An alternative cost cutting theory has emerged.

A report on reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5501PB20090604

suggests the pilot might have cut airspeed to save fuel, triggering a stall in sharp downdraft.

We may see more of this sort of failure in the collapse of aviation. The FSU airlines became hideously unsafe in the 1990s.

BTW WTI back over $68.

EDIT

Looks like reducing airspeed is normal procedure in turbulence. The pilots may have over-done it. Not a cost cutting exercise.

At higher altitudes, there is a a thinner margin between stall speed and mach buffet. I have read that the U-2 routinely operated right at the top of its ceiling, so that the margin between stall speed and mach buffet was only 5 to 10 knots. Here is an article that discusses the "Coffin Corner," the thin margin between stall speed and mach buffet at higher altitudes:

http://airplanepilot.blogspot.com/2007/01/coffin-corner.html

The blog post discusses the importance of pilots training for high altitude stalls. Interesting that Airbus has already advised pilots not to lower their speed too much while approaching turbulence at higher altitudes. One does have to wonder if this was a combination of some type of fly by wire failure combined with a high altitude stall, and the pilots didn't have a enough time to reboot the system in turbulent conditions.

BTW, an interesting factoid. According to news reports, since airlines started flying Europe to South America and vice-versa in 1947, this is reportedly the first commercial airliner crash (of course there have been crashes on other transatlantic routes).