Well, I wouldn't be too happy to board it when they had a pilot shortage, since I wouldn't be going anywhere.

With the fuel imbalance though? Sure. It would be quite inconvenient to spend two hours in flight only to end up back where I started, but if you're suggesting there was some imminent danger to the passengers, you're mistaken. Aircraft are tested and certified to fly with significant fuel imbalance; the turn-back is out of caution since it could get worse over the course of a long flight.

This incident would be nothing more than a boring tech log entry if there wasn't an influencer and some upset politicians involved.

So the actual pilots (presumably western aircrew) decide, twice, enroute, that it's unsafe to continue a transatlantic flight with this airframe, and you want to argue that this airframe is safe for said type of flights, warranting "nothing more than a boring tech log entry". I'm curious about why you would take such a contrarian, nay, even callous, stance?

> I'm curious about why you would take such a contrarian, nay, even callous, stance?

It might be because of actual experience in the aviation industry, rather than just experience reading articles about aviation incidents that amp up safety issues because that's what the public loves to read.

If you want to ground all aircraft which have returned to their departure point twice, you will be grounding every single aircraft older than a few years. So what exactly are you trying to say?

Do you actually have aviation industry experience?

A commercial airframe with trip-aborting issues on multiple flights within a short timeframe implies severe maintenance process issues or design issues, or both. Gains in commercial flight safety are written in blood. JT610 is one case in point.

Like I said, callous.

  Would you be happy to board this plane knowing that it had these issues?

… had what issues?