I think that BA/Boeing/RR need to respond quickly. There seems to be a groundswell of (Albeit uninformed) public opinion developing that until the problems are clarified and resolved, better to avoid the 777. This was "explained" to me as follows: "If the chances of such a random event are remote, statistics dictate that it could happen again today. In the meantime, I prefer to fly 4 engined planes." Never mind that this is not PEK in winter.
The old adage that "Because they don't make em with 6" comes to mind?
You know, there is a kind of logic to this and the markrting gurus need to respond.
I don't think It's usual for Airlines to comment while an investigation is ongoing unless it's in answer to media questions. In fact BA did answer questions soon after the event.
As far as technical action is concerned airlines and engineers don't wait for investigations to report before taking steps to try to prevent another event whether the incident is their own or another airline.
In this case fuel was such an obvious common denominator steps would have been taken to focus on fuel and fuel systems servicing and maintenance and repair and their operation by the crew.
Safety information is shared in the aviation community, no one would want airlines to compete on the basis of safety records because the two are not compatible.
It's what the travelling public would expect and it's what they get.
As far as marketing gurus are concerned airlines don't overtly market safety. Safety statistics are around if people want to look.