carrier. I'll be choosing other carriers for the foreseeable future.

Two of only three fatal 777 crashes ever were MH planes. They were both total losses and both in the last five months. The airline has some work to do.

Both under abnormal circumstances, most likely terrorism.

Both? This latest one yeah, but the first one? We don't know anything about the cause yet. I'd also argue that flying over a country where there is war is a bad idea.

That doesn't really change the argument.

Call me names all day, I would never get on a flight with that airline. They should really just pack it in at this point.

"These events are still rare." OK, but if there's a turd in a bowl of 10,000 Skittles, I'm not eating any of them.

Well, I thought Ukraine declared their airspace off-limits to civilian planes... so why was this plane over Ukraine anyways?

Airspace was only closed to 10,000ft. MH17 was at >30,000ft.

Still seems highly risky to fly over a known battle-zone where similar planes (albeit, military) have been shot down recently where direct communication with troops on the ground may not be possible (opening a door for an accidental grounding, if not on purpose).

You're still safer on that airliner than you are in your own bed. Anything newsworthy is rare by definition. If you want to worry, worry about getting hit by a drunk driver as you cross the street, or slipping in the shower and breaking your skull, or choking on your dinner.

As has been explained before, when you're carrying out your normal daily activities you have a fair degree of control over your own safety and a sense of autonomy, plus there's a reasonable chance of being rescued/assisted in many contexts (eg if you are hit by a car on a busy street). When you're a passenger on a plane, you are largely helpless in the event that trouble strikes, however remote that possibility, and the probability of rescue is virtually nil. People's risk calculus is rationally altered by their aversion to helplessness and their wish to avoid stress.

Addressing first-order probabilities only provides half the picture.

Then you're doomed to frustration, because it is rational to alter your risk calculus to minimize stress. The cost to most people of altering their plans (eg choosing a different carrier when they fly) is less than the cost of anxiety or stress alleviation.

It's also rational to minimize stress by convincing yourself that the risk is actually low.

The dude asked for a rational perspective. I gave it. If you want to insist that people should avoid one of the safest activities in the history of civilization because it's rational to avoid fear, well, go for it, but you're not going to convince me.

Saying that it might be rational for someone to change their flight to a different carrier is a long way from 'insisting' that they don't fly. What a ridiculous straw man argument.

To me, logic says you should call the airline and see specifically how they're rerouting the flight to avoid this kind of danger. If you can't get an answer, don't get a satisfactory answer, or don't know how to tell what answer would satisfy you, book another flight.

In general, flying is safer than either driving or walking in urban areas. But most flights don't happen over not-technically-but-actually-definitely war zones. So ... make sure whatever flight you're on avoids the area entirely.

Logic says that, but somehow I doubt that you're going to get a useful answer from anyone you can reach about what route the flight is actually going to take 10 days from now.

""Lighting does strike twice in the same place" argument"

For now the 'coincidence' of two Malaysian 777 aircraft going down within a few months is lighting striking twice.

So then, "Lightning doesn't strike thrice in the same place"

I would attempt to get a refund since you have a legit concern. A forward thinking manager might avoid the potential PR problem that lightning will strike twice and on top of that, denying concerned passengers refunds.

Your flight will have a different flight number - they get retired after a major incident :P

The air path for that flight is likely to be heavily monitored over the fortnight, so it's likely to be safer than normal

If the plane was shot down over a very volatile region, I highly doubt there is any reassurance extra monitoring would do to provide for a plane's safety against surface to air missiles.

The change will be to monitor what is the "very volatile region", and to stay out of it. That will dramatically increase safety against surface to air missiles.

Staying out of the region would be the most sensible thing to do. I didn't read anything that mentioned avoidance as a precautionary step, albeit the most logical of precautionary steps.

It would be useful for someone who knows to confirm whether after an incident like this, airlines change the route that they send the planes. Taking a bit of a detour would seems sensible.

I think you shouldn't have too much to worry about because all international flights over this area will probably get re-routed for a while in the next few hours/days.

You should find whether they'll change the flight route. I clearly remember my plane from DXB to NCE dodging Syria by less than 10km.

And Syria was not officially "at war".

I'm sure passenger planes will circuit that region from this day on, so chances of a similar event should be extremely low.

Civil wars like to strike always at the same place. But I see no reason why it would prefer any flight number or airline.

It would "prefer" any airline stupid enough to continue flying over the war zone. One hopes that that is the null set.

If you do decide to keep the ticket, you will probably have an entire couple of rows to yourself to stretch out on...