The article says that for the repair, Boeing fabricated a complete new fuselage barrel, and then cut it to pieces to make a new patch. That just seems so wrong.
I trust they already looked at it in lots of detail, but I would think the smarter repair would be:
- Cut out a few test pieces from the burnt section. Test them to see how much strength was lost (and I expect it would really not be that much).
- Make a temporary patch to bring up the strength to the necessary level (if needed at all).
- Fly an unpressurized flight back to the factory (to reduce the stresses on the body and patch). Can you imagine if Boeing was able to fly the airplane back to the factory (even if unpressurized) with little or no repair work done first? That would really impress people with the strength of Boeing's "plastic body".
- Replace the whole barrel in the factory.
Maybe the above method would cost a little more, but you would have an airplane just as good as brand new. Just as strong, with no weight penalty, and no risk of any future "de-patching" problems.
But now, with the "patch" everyone will be looking at this airplane as "damaged goods" and just waiting for the top to pop off at altitude.
I think this airplane is a great candidate for a new paint job and a creative advertising company to market their stop-smoking products (patch).