Originally Posted by
mitchmu
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?
Given the troubled history of this program, none of this is really that surprising. It was almost expected some major issues would crop up. Major black mark for Boeing and well well into the future before the program is ever profitable. They were already at 1100 units to break even, before the grounding. Now that's probably pushed to min of 1500 units. Hopefully lessons learned on how NOT to manage a program.