I would wonder what the owner’s insurance company has told them about paying out claims.
I would be an act of terror would make them a whole lot less liable than the tail falling off.
My guess is a bomb. But I don’t have a dog in the fight.
The aircraft passed structural inspection in 2014, but may have been in a tailstrike accident and repaired earlier.
Had the same thought; my knowledge of Russian tort law is non-existent, but I would imagine the liability for the airline and its insurance carriers would be lower if the crash could be blamed on “external factors.”
It would be interesting to know if the Airbus was purchased or leased by the airline. Some of the lease agreements may include contract maintenance by an outside firm (in some cases, another carrier), ensuring the aircraft was well-maintained. If the Russian firm purchased the jet outright, then it was likely repaired by their maintenance staff and it’s no secret that some of those outfits cut corners and don’t maintain jets to the same standards as western carriers.
Also, there have been few details about who had access to the jet on the ground. Did the airline have their own baggage handlers/security on the ramp, or did they contract it out with a local firm?
At this point, I think the only potential cause that can be ruled out is a MANPAD; the jet was above the envelope for shoulder-fired SAMs when the pilot declared an emergency. However, you can extend the range if the missile is fired from a peak elevation. The most advanced MANPADs can reach targets up to 23,000 ft; the jet was at 31K when it ran into trouble; there are peaks in the 7-8,000 foot range in the southern Sinai, but it looks like they are west of the plane’s flight path.