Sure, the article is good, but the "assertion" based on of motivations based on what someone didn't say is hardly what you'd call a sound investigation or valid

Sure, the article is good, but the "assertion" based on of motivations based on what someone didn't say is hardly what you'd call a sound investigation or valid criticism. If court cases were decided in a similar fashion to the OP's comments then courts would turn into a shouting match. A thorough, sober investigation of the facts should be done before attempting to attribute motivations, and maybe not even then. What truly matters is the outcome; was anyone hurt? were the uncertified parts found? is the system working to keep people safe? The motivations of the airline come in a distant second to those.