Arguably though, the MD-11 passenger version was a bust. Now only KLM operates it and they're getting rid of them in favour of more efficient aircraft.
The key word in that is "arguably" and it all depends on ones definition of bust. It did not sell a large number of copies, but the reason for that is that the time for tri-jets was already waning by the time the MD-11 came out, and the reason for tr-jets was pretty much going away. So I am not sure the issue was technical or passenger impression or anything like that, which was alleged for the "failure" of the DC-10. MD-11 was actually more of a creature of Mac-Dac's inability at that point to invest in a true next gen jumbo than anything else. It was sot of Mac-Dac's version of what Airbus originally tried to do in the way of the 350, before they redid the project after getting a swift kick or two from some of their larger customers.
Airlines will continue to buy and operate this efficient plane, but these media report will like undermine ridership, even though most people have no idea what type of plane they are flying on.
My bet is unless one crashes and burns there will be zero effect on anything from media reports. Afterall it is not only the experts who laugh at some of the silly things that appear in the media these days. And non-experts do not bother to read anything that takes more than three cells of the brain to comprehend.
So no. There will be zero effect.
I can understand the 747 developmental problems, considering how large the aircraft was compared to anything previously built. I know the 787 is supposed to have revolutionary features, but the 747 only took four years from launch to introduction compared to eight years for the 787.
In some sense the 787s development problems had three components
(a) Technical: Using complete fuselage barrels that are fabricated as a single unit. This is a first for such a large fuselage, and the technology for it had to be developed. In addition designing a totally "electric" plane with no use of bleed air for pressurization etc. The roots of the battery problems lie in this latter technical innovation.
(b) Organization: Extensive outsourcing and management of supply chains that come with it.
© Managerial: Chaos in Boeing executive suite specially in the early phases.
All three conspired to create quite a mess for a while and hence the extraordinary amount of time that it took to get things to settle down.
My idle hypothesis also is that Boeing was struggling for its existence when it was developing the 747, having way overcommitted themselves based on a promise of orders from Juan Tripp. So they were much more focused on building the thing, and were not involved in interesting latter day organizational experiments. Which made the progress of that particular project the centerpiece of their existence.
In contrast, the 787 was yet another project, albeit large. They felt comfortable enough to experiment with revolutionary logistical changes some of which worked and some did not. And at no time were they under any threat of going bankrupt. This caused them to be less focused and all over the place. The results are self-evident.
