Even when inputting again the regs of all AC A319s that were active on 2014-02-17 gave no "Unknown Owner" message even for one reg. We've already seen how FlightAware doesn't always get the equipment right as it listed some A320-operated flights as A319 and vice-versa. My previous posts say it all, since it would be too redundant if I'll reiterate them one by one here.
I certainly appreciate the huge amount of work you've put in to help find some of these things. I haven't said that these are wrong, I've merely pointed out that it's
possible for this approach to return a false positive, especially at a major hub - for AC, if this were a flight from somewhere like SAN or FLL or even a smaller Canadian station like YXE or YYT, I probably wouldn't worry about it. But at YYZ especially, and at YVR, YUL, and YYC, it's not an unrealistic possibility, as demonstrated in my E75 DCA example upthread.
Given the occasional unreliability of FlightAware and FlightStats with regards to aircraft type, and the way AC uses its fleet, to be definitive, in my view, it's necessary to test the registrations not just of the 319s or 320s, but the E90s and 321s as well, which would be another 55-60 aircraft, depending on the time period. It would be incredibly rare for any narrowbody to have been swapped for a widebody, and the swaps are generally between the types that are closer in size (e.g. E90 -> 319, 321 -> 320), but I have seen instances where FlightAware has shown something as an E90 when it was operated by a 321 and vice versa, so this is possible with any of the narrowbody jets (although given the CR9s have always been operated by Jazz, and the E75s have mostly been operated by a regional carrier, and even when not, generally restricted to a small number of routes, I wouldn't consider either of them in this exercise).
I had gone through that exercise for the couple of other times the blocked registration has been proposed as a solution. As I've been travelling the past few days without a proper computer, I haven't had the time to sit down and just plug in registration after registration to check this, and I wouldn't ask anyone else to do so given it's quite rote and easy for me to do. I'm hopeful I'll have time to do that in the next few days.
At that point, I'd be happy to call those solved. Until then, for me, they're
likely correct, but I'd hold off on saying so definitively.
