Matt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 51 Posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1092 times:
Why was the A319 given the "19" designator? I realize that on the surface it makes sense because it is shorter than the 320, thus giving it a "shorter" number.
But on a purely mathematical level, isn't the A319 part of the A310 block of numbers? So in that narrow, technical sense, it can be argued (albeit in vain) that the A319 is actually a member of the A310 "family"?
If the A320 "family" is A32X, (20-29), then shouldn't the A310 "family" run the gamut of A31X (10-19)?
Why not make the shortened version the A321 and the lengthened version the A322 just for numerical continuity?
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5340 posts, RR: 11 Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1019 times:
yeah, kinda like boeing did with the 737. The -300 was one size, the -400 was the largest, and the -500 was the smallest. Fortunately, they got it right this time. 736 short, 73G medium, 738 long, 739 just a little longer than 738.
I don't know why they chose A319. Maybe just for simplicity. It's CLOSE to the 320, but not quite. Dunno about that one.
OO-AOG From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 957 times:
I guess it's because the A320 was launched under the A320-100 serie designator. So the shortest version (A319) could only use the A320-300 designator...which doesn't make sense. (The A321 would then had to be called A320-400 and the A318 A320-500).
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Dec 2000, 1426 posts, 
From Israel, joined Oct 1999, 1063 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
