They also substantiate the idea that the United 777-200 fleet does face an uncertain future.
Personally I'd be a lot more interested in the cause(s) of the failure and how it was handled.
A literally true sentence which falsely implies a correlation between events.
Discussion of the 777-200's economic viability has nothing to do with the Dulles incident.
Then there’s a whole paragraph stating “The Boeing 777-200 is not an unsafe airplane. As far as I can tell, that is not the issue even after the incident over Dulles over the weekend.”
Then just in case the reader jumped to conclusions, the first sentence of the conclusion again says it’s safe.
> just in case the reader jumped to conclusions
The author is correcting a problem of his own creation. He has already misled the reader with his headline. He means for the reader to misunderstand... and click.
The last pure Boeing product before the merger with McDonnell Douglas…
True, but they do keep the even older 757 flying.
The engine did not explode. It suffered an engine failure when the fan blades failed and separated but was a contained failure.
:shrug:
It's not hard to notice there are other major airlines that generally maintain newer widebody fleets.
The B777 is probably the safest, most meticulously engineered commercial wide-body aircraft ever built.
They're also getting old, and airlines retire old aircraft.