Curious if anyone knows: is Delta having trouble with the A220 fleet? I noticed upon arriving EWR last night that the A220 flight from DTW was cancelled. My flight was 2:25 late, mostly due to mechanical (APU, requiring a air start apparently all day). The same flight on Monday was cancelled, and apparently the afternoon A220 flight from MSP was cancelled on 7/17.

It's all anecdotal evidence, but I haven't personally had a Delta flight cancelled in ages, so this many cancels on one aircraft type raises my eyebrows.

ryanov wrote:

Curious if anyone knows: is Delta having trouble with the A220 fleet? I noticed upon arriving EWR last night that the A220 flight from DTW was cancelled. My flight was 2:25 late, mostly due to mechanical (APU, requiring a air start apparently all day). The same flight on Monday was cancelled, and apparently the afternoon A220 flight from MSP was cancelled on 7/17.

It's all anecdotal evidence, but I haven't personally had a Delta flight cancelled in ages, so this many cancels on one aircraft type raises my eyebrows.

It is a very interesting question.

There has to be a record of the dispatch reliability somewhere for the whole worldwide fleet. There are enough aircraft in-service today to have a meaningful statistics.

Possible teething at DL being a new type, but reliability has been above 98% for some and above 99% for others:

https://www.wingsoverquebec.com/?p=7855

I know at Swiss they go tech very often.

Word has it that they've actually been very reliable, particularly for a new type EIS.
The first year was a little rough, but the second year went much better, and remember- this is a NEW plane, not just a stretch of a 1980's design that is long since got the bugs worked out.

That said, an INOP APU shouldn't make the plane 2:25 late. Okay, you hook up the start cart during the turn, crank one engine before push, and go on with your life. Ten minutes added, maximum.
So I have to think that either some outstation couldn't find their start cart, or there were other issues, or a paperwork delay.
But, I don't have access to any proprietary data, so I'm just guessing.

AA737-823 wrote:

Word has it that they've actually been very reliable, particularly for a new type EIS.
The first year was a little rough, but the second year went much better, and remember- this is a NEW plane, not just a stretch of a 1980's design that is long since got the bugs worked out.

That said, an INOP APU shouldn't make the plane 2:25 late. Okay, you hook up the start cart during the turn, crank one engine before push, and go on with your life. Ten minutes added, maximum.
So I have to think that either some outstation couldn't find their start cart, or there were other issues, or a paperwork delay.
But, I don't have access to any proprietary data, so I'm just guessing.

I doubt every out station has an air starter. They could have to get one from an fbo or another airline

DL717 wrote:

Possible teething at DL being a new type, but reliability has been above 98% for some and above 99% for others:

https://www.wingsoverquebec.com/?p=7855

runway23 wrote:

I know at Swiss they go tech very often.

Two incredibly different views

Most of the talk around the forum the past few years has been about the engines having problems. But once airlines seem to know how to deal with the issues, not unlike the a320neo, dispatch reliability as stated in the link has been pretty high.

I wonder if down the line we will still be saying "it's OK! It is a new plane!" or whether it will go like Jet Blue's E190s.
I know A.netters are mostly fond and big fans of the C-Series/A220s. I also know that there's a certain amount of hatred for those (mainly because of the old subsidies which BD used to get to actually run the project plus the famed Delta Order).
I would take those aside and look for the reason of those issues in an isolated way.

On this, I would be eager to see further data from Delta as well as what any other airline can present in regards to performance. This will take a bit of time given that there are quite good level of orders but they are not yet significantly fulfilled.

Something to keep an eye out for certain.

Also, runway23 should delelop more on his statement of the fact that the Swiss ones are going tech often.

runway23 wrote:

I know at Swiss they go tech very often.

Further details and source, please!

If there are facts, those may be quite relevant for all. If no facts but only talk, then maybe we should consider before making a bold statement as yours that the A220s on Swiss colours are going pop way too often.

Air Baltic have made follow up orders and are going single type on their fleet >> they are delighted
Delta have made substantial follow up orders >> they are very happy with how it is at the moment

Lufthansa group haven't really made follow up orders >> maybe not quite so happy.

While runway23 does not produce a source - what they say does fit in with what we see in the orderbook. [Oh and folks should appreciate that sometimes other posters cannot produce sources as they don't exist and cannot add too much factual information to any statement without risking being identified. What if runway23 was working in MX for Swiss?]

