This Airbus documents suggests a failure rate of of <1 per 100,000 flight hours [1]. (just an FYI, pretty increasing. 40 fold decrease since start of the jet li

This Airbus documents suggests a failure rate of of <1 per 100,000 flight hours [1]. (just an FYI, pretty increasing. 40 fold decrease since start of the jet liner era). I think the point he was trying to make is that while Boeing's actions clearly do not reduce the risk dangerous battery fire to zero, Boeing not only does not have to reduce it to zero, but really there should be no expectation that it be reduced to zero, given that we already fly accepting some sort of failure rate on the engine. This stems from the original posters implication that Boeing just used some sort of cheap hack fix so they could stem the deluge of bad PR and start making money again - with the further implication that the actions taken are a cheap hack fix since they clearly do not reduce risk to zero. [1] http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/safety_library_items/AirbusSafetyLib_-FLT_OPS-SUPP_TECH-SEQ07.pdf http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/safety_l...