4 ms·

They're fixed now, is the point. It wouldn't make sense to pull 787s now because the problems are fixed and it would throw global air travel into chaos and disa

• denton-scratch 7y ago
  Wot? Potentially-dangerous planes must be kept flying, because air-travel chaos and widely-used-ness?
  • AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    I think you missed the point. "They're fixed now" != "potentially dangerous". (Unless you define all planes to be "potentially dangerous". But if you ground all such planes, you don't have an air travel industry at all.)
    • salawat 7y ago
      They (787's) aren't necessarily all fixed. And in fact, I recall reading somewhere that the fix was to ensure that a 787 could not fly with any more than 1 of the batch of engines that has a penchant for premature turbine failure due to the high sulfur content of the atmosphere where the turbine blades were manufactured. Still not necessarily an "oh God, ground it", but there is a growing pile of very hard to stomach problems that the aviation industry is having to cope with this year. https://www.theengineer.co.uk/rolls-royce-problems-trent-1000/ https://www.theengineer.co.uk/rolls-royce-problems-trent-100...
  • tidepod12 7y ago
    You seem to have missed the multiple times that it was mentioned that the "potential problems" have been fixed. And yes, by the way, we keep potentially dangerous products in use all the time because the benefit of them remaining in service far outweighs the danger. Nearly every single medicine on the market comes with significant, dangerous side effects, but do we pull them all off the shelves and abandon the practice of medicine altogether? No, because that would be stupid.