Everything can be fine with the tolerances when the part was manufactured, but some parts deform a bit with use, including the wings (which also deform somewhat during use).

I will say this--its obviously not ideal to be delayed 24 hours to get to your destination but I'm pleased with how DL handled this. Granted, I was on the phone as the plane hit the gate in ATL and it was three hours of phone conversations, but I think DL in IRROPS for a Diamond is a good standard, in general. Even if EU261 was an option here, I'm not sure I'd press for it.

In addition to the hotel here in ATL, a re-route and overbooking to Z class because Y was full, they've already issued 30k miles as an apology. Things happen, yokes or otherwise, and I'm grateful to the JV Desk Supervisor last night who worked tirelessly to get me there, extend my trip by a day and try her best to make up for the hassle.

You did well and I admire your reticence to further demand EC261 compensation. At times with TWA/PMNW/DL I too haven't pursued potential additional compensation when I felt that I was treated very well given the circumstances. I know some people here would disagree, but to me this is only decent and honorable behavior.

Well, that alone makes it worth it, unless, of curse, you missed a specific day in Europe where you had to do something, hopefully not a cruise, or something you can't rebook.

That said - you never said what your final destination is. Inquing minds wanna know! :) No pressure!

Final destination is EBB! Entebbe is served once daily via Kigali on KLM. Missing that flight requires an additional stop in NBO and KGL (at times) and can arrive as much as 16 hours delayed. From previous experience and given I would've had to take a second overnight flight, hanging in ATL with the guarantee of nicer seats is a win in my book.

Wings are a bit different from a yoke, as the wings generate the force that keeps the airplane in the air. Wings also cannot be immobile as that leads to metal fatigue, as in the Comet.

It non-stressed parts deform sufficiently for a part that should fit to not fit, then that would suggest that the parts are made from materials that are far too soft: In engineering terms 'butter'.

Similar with engineering tolerances. Everything is manufactured to a tolerance, but that tolerance can easily be so fine such that two parts that are meant to fit will always fit. That's not difficult, and airplane parts, because of the safety considerations, should be properly made.

I'm seeing people raise points to show that the situation is different from the one I suggested. E.g. reinterpreting the situation. I never said that it was guaranteed that my interpretation is the correct one, but it does seem to me that it is still the most likely interpretation. Alternatives that have been suggested seem less likely to me (wrong part in stock but reported as 'the part doesn't fit') or ones that would create even greater concern than my interpretation would (parts machined to wide tolerances, parts soft enough to deform in use).

Very possibly like I suggested. Two different sidesticks and thus need an adapter for new to fit.

That sounds to me something that would more likely be described as a part not being available, rather than not fitting. Hence my previous post.

Not if they look the same and it wasn't clear till the new one was brought over that they needed an adapter to make it fit.

Also two correct parts might not fit if after much use a hole has slightly changed shape.

Basically way too much is being read into this comment.

My bad...it also applies to flights going to EU member states, BUT it has to be an EU airline, which I did not know.

So at least...EU261 for the people on the now very delayed return leg haha.

Silly me - I thought the whole marketing point of Airbus was commonality - you could take any old part from any old Airbus and stick it in any other old Airbus and it would "just work" :D

What you write here is entirely consistent with what I've written before. In particular your first paragraph is entirely consistent with my first post on the topic.

I don't think that any of the responses establish that too much was being read into the comment. From my POV the comments tend to back up what I posted.

I mean way too much ado about nothing is being made about "the part not fitting". Not your comment.

Aircraft safety is all about reducing the error rate to near zero. To do that, procedures need to be ultra precise. The comment, to me, indicates that what was being done was far from precise. Hence, I don't think I'm reading too much into the comment given that I'm only not feeling happy about such a statement and what it implies.

I get that. However if part A has slightly changed from normal wear, part b might not fit correctly doesn't mean they tried to eyeball it as is being suggested.