Originally Posted by
Turbine D
Unlike some of the posters that imply that only the stockholders, investors, regulators and potential customers be satisfied, I believe the users, the paying passengers besides the flight crews also need to be completely assured of the safety after a near catastrophic event, such as this one, that occurred.
I can assure you that stockholders have no extra information for their satisfaction that hasn't already been posted here. Big investors - maybe, but I suspect not, they are interested in finance not engineering anyway.
As to assurances, as pax, yes they would be nice, but I'd rather they didn't bother assuring me that the issue was fixed if, in fact, it isn't. From what's been discussed on this often fascinating thread, I'm not sure it is fixed, yet.
With an investor hat on, I think my biggest concern would be that even if the current AD regime has plugged the safety gap, how are RR making a profit on PBH contract on an engine that only does 70 cycles on the wing ? If the engine is safe but it and its contracts become a financial millstone round RR's neck, then it's no better for the company.