@ romulus
Fix it or Replace it.
Interesting consumer attitude!- so you consider it quite normal to buy a "rigorously" tested developed and certified bit of kit and then be expected to shell out cuntinuously on a component that doesn't make even 10% of it's anticipated life and then have to put your massive,costly investment on hold indefinitely.
To think Ralph Nader risked all to protect "mugs" with that outlook!
His book "unsafe at any speed" should be compulsory reading.
Bean counters decided that releasing a defective product would be more cost-effective after paying victim "hush-money" than the ethical and moral way forward, to engineer a safe product.
Areal sense of Deja Vu , here, Sir,It has nothing to do with HINDSIGHT.
A building burnt down during development....there was,IIRC, an on-board "event" during development. The technology's drawbacks are well -known among mainstream users...Boeing/Thates?planesecure between them managed to gain (self) certification on a system which doesn't work.
the 50 currently laid-up are very expensive"field-trial guinea-pigs"
There was a distinct lack of forward-planning by Boeing "suits" for a fallback -position WHEN or if, they got caught with their pants down
As things stand, a lot of people' livelihoods are at stake because of this poor decision-making.
I've no doubt the technology CAN be made to work sucessfully and meet a (downgraded) performance spec'.
monitoring/charging/bus interfaces. that's the problem area.
the intrigueing question is WHY