According to this article, it has 99.85% dispatch reliability, which seems pretty good at least compared to other aircraft:
https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/airbalt ... ecks-a220/

Swiss also reported that it had "much higher" reliability than other new aircraft and cited the A380, A320neo and 787 (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220) but then again that was just one month after it entered service. I fly the Swiss A220s often, as do other family members (twice weekly) and I can't remember a flight being cancelled due to problems with the actual aircraft though delays are frequent; whether this is due to short turnaround, something else or indeed problems with the aircraft I don't know.

ryanov wrote:

Curious if anyone knows: is Delta having trouble with the A220 fleet? I noticed upon arriving EWR last night that the A220 flight from DTW was cancelled. My flight was 2:25 late, mostly due to mechanical (APU, requiring a air start apparently all day). The same flight on Monday was cancelled, and apparently the afternoon A220 flight from MSP was cancelled on 7/17.

It's all anecdotal evidence, but I haven't personally had a Delta flight cancelled in ages, so this many cancels on one aircraft type raises my eyebrows.

As a side note, I wouldn't go by any operational metrics for any of the NYC airports, DTW, or MSP from the past few days, as the weather has been a mess at all of those airports. I was at DTW on Tuesday night when everyone in the airport got a flash flood warning on their phones, and then again at DTW last night, and the flights to the NYC airports (and BOS) were all super delayed, if not canceled.

32andBelow wrote:

AA737-823 wrote:

Word has it that they've actually been very reliable, particularly for a new type EIS.
The first year was a little rough, but the second year went much better, and remember- this is a NEW plane, not just a stretch of a 1980's design that is long since got the bugs worked out.

That said, an INOP APU shouldn't make the plane 2:25 late. Okay, you hook up the start cart during the turn, crank one engine before push, and go on with your life. Ten minutes added, maximum.
So I have to think that either some outstation couldn't find their start cart, or there were other issues, or a paperwork delay.
But, I don't have access to any proprietary data, so I'm just guessing.

I doubt every out station has an air starter. They could have to get one from an fbo or another airline

Almost every station has some sort of air start machine, either a huffer cart or a bottle. If a station had a start machine that was broken, SOC would know it and not route an INOP APU aircraft to said station.

jghealey wrote:

According to this article, it has 99.85% dispatch reliability, which seems pretty good at least compared to other aircraft:
https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/airbalt ... ecks-a220/

Swiss also reported that it had "much higher" reliability than other new aircraft and cited the A380, A320neo and 787 (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbus_A220) but then again that was just one month after it entered service. I fly the Swiss A220s often, as do other family members (twice weekly) and I can't remember a flight being cancelled due to problems with the actual aircraft though delays are frequent; whether this is due to short turnaround, something else or indeed problems with the aircraft I don't know.

Thank you for links.

My understanding is that fixes are going out and fleet reliability is dramatically improving. So we need to compare different time frames.

From what I'm hearing, we are about 18 months out from it being the most reliable narrowbody. It isn't today, but it doesn't seem to have the persisting issues the E-Jets have. But until all the fixes are installed, some examples have issues, including known engine issues that Pratt just cannot make the replacement parts fast enough. There are a few more reliability PiPs.

As a heavy software run aircraft, it is entering the stage where reliability just gets (slowly) better and better. Now that the plane is more reliable, the pace will slow as much more regression testing will be done to ensure a fix is an improvement without a nuisance bug that worsens dispatch reliability.

As to orders, I agree they are a great indicator. However, LH group is taking a pause on narrowbody orders. If by year end 2020 they haven't topped off, I would suspect an issue.

New customers are demanding in service data. If orders come in, that is a good sign. Air France and Spirit are looking. Let us see.

Lightsaber

AA737-823 wrote:

That said, an INOP APU shouldn't make the plane 2:25 late. Okay, you hook up the start cart during the turn, crank one engine before push, and go on with your life. Ten minutes added, maximum.
So I have to think that either some outstation couldn't find their start cart, or there were other issues, or a paperwork delay.
But, I don't have access to any proprietary data, so I'm just guessing.

The first officer was talking about it to a gate agent. Said they had required 2 air starts so far and that both times it had taken well longer than was reasonable. Ours didn't seem to, but the plane started the day an hour late and it never got any better. There also seemed to be some weather that added time in the air all day. The previous points were LGA and IAH.

