Originally Posted by
sailingfun
Your right, I would not call 95% dispatch reliability very poor for a airliner. I would call it horrendous! I also only pulled one quote I read about the airframe. If all our fleets ran at 95% we would collapse overnight as a airline. Keep in mind this is a airframe that has been in service 3 years. Teething problems should be behind it.
If we only operated the A220, we could still be close to AA's performance.
Remember the 787 battery fires? The first delivery was in 2011 and the groundings didn't start until 2013 and those aircraft ended up flat out grounded for months.
Sure it has been "in service" for 3 years, but not widespread service. As notEnuf touched on, we are probably the first operator to really operate this aircraft like a normal airline does. Sure the reliability needs to improve, but you seem to think this aircraft was in widespread service and high rate production for those three years, which is wasn't.
It's not that it doesn't need to improve, but a single statement from Ed that he wants to see better numbers doesn't mean we are unhappy with the airframe.
As far as the engines go, the A320NEOs are having similar issues and even one of the 787 engine options has such a low TBO and production rate combined that at one point half of the airframes with that engine option were grounded just for lack of engines and that problem is still ongoing. And that is an aircraft that has been in service for 8 years!
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-r...-idUSKBN1W50MP
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/...-problems-787/
https://www.godsavethepoints.com/rol...10-dreamliner/
In short, this feels more like a double standard. While the A220 needs improvement to meet our goals, it is nowhere near the level of being a lemon at this point in time.