Now that makes perfect sense as there is nowhere to land in the middle of the ocean when your airplane is on fire. Two limits being discussed in FAA. 1st is a two hour flight maximum and the other is a 5.5 hour maximum. Not going very far on either. Makes the fuel efficiency a moot point with no long haul service. Looks like the 70's to me in the short term. Once the airlines get some real flight time on the aircraft they can extend the Etops cert. Downward pressure for now and more cost to the company. Makes it hard to deliver an aircraft to Japan or other parts of the world. No delivery no checky.
Hard to believe they are just now reporting the ETOP's certification issue.
To get ETOPS certification, you have to be within range of reaching an airport if there is a need for and ESTOP(emergancy stop) until reliability is proven. It is possible that the old and new batteries are similiar enough that the existing ETOP testing will help grandfather it in on the new battery. Failure modes should be the similiar.
The battery in question is also required to start the engine! It would be hard for me to believe that the 787 does not have air restart capability just by using aircraft speed to generate the required turbine speed to affect engine start even if the battery falls out of the aircraft.
You're busted....ask Sully Sullenberger about landing in the ocean. If Boeing would just bolt pontoons onto the 787, it could land in the ocean or the polar snow cap. Of course, Boeing would probably outsource the work to Botswana Pontoon and Poison Dart Co. ( BPPD) and there would be another 3 year delivery delay because they used banana tree wood when they were contracted to use African Bonobo wood.
Not sure reporting a bunch of what ifs is real reporting. There are an infinite number of possibilities, but most are not newsworthy until they happen. More likely, since we're speculating, is if the FAA has any doubt as to the reliability of the fix, they will send it back to engineering rather than pass it for limited flights.