Personally, I would not hesitate to fly on either plane. I hope this drives down demand, thus reducing air fares. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/5358589-ntsb-issues-urgent-safety-warning-over-certain-boeing-airbus-engines/

Typical news media hysteria tying aircraft manufacturers to any issue.

Honestly, I’d still fly on them too. These types of warnings are pretty common.

Leaving aside the manufacturer, the smoke and fumes inside the airplane (cockpit or cabin) it is a serious matter with high safety risks. Not something to be taken lightly, especially when it can lead to serious consequences and unfortunate crashes in some instances. 

 

All the airlines have extensive training in this kind of scenario (threat).

 

Because people are not familiar with this scenario and the implications, this does not fit the profile of media hysteria or common warnings; it poses a real threat to everyone on board.

 

The big question is, why not ground and fix this type of equipment (as they mentioned, only two airplanes) when authorities are well aware of the associated implications that, in most cases, have resulted in loss of life? Some know the answer to this. 

Edited June 19, 2025Jun 19 by LRBS

Personally, I don't think the LRD is the culprit, it's the failure of the bearings that can occur during the same type of catastrophic engine failures that would fracture the LRDs.  The failed bearing can leak oil into the engine core upstream of the bleed valve, putting smoke and oil mist into the bleed air that feeds it's respective AC pack. 

The LRDs are essentially mechanical shear points that disconnect the fan section from the turbine shaft to stop the severe vibration present with a fan disc imbalance.  I'd still rather have that safety feature than not, smoke notwithstanding.  And LRDs are not new--they're a design feature on a number of modern large high-bypass engines that have been in service for decades.

I think the recommended course is reasonable--highlight via bulletins and in crew training the newly-discovered risks associated with this mode of failure and the corrective action--oxygen masks on/100% and then promptly close the bleed valve on the catastrophically failed engine, especially if it's accompanied by smoke in the cockpit (left engine) or cabin (right engine), while Boeing adds and tests a software change that will automatically do the same thing.

The goal is reasonable risk mitigation, not complete risk elimination.  Risk "elimination" means just don't ever fly...there's always some risk.

8 hours ago, Fielder said:

Personally, I would not hesitate to fly on either plane. I hope this drives down demand, thus reducing air fares. 

https://thehill.com/homenews/5358589-ntsb-issues-urgent-safety-warning-over-certain-boeing-airbus-engines/

If anything, this would drive fares UP in the short term.

I just got off an A321Neo yesterday and will be returning via same on Sat.

I'm as unconcerned as when I got into my car for the drive to the airport.

1 hour ago, Bob Scott said:

I think the recommended course is reasonable--highlight via bulletins and in crew training the newly-discovered risks associated with this mode of failure and the corrective action--oxygen masks on/100% and then promptly close the bleed valve on the catastrophically failed engine, especially if it's accompanied by smoke in the cockpit (left engine) or cabin (right engine), while Boeing adds and tests a software change that will automatically do the same thing.

The goal is reasonable risk mitigation, not complete risk elimination.  Risk "elimination" means just don't ever fly...there's always some risk.

We have had this procedure for ages; nothing new here. There is no reasonable justification for issuing new bulletins or training when everything is already covered and proven to be effective. It's just for them to justify/cover that they did something. It's actually something very obvious that needs fixing related to these airplanes, rather than creating more problems for the airlines when they have already acknowledged the engine manufacturer. 

A thought, perhaps the reality?

@LRBS Well, it's the way of the hyperlitigious world now.  Truth be told, the existing critical action procedure for runaway trim on the 737 MAX was also well-incorporated into initial/recurrent training and when followed is sufficient to deal with a malfunctioning MCAS in addition to other causes of runaway trim, yet Boeing took it in the teeth for not having made special mention of MCAS after two crews failed to accomplish the runaway trim CAP and dug airplane-shaped holes in the dirt.

Hopefully at some point we'll see smoke detection right at the AC pack output...I know I've seen smoke from the packs from ingesting deicing fluid into the bleed air system before...not a threat, but nasty to breath just the same.  And smoke from a failure in the pack itself is also an occasional happening on a bunch of aircraft.  Using our noses to detect it seems suboptimal in the modern world of advanced sensors and automation.

 

 

2 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I just got off an A321Neo yesterday and will be returning via same on Sat.

I'm as unconcerned as when I got into my car for the drive to the airport.

It may or may not have a LEAP in that NEO, they also use PW1000G, either way I wouldn't worry either

1 hour ago, Matthew Kane said:

It may or may not have a LEAP in that NEO, they also use PW1000G, either way I wouldn't worry either

Yes, agree. The 321 isn't the 320, etc.

My point is that flying commercial aircraft remains one of the all time safest transport methods, especially with the rise in road rage and other poor driving practices etc.