Originally Posted by
saunders111
Except the OP specifically reported that AA told them the delay was due to weather earlier in the airframe's schedule, post 170. So you are adding contradictory information to what was told us by the OP.
Anyway, I am not clear why you are pushing back on this. The OP was under a misapprehension that aircraft availability caused by weather earlier in its schedule was sufficient cause for AA to deny compensation. IanWorthington posted to correct this single misapprehension. I posted to confirm IanWorthington's understanding of the rules regarding equipment availability, and to provide a link to a source. Moving the goalposts to "acksherlly, despite what the OP stated, this flight was directly affected by weather because it was stormy at DFW" does not help with correcting the single misunderstanding regarding equipment availability stated twice by the OP.
iiuc isn't the onus on the operator to provide evidence to justify their claim rather than the passenger to refute it? If the frequency of disruptions caused by storms at a given airport is a normal event then it is, surely, not an abnormal event and a decision to delay rather than lease is then surely a commercial one?