[atomicbeanie]

I think that is inaccurate. One fleet was grounded quickly. The 30 million Kevlar tank linings were underestimated in cost I think dramatically. As for profit, I am not sure the aircraft was ever a profit center. Any reasonable observer saw Non-recoverable Engineering Expenses that the company any could never recover from as a result of having to mitigate a new safety requirement onto an old aircraft that was never designed with modern standards in mind.

I think it is a very good example of how old systems continue to operate while the public believes they are up to modern standards. We see it in civil engineering now too. A bridge collapses in Pennsylvania and the public is told that over 1/3 of US bridges are outside of their designed life span and more expensive to fix than replace with municipalities that cannot afford to do either. The Concord was old and had what we call Tech Debt. It could not be made modern. Risk is just negative opportunity cost. When it crashed that debt was realized and the company had to write it down. One thing for sure is correct in your statement. It is about money driving the decisions, not engineering.

[pedrocr]

What is inaccurate? The accident happened in 2000 and the last flights were in 2003 by both airlines. What do you mean by one fleet being grounded quickly?

The exact motives for retiring the plane are hard to know. Safety almost surely played a part if nothing else by reducing demand. I was just correcting that you seemed to be saying the plane has been retired after the accident when it did in fact return to service.