Unlike many other carriers, easyJet is (on their website) typically very quiet about new routes: at least their English website hardly mentions routes in other countries, so often they are launched unnoticed. Okay, to start:
On March 12, easyJet announced 2 new domestic Italian routes to start in June:
It's obvious that the routes are operated on a 2 W-patterns:
FCO-VCE-NAP-VCE-FCO
This routes mark the further commitment of easyJet to the Rome market and from June, they'll have 2 aircraft based at FCO. All destinations are served with relatively high frequencies: MXP 3 daily, PMO 3 daily, LGW 3 daily and BRI 2 daily.
ManchesterMAN From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1192 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3703 times:
Quoting Jamotcx (Reply 8): Not a chance of that unless they drop TFS and PFO from manch!
Why not? I don't think there is a huge difference in capacity between the ex GB Airways A320 and the A319 in U2 config? Maybe they don't need the extra capacity of the A320 on these routes?
GT4EZY From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 1725 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3609 times:
Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 9): Why not? I don't think there is a huge difference in capacity between the ex GB Airways A320 and the A319 in U2 config? Maybe they don't need the extra capacity of the A320 on these routes?
It's a performance issue. As for A320's being based at LTN, BRS etc, every base is to get A320's if rumour is to be believed.
ACEregular From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 674 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3563 times:
Quoting GT4EZY (Reply 10): It's a performance issue. As for A320's being based at LTN, BRS etc, every base is to get A320's if rumour is to be believed.
Jamotcx From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1037 posts, RR: 28 Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3071 times:
Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 9): I don't think there is a huge difference in capacity between the ex GB Airways A320 and the A319 in U2 config?
156 vs 174 and soon to be 180.
The problem is the MTOW when the a319 is up near MZFW. You are unable to then fit enough fuel on!
So you either limit the number of pax or make a tech stop which is what has been done several times last summer when an a319 has covered for a320s not only at MAN but also LGW.
ManchesterMAN From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1192 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2950 times:
I always thought the A319 had a greater range than the A320. It certainly has USA transcon range which is longer than any of the routes we are talking about here. Are U2s A319s different in any way to those of AC or UA or is is just down to the increased number of seats on the U2 aircraft?
Jamotcx From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 1037 posts, RR: 28 Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 14): I always thought the A319 had a greater range than the A320
True. Fully fuel an a319 and an a320 and the a319 will go further (not including any extra centre tanks). As I already stated it is due to the MZFW and MTOW. Basically when both planes are at MZFW you cant get the required fuel and keep the plane under MTOW in the a319 for the longer sectors but you can on the a320!
Sponsor Message: 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2005, 3128 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 2448 posts, 
From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24621 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
