Well, the blanket ban was an over-reaction (this much is fairly clear now, and I've felt was clear since the outset). But is a blanket lifting of that ban sensible? The answer seems obvious to me - it's not sensible, and it's not true, either. There's areas of high concentration ash where flying's not allowed. But above & below, and in areas of low concentration, flying can now resume (with checks to be made for ash-related damage). But the media (bless their cotton socks) still generally reports that the ban has been lifted (rather than eased). How many more problems will reports like that cause? As people descend on airports in their thousands for flights that can't necessarily operate? Meh.
As for how & why it was lifted now, it seems
BA put 26 long-haul UK-bound flights into the air and asked permission afterwards. Either Willie Walsh is a hero or a fool - or possibly both. Only time will tell. But I suspect without the show-down things wouldn't have moved so fast. (I'm sceptical of the article, because of where it's posted and the fact some of the key information isn't replicated elsewhere, but on the other hand the first flight landed at 10pm, from Vancouver, and therefore would certainly have been in the air and UK-bound when the ban was still in force...)
There's other couple of interesting articles, which back up most of the above,
here and
here.
This whole "regulate for the lowest common denominator" approach is most frustrating; almost as bad this stupid story:
Knives are sharp, can cause injuries, so let's ban our 30-years-experienced butcher from de-boning a lamb joint...