Cory6188 wrote:

ryanov wrote:

I was at DTW on Tuesday night when everyone in the airport got a flash flood warning on their phones, and then again at DTW last night, and the flights to the NYC airports (and BOS) were all super delayed, if not canceled.

I was in a bar in downtown Minneapolis for that waiting out my delayed flight. We got one there too. That was some rain.

lightsaber wrote:

jghealey wrote:

It isn't today, but it doesn't seem to have the persisting issues the E-Jets have.

E-Jets dispatch reliability is outstanding currently. There are no persisting issues. Currently it is at 99.52% for worldwide fleet.

https://airinsight.com/will-embraers-e- ... to-the-e2/

AA737-823 wrote:

Word has it that they've actually been very reliable, particularly for a new type EIS.
The first year was a little rough, but the second year went much better, and remember- this is a NEW plane, not just a stretch of a 1980's design that is long since got the bugs worked out.

That said, an INOP APU shouldn't make the plane 2:25 late. Okay, you hook up the start cart during the turn, crank one engine before push, and go on with your life. Ten minutes added, maximum.
So I have to think that either some outstation couldn't find their start cart, or there were other issues, or a paperwork delay.
But, I don't have access to any proprietary data, so I'm just guessing.

Yesterday’s weather in the east was a real pain, groundbstops everywhere, edicts and reroutes, etc.
Not a good night in ops.

Intetesting how SWISS can be quoted as having higher reliability on other aircraft namely rhe A380 and B787, when they operate neither aircraft! And the A320NEO has only just been delivered!
Fake news or alternate facts????

Does FAA require airlines to record any delay?
If so, is it a public information?

eirflot wrote:

Intetesting how SWISS can be quoted as having higher reliability on other aircraft namely rhe A380 and B787, when they operate neither aircraft! And the A320NEO has only just been delivered!
Fake news or alternate facts????

Swiss don't have any A320neos either.

eirflot wrote:

Intetesting how SWISS can be quoted as having higher reliability on other aircraft namely rhe A380 and B787, when they operate neither aircraft! And the A320NEO has only just been delivered!
Fake news or alternate facts????

They're part of the Lufthansa Group which operates the A380 and A320neo so will have a decent insight into the reliability of those types and I'm sure airlines are able to access reliabilty data more freely than most of us are

Anecdotally I've heard that the reliability at DL isn't good yet. It has its quirks that will need to be ironed out over time. Even without official stats that would align with the apparent ontime struggles.

MSPNWA wrote:

Anecdotally I've heard that the reliability at DL isn't good yet. It has its quirks that will need to be ironed out over time. Even without official stats that would align with the apparent ontime struggles.

If DL indeed has some issues, what's the difference with Swiss or Air Baltic?
Is DL's operation more demanding?

VV wrote:

If DL indeed has some issues, what's the difference with Swiss or Air Baltic?
Is DL's operation more demanding?

That's what's strange. If what Swiss/Air Baltic is reporting is truly that good, I don't know why that wouldn't translate to other carriers.

I've only ever used the BTS data for historical tail numbers, but theoretically there's some delay data there. I forget whether they give a reason code or what have you.

MSPNWA wrote:

VV wrote:

If DL indeed has some issues, what's the difference with Swiss or Air Baltic?
Is DL's operation more demanding?

That's what's strange. If what Swiss/Air Baltic is reporting is truly that good, I don't know why that wouldn't translate to other carriers.

Well Europe is a milder climate that most of the US with generally less heat and humidity. That can effect things, especially in regards to engine reliability/robustness. See how things have been with Indian operators of PW powered A320neos versus European operators for example.

ryanov wrote:

Cory6188 wrote:

ryanov wrote:

I was at DTW on Tuesday night when everyone in the airport got a flash flood warning on their phones, and then again at DTW last night, and the flights to the NYC airports (and BOS) were all super delayed, if not canceled.

I was in a bar in downtown Minneapolis for that waiting out my delayed flight. We got one there too. That was some rain.

I managed to miss that storm system, live 75 ish miles south in Rochester. But i did get to watch a bunch of diversions on approach to RST. I actually didn't realize how bad it was up in the twin cities until I was sitting on my deck enjoying nice weather and a bunch of big planes were flying low overhead on approach (they were A320s and B737s so big compared to normal RST 50-76 regionals).

