I would not hesitate and would give it a preferential selection if available. From what I have read much of the flying public feels the same way as 787 passenger loads run higher on comparable routes. Of course I have been wrong in the past. I went out of my way to fly DC-10's before the cargo door fiasco. I got a kick out of watching Air France pilots on an A-320, one reading the manual, then watching as the other punched some buttons, shook his head and the first went back to reading. This went on for like a half hour beyond departure time until there was a VOILA! moment and we departed. That was in the days before locked cockpit doors and by sitting in the first row aisle seat you could get to see what was going on in the cockpit. I read in the pilots forum how one expert says the 787 fuselage is more flammable than gasoline while another says exactly the opposite. That is what is really scary - whom to believe. They also talk about a hull burn through but the people analyzing the structure at Heathrow say there was no burn through. That aluminum is not a problem in a fire - one only needs look at the 777 at SFO to realize that aluminum does not do well in a fire, and that damage was done with fire crews on hand pouring foam on the structure within 2 minutes of the plane coming to rest and before the crew realized there was an engine fire.