Agreed and understood. But, if they choose this option, then the "higher risk of fire" issue is eliminated. That was my point. Alternately, they can push for a way of dealing with the fire risk on Lithium Ion batteries, but then the increased fear factor will remain for a longer period of time.

I also wonder what this is doing to insurance rates. Ultimately, it's the insurance companies that are on the hook for an adverse outcome that causes losses, right? So, they must be revising their risk models to account for the higher risk now demonstrated with Lithium Ion.

The increased risk premiums driven by increased risk will erode the cost benefit of the 787.

Sensible hypothesis?