The fact you are discussing an aircraft after it has been released to service proves his point.
Well it doesn't actually prove his point at all. The aircraft was the Nimrod, just because someone says, years after the fact, that an aircraft isn't airworthy doesn't mean it is so. Things move on, regulation changes, design tolerances change. I'm afraid 10s if not hundreds of thousands of flying hours suggest the aircraft was more than airworthy.
Thank you for pointing out that serviceability and airworthy are different, I'll say this once more - I KNOW! You and others need to accept that your views are different to ours. Some of us are prepared to accept that there is a risk in flying, that the evidence from another nation with 1000s of hours on type is sufficient. That your desire for 100% airworthiness, laudable though that is, would mean that NOTHING would EVER fly. You will never create a safety case that will cover every eventuality, it's just not possible.
It's pointless debating this any further with those not prepared to see a different viewpoint so I will leave this and all other airworthiness debates to a select few. I just hope the guys and girls on the RJ are enjoying flying the RAF version of the aircraft they have been flying on with the USAF for a few years. I'm off.