Side note - RST will get wide bodies every now and then but not commercial. Mayo Clinic will get some very very rich VIP patients who fly their private jets in. It's super fun watching them get a jet bridge from CRJ900 height to wide body height.

Polot wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

VV wrote:

If DL indeed has some issues, what's the difference with Swiss or Air Baltic?
Is DL's operation more demanding?

That's what's strange. If what Swiss/Air Baltic is reporting is truly that good, I don't know why that wouldn't translate to other carriers.

Well Europe is a milder climate that most of the US with generally less heat and humidity. That can effect things, especially in regards to engine reliability/robustness. See how things have been with Indian operators of PW powered A320neos versus European operators for example.

Basically you are saying the C Series is good for Canada and Europe. Is that right?

Crew time out issues also add to the problem. Especially last night and the night before. I’m on an A220 now and awaiting the arrival of our pilots.

VV wrote:

Polot wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

That's what's strange. If what Swiss/Air Baltic is reporting is truly that good, I don't know why that wouldn't translate to other carriers.

Well Europe is a milder climate that most of the US with generally less heat and humidity. That can effect things, especially in regards to engine reliability/robustness. See how things have been with Indian operators of PW powered A320neos versus European operators for example.

Basically you are saying the C Series is good for Canada and Europe. Is that right?

I don’t know, I don’t have reliability data. I’m just providing a reason why airline A’s experience with an aircraft may differ from airline’s B.

VV wrote:

Does FAA require airlines to record any delay?
If so, is it a public information?

There's a CFR for that! https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/234.4

Data are available in the aggregate by carrier, by airport, by airport by hour, and for individual flights for the last month.

https://www.bts.gov/topics/airlines-and ... cellations

MIflyer12 wrote:

VV wrote:

Does FAA require airlines to record any delay?
If so, is it a public information?

There's a CFR for that! https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/234.4

Data are available in the aggregate by carrier, by airport, by airport by hour, and for individual flights for the last month.

https://www.bts.gov/topics/airlines-and ... cellations

Interesting.

I would not spend time on it, but I guess anyone who really wants to know can know.

I doubt every out station has an air starter. They could have to get one from an fbo or another airline

The stations DL currently sends the A220 generally have them.

MSPNWA wrote:

VV wrote:

If DL indeed has some issues, what's the difference with Swiss or Air Baltic?
Is DL's operation more demanding?

That's what's strange. If what Swiss/Air Baltic is reporting is truly that good, I don't know why that wouldn't translate to other carriers.

But that is the whole problem with this thread. We have an anecdote about an APU problem that may or may not have caused the 2+ hour delay on that frame. Then we hear that another EWR inbound was cancelled on a day when both the origin and destination of that trip had weather. The OP asked whether this is evidence of a problem, and then you said there are "anecdotes" that there is a problem. How we could then somehow use this information to make a comparison to Swiss or Air Baltic is beyond me.

What we do know is that Midwestern and Northeastern weather has been terrible this week, and that the A220 fleet is overwhelmingly exposed to these areas. The 11-daily LGA to IAH/DFW roundtrips probably burn up half the current fleet of 18 airplanes' block hours. Bottom line is that there are too many variables to see a pattern here.

What is good? From what I can find, 99.7% or 99.8% is now expected, but airlines seem to want 99.8%.


737NG 99.7%
http://naviganti.org/esteri/boeing-opti ... liability/

Boeing notes goal of 99.8% for MAX
https://airwaysmag.com/industry/boeing- ... -10x-loom/

Bombardier 99.8% for business jets.


https://www.bombardier.com/content/dam/ ... 0PROOF.pdf


[url][/url]

GmvAfcs wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

jghealey wrote:

It isn't today, but it doesn't seem to have the persisting issues the E-Jets have.

E-Jets dispatch reliability is outstanding currently. There are no persisting issues. Currently it is at 99.52% for worldwide fleet.

https://airinsight.com/will-embraers-e- ... to-the-e2/

The above link notes the Q400 has a 99.5% dispatch reliability. As the Q400 has a poor dispatch reliability reputation, it appears the bar is very high.

I found at... another site... a quote that LH expects minimum 99.8% reliability. True or not, that implies an incredibly high bar.

