Techincally no. The landing fees would be way to big to support a 116Y config. More likely would be 14xweekly flights with a 319CJ in a 40J seat config, with a dedicated check in and security(one can only dream). Otherwise the Big Boys(AA VS BA UA CO) take the win.
Small Jets are profitable if 1)they run high Jclass markets (Privat air comes to mind) and 2) if they do many cycles a day (LCCs) The longhaul Narrow body in an mostly Y config has basically no chance.
Also can an A319 make LON-NYC with a full payload? Any ETOPS restrictions if operating with a full load?
Paul From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 374 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9516 times:
I would not pay to go that flight, the First Class would be terrible unless decent 50inch seat pitch recliners or beds were installed. But that would obviously take up a lot of room. It would be pretty stuffy in that thin stubborn tube.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 28516 posts, RR: 74
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9446 times:
Quoting Planesailing (Thread starter): A319 operational flexibility provides range possibilities of 3,700 nm./6,800 km., and longer for non-stop trans-Atlantic flights.
ACT equipped A32S have proven not to have the range claimed. In fact, the added weight of the tank burns off the extra fuel. The ACT was designed for the A321 and only really works on that, hence there are no 3,700nm A319s out there
N770WD From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 130 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9390 times:
For an A319 operating LON to JFK during the winter, block fuel is 44,000, contingency and reserves (assuming ETOPS) would vary by carrier but likely around 9,000, for total fuel of about 53,000 lbs. With a max takeoff weight of 166,500 and empty weight of about 96,000 pounds, that would leave:
That translates to about 75-80 passengers on average.
Note the aircraft must have at least 2 auxiliary center tanks installed to make it with ETOPS reserves. 53,000 pounds of fuel is about 7,850 gallons. Standard A319-100 fuel capacity is 6,300 gallons. 2 ACTs buys you 7,885. So an A319ER with 2 ACTs has the fuel capacity to run the route. An A319LR buys you 9,354 gallons of capacity with four ACTs.
This also assumes the aircraft is operated ETOPS/180. With less ETOPS capability the payload will go down quickly. Note that you can load additional aux fuel tanks, but the fuel comes 1:1 from payload as the MTOW is capped at 166,500.
So the A319 can work in an all-business configuration (44 pax * 255 lbs = 11,000 pounds of payload) but not in a mixed configuration at that stage length -- and aux fuel tanks don't solve the problem.
3201 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8567 times:
Quoting FlySSC (Reply 3):
No particular ETOPS restrictions on this route.
ETOPS doesn't have anything to do with full/not full load.
That's not necessarily true. If the ETOPS divert scenarios require extra fuel uplift beyond what would normally be carried for the trip and all the contingency fuel, it can reduce payload. In the winter especially, if many divert airports aren't available due to weather, and icing conditions exist everywhere, ETOPS can cause extra fuel uplift that limits payload on aircraft operating near their range-payload limit, plus can force the route to be non-optimal to ensure coverage. Ask European charter operators about Carribbean ops in the winter and what effect ETOPS can have on payload.
Airman99o From Canada, joined Aug 1999, 981 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7290 times:
Skyservice airlines was going to operate the 319 from YHZ to Malaga I think?? Not too sure what happend to that routing. Hmm wait now I think I do Conquest was to be the provider for that flight. not sure if that is a longer flight. and we have 144 passengers on the 319. BLAH what a horrible way to fly across the pond! Hmmm alomst as bad as the 757 in the fleet :P
Scotland1979 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 548 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6506 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
I have been on A319 before on a short hop from Heathrow to Frankfurt. It is small tube and I couldn't imagine the London-New York flight. Flight across Atlantic Ocean, the wind out there too much tubulence for a small plane like A319 - alot of passengers might throw up....
I would go for 757 instead but I would say 744 and 772 suit best for transatlantic
Jesus said "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" - John 14:6
Tornado82 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6421 times:
Quoting Scotland1979 (Reply 13): the wind out there too much tubulence for a small plane like A319 - alot of passengers might throw up....
HAHAHAHA. People fly in Biz jets across the pond regularly, I'm sure an A319 could survive it if people do it in stuff like Challengers. Likewise, there's more turbulence in places like crossing the Rocky Mountains than in the middle of the ocean. Sure there's alot of wind in the Atlantic, but it's not mountain-generated wave turbulence or something over a flat expanse like that.
Av8rDAL From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 470 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6161 times:
I do recall reading a trip report a while back of someone taking a PrivatAir (operated for LH) flight from DUS-EWR in the 737NG. I think it was 50 pax in an F configuration. Smooth flight and good, attentive service. The only complaint was the higher cabin noise since the 737 is apparently noisier than a widebody due to sound insulation or cabin size or what have you.
The 319 is also used by PrivatAir...and I think their model is the only way it could be profitable. You just would have to make it an exclusive experience with a few pax paying a high fare for pamper-me-continuously service if you wanted to gain market share from those who already have a great First Class product in that market (BA, VS, AA).
Could be done, maybe. After all, Concorde did it all these years. The A319 does not cost as much as Concorde to operate, however.
Maintain thine airspeed, lest the Earth rise up and smite thee.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 80
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5912 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 6): ACT equipped A32S have proven not to have the range claimed. In fact, the added weight of the tank burns off the extra fuel. The ACT was designed for the A321 and only really works on that, hence there are no 3,700nm A319s out there
Ugh, this again?
The ACT doesn't work great on the A320. Clearly the ACT works great on the A319 since even further additional tankage is added to make it a 319CJ.
Boysteve From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 967 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5482 times:
Quoting MNeo (Reply 9): Also the 757 seats about 70 passengers more than the A319
...and the 757 lands at airports such as BRS, and soon NCL, which presumably have lower landing fees than LHR for example. I can see the A319 making it JFK-LHR, but I wonder how often the westbound return would have to but down at Halifax (Nova Scotia) to take on more fuel
Cxh From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5295 times:
Quoting Airman99o (Reply 11): Skyservice airlines was going to operate the 319 from YHZ to Malaga I think?? Not too sure what happend to that routing. Hmm wait now I think I do Conquest was to be the provider for that flight. not sure if that is a longer flight. and we have 144 passengers on the 319. BLAH what a horrible way to fly across the pond! Hmmm alomst as bad as the 757 in the fleet :P
It was going to be true...
Conquest as the Tour Operator announced in early 2002 and started to sell YHZ-YYT-LGW for Summer 2002 (or was Summer 2003?) using the Skyservice A319. It was going to be YHZ-YYT-LGW and return 2x week. However, they cancelled before the first flight.
I don't see why flying any narrowbody transatlantic would be a pain versus a wide body. What really counts is seat pitch and design, IFE, service quality, etc. As someone mentioned, private jets do it all the time.
I've seen the future, I can't afford it. - Martin Fry