To fly or not to fly

The IATA was recently displeased with Europe's decision to make airspace closure measures based on theoretical models rather than facts.

According to a recent press release, IATA reported that there had been countries which allowed flights in the "unsafe" fly zones, and post-flight inspections have deemed it safe to fly.

Considering it from Europe's point of view, prevention is better than cure. After all, the safety and lives of thousands lie in their hands. On the other hand, business for airline and cargo carriers have dwindled and airports are left with many passengers stranded.

In my opinion, I would say it is perhaps a good call for Europe to have closed airspace the first time Eyjafjallajökull spewed volcanic ash. During the virgin eruption, there was no way to determine if flights that were allowed could go wrong, and the only plausible solution was to halt them to prevent any mishaps. However, I believe the following airspace closures could have been better managed and yes, as IATA would say, not close airspace simply based on theoretical assumptions.

What is your take on this?