At 99.85%, per my estimate, only one backup aircraft is required for 35 opperating aircraft. I assumed a penalty of $500 per passenger for seat counts of 186 (LCC) and compared to the cost of maintaining and financing an aircraft. About $350k (new) to lease and $150k to keep it opperating. At 0% dispatch, a cost of $18M per aircraft per month assuming 6.5 flights per aircraft per day.
At 99.8% costs = $36,270 per month per aircraft.
At 99.5% costs= $90,625 per month per aircraft

Yes, I did an A320 sized for assumption.

Since aircraft recover after a missed dispatch (repaired), I multiplied $500k/cost per aircraft*2.5 to find the break even.

For the EJet, one spare per 14.

Obviously cheaper to used very used spare aircraft.

So it would be facinating to know the number for the A220.

Scale for A220 costs, about $280k month plus $135k (my best guess), per opperating plane:
99.8% would cost $23,468 per month for standby ac
99.5% would cost $58,667 per month for standby ac


Or roughly the difference of $35k per month per aircraft in this size range for a 0.3% difference in dispatch reliability.

This is why EIS at Winderoe and AirBaltic dispatch reliability was touted for the E2 and A220-300.

engine dispatch reliability, meaning availability, on A320neo is 99.9%, on A220 99.8%, and on E190-E2 100%.
From
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthomp ... 2579607e94

Basically, one assumes half the missed dispatches are due to the engines.
So engine dispatch on the A320 of 99.9% is airframe of 99.8% (estimated). A little better than what I read for Pratt engines.

The 99.8% on the A220 implies 99.6% in service for the A220. Hmm... Needs to improve.

Note, above link was during the spectacularly good EIS of the E2-190. Embraer insists on different nacelle design (for E2, and newer business jets, not E1-190) that in my opinion should improve dispatch reliability (e.g., easier to keep reliable anti-ice interfaces).

Lightsaber

I’m gonna push back on that description a little bit. The information about my flight — 1658 on the 16th, if anyone cares — came directly from the FO. First flight started with a 1 hour delay (from having looked it up) and it lost more time through the day, and the FO mentioned two instances where the air cart was involved. Of course that’s only one mechanical failure. We were told before departing that weather would slow us down a bit, but it only impacted us 10 minutes ultimately. I asked the airline and they never mentioned weather, which they often do when they are able.

There is no “problem” with this thread, it was an honest question. I’ve noticed a lot of cancellations in a relatively short span, is it the plane? That’s all. I know there has been a lot of weather, but there is often a lot of weather, And again, I fly the airline and off a lot and can’t think more than once or twice that I have had a flight canceled. That’s not proof of anything, but it made me ask the question.

You could have three adjacent gates fail on the same day, and that could just be a coincidence. I don’t have the answer, which is why I asked the question. Maybe no one else here does either.

Cory6188 wrote:

ryanov wrote:

Curious if anyone knows: is Delta having trouble with the A220 fleet? I noticed upon arriving EWR last night that the A220 flight from DTW was cancelled. My flight was 2:25 late, mostly due to mechanical (APU, requiring a air start apparently all day). The same flight on Monday was cancelled, and apparently the afternoon A220 flight from MSP was cancelled on 7/17.

It's all anecdotal evidence, but I haven't personally had a Delta flight cancelled in ages, so this many cancels on one aircraft type raises my eyebrows.

As a side note, I wouldn't go by any operational metrics for any of the NYC airports, DTW, or MSP from the past few days, as the weather has been a mess at all of those airports. I was at DTW on Tuesday night when everyone in the airport got a flash flood warning on their phones, and then again at DTW last night, and the flights to the NYC airports (and BOS) were all super delayed, if not canceled.

We're talki g about Dispatch reliability of the airplane aren't we? So? The ambient weather has Nothing to do with this. If the Airplane was good to go? Then the weather can't change the Mechanical reliability unless the airplane was hit by Lightning or got flooded due TO the rain. And those? are Weather delays!!0











?








'

In theory, the new designs with greater diagnosis capabilities should lead to improved dispatch reliability.

But it will likely take a few years for those systems to mature to the point where they are clearly providing an advantage relative to legacy designs (which themselves have already matured to reliability).

Jomar777 wrote:

runway23 wrote:

I know at Swiss they go tech very often.

Further details and source, please!

