Didn’t the 1950s British aircraft industry tank with its Cosmo (not sure on the name) because the aircraft cycled many flights and developed airframe problems — resulting in large loss of life?
************************************
That was the DeHaveland Comet ... In addition to being a difficult aircraft to maintain with it’s engines buried in the wings , it suffered a series of explosive decompression airframe failures due to cracks developing in the skin round the windows which were rectangular and presented stress points at the corners instead of the oval rounded windows used by Boeing and others who had experience with high altitude pressurized aircraft beginning with the B29 and going forward...
In my opinion going with composite panels in an aluminum frame makes for a maintenance nightmare (remember these are the people that glue on the tail/empennage on their smaller models) and will only make whatever small number of planes they do build less valuable as scrap to the aluminum smelters.
Thanks for correcting/filling that in re the Comet. The more I learn, including that some of the smaller craft have glued on tails, the more I see the engineers are not in charge at Airbus. Jobs and politics first, passenger safety somewhere down the list.