I was not referring to their reliability (or lack thereof). I was referring to the fact that there seems to be this perception by many pilots that the 220 only works on long, thin routes and is not suitable for shorter flights. The reality is newer modern engines are always going to be better on longer flights because they are heavier and burn more fuel getting to altitude, but once there have much lower fuel burn. So minimizing time in climb and maximizing cruise time is the way they are the most efficient.

when we have relatively few aircraft with those engines it makes sense they will be concentrated on longer flights, but as we park older airframes there is no reason the 220 can’t do shorter flights. Also the same reason the 220 is not optimized for shorter flights applies to the NEO and max, so someone saying the 220 “doesn’t work” on short flights so we need to look at the max does not make much sense.

back to the 220 reliability problems, I’m somewhat surprised we are not mitigating our losses, at least for now, and converting remaining 223 orders to the 321NEO. We have 220s that are almost 25% through their expected life* and we are still having a ton of problems. At this point is it still “teething” or just a poor design?

*assuming a 30-35 year airframe life span