If there are facts, those may be quite relevant for all. If no facts but only talk, then maybe we should consider before making a bold statement as yours that the A220s on Swiss colours are going pop way too often.

A direct comparison from GVA base prior to and after going from 319/320 to CS1/CS3.

It's rare you don't have a day that goes by without 1 going having problems. Often related to software issues (for example an APU being unplugged too early will mean at least an hour before the aircraft properly reboots as for some reason the computers don't always reboot correctly and the step has to be repeated 1-5 times).

It's not really a surprise that last summer with a base of 7 aircraft LX kept 1 spare and this summer with a base of 10 aircraft there are 2 spare. There are other factors such as ATC that obviously call for a 2nd spare aircraft, but reliability is the main one. It does seem to be improving though.

ryanov wrote:

I’m gonna push back on that description a little bit. The information about my flight — 1658 on the 16th, if anyone cares — came directly from the FO. First flight started with a 1 hour delay (from having looked it up) and it lost more time through the day, and the FO mentioned two instances where the air cart was involved. Of course that’s only one mechanical failure. We were told before departing that weather would slow us down a bit, but it only impacted us 10 minutes ultimately. I asked the airline and they never mentioned weather, which they often do when they are able.

There is no “problem” with this thread, it was an honest question. I’ve noticed a lot of cancellations in a relatively short span, is it the plane? That’s all. I know there has been a lot of weather, but there is often a lot of weather, And again, I fly the airline and off a lot and can’t think more than once or twice that I have had a flight canceled. That’s not proof of anything, but it made me ask the question.

You could have three adjacent gates fail on the same day, and that could just be a coincidence. I don’t have the answer, which is why I asked the question. Maybe no one else here does either.

Ryanov-

Sorry I totally didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't have asked the question, and I think it is a good one. I was instead suggesting that people shouldn't pile on speculation as the answer to a question. As someone who used to work in the airline industry, all new airplanes have a learning curve, and we all take time learning the quirks of a jet and the quick ways to fix them. And example being that on the DC-10, there was this button next to (I think) door 2L marked "Pax Aux Muc". If the lighted button was not illuminated, passengers would have no audio for the video. If you ended up with an all new hire crew, it would take like an hour to look through the manual to figure out the button trick. I have no clue why the default of that system didn't have "Pax Aux Muc"on, but it didn't! I have a hunch that things might be similar with the 220. But I don't know - so that is why I made the point about speculation.

Something I noticed on both flights is that the crew seemed older than usual. A small sample size, but would there be a reason that more senior crews would be on these planes?

ryanov wrote:

Something I noticed on both flights is that the crew seemed older than usual. A small sample size, but would there be a reason that more senior crews would be on these planes?

I do not know the payrates but I bet the routes are short enough you can get home at night and for older pilots close to retirement they want to have a family life.

That would be the generous interpretation. There are, of course, other reasons for insuring more experienced crews in DL's new chouchou.

Pilots bid the aircraft, Delta doesn't assign them to it.

I briefly looked at the schedules for N116DU, N117DU, N118DU and N119DU on Flightradar24 and it appears greater than 30% of flights are significantly delayed and/or cancelled. Being based in DFW with lots of recent flights between me and my husband, we have found over 1/2 of our A220 flights have been delayed more than an hour and/or aircraft swaps have happened. I hope they get the reliability up significantly because I really like this plane.

GmvAfcs wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

jghealey wrote:

It isn't today, but it doesn't seem to have the persisting issues the E-Jets have.

E-Jets dispatch reliability is outstanding currently. There are no persisting issues. Currently it is at 99.52% for worldwide fleet.

https://airinsight.com/will-embraers-e- ... to-the-e2/

99.52% is not outstanding. The A220 has issues at 99.85%. Today's expectations is better than that. Not much, but better.

My sister was recently hit by the software reboot bug where it took the pilots and mechanics 75 minutes to get an E1-175 flying again.


The E2s seem to be outstanding for dispatch reliability. As Pratt fixes software, seals, and the combustor, the engine contribution to missed dispatches will be low.

Lightsaber

I've been on 4 A220 flights at this point -- still a small sample size. At least half of them were over an hour late. I believe both of the other two were as on time as any other type of equipment, but both were the 6:00a out of EWR to MSP (I believe that's the first trip of the day for the aircraft).

New thread, related:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1441801