flyBTV From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 17 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3523 times:
I'm interested in the range limitations of an A320 flying out of MCO or FLL, particularly it's ability to reach LIM. Essentially, I've been holding out hopes that B6 might open up a route into LIM, but I'm unsure if that's possible with their current equipment. NK flies FLL-LIM on a 319. And doing a quick check of the distance, FLL-LIM is essentially the same as BOS-SFO, a flight B6 currently operates.
My question is - what makes FLL-LIM different than BOS-SFO, as there is a negligible difference in distance? Does the issue involve the lack of suitable alternate airports, requiring a greater fuel reserve? Is there some other issue I'm not thinking of?
Would this situation change with the introduction of A320neos?
Chimborazo From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2011, 64 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (9 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3371 times:
Range quoted in Wiki for an A319 is 3600nm versus A320 at 3200nm. Both routes are approx 2700 statute. I guess once alternate and reserve fuel is taken into account the 32 doesn't have the legs.
Essentially, I don't think it's any thing to do with the route, rather the lower range of the bigger jet.
Neo: assUming the above is the reason, depends on the extra legs of the 320 Neo.
flyBTV From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 17 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (9 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3357 times:
Thanks for the response.
My confusion is that FLL-LIM is 2283 nm and BOS-SFO is 2350 nm. So they 320 can obviously make the flight, but there's obviously something inherently different about the two routes. I would assume that the issue is, as you mentioned, the requirements for the alternate reserve. Generally, what are the requirements for an alternate airport (assuming it meets the obvious criteria of runway length, etc)? Does the fact this is an international flight make a difference?
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6180 posts, RR: 74 Reply 3, posted (9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 3218 times:
MCO-LIM via the airways would be just under 2500NM.
You can do this BUT, you'd be pushing it with very little margin... but you'd need the 77 tons or 78 tons MTOW version for the IAE V2500-A5 engines.... and you can't carry cargo... you'd be limited to the pax and bags only.
For the 319, no sweat, even with the squashy 156 seat config... the plane can do it, would the pax?
Quoting flyBTV (Reply 2): I would assume that the issue is, as you mentioned, the requirements for the alternate reserve.
That would be my guess too. In the US, heaps of alternates... down there? Well, am not familiar with the area so...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22055 posts, RR: 51 Reply 4, posted (9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3161 times:
Quoting flyBTV (Thread starter): My question is - what makes FLL-LIM different than BOS-SFO, as there is a negligible difference in distance? Does the issue involve the lack of suitable alternate airports, requiring a greater fuel reserve? Is there some other issue I'm not thinking of?
Jetstream.
A SFO-BOS flight can easily be hit with the equivalent of another 400-500miles+ due to headwinds.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
flyBTV From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 17 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (9 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 3121 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 3): MCO-LIM via the airways would be just under 2500NM.
That's a good point, I didn't consider the additional distance needed to fly the airways. FLL-LIM would be shorter and B6 does a few South/Latin America routes out of FLL.
A SFO-BOS flight can easily be hit with the equivalent of another 400-500miles+ due to headwinds.
Sure. But that only underscores my original point. If B6 can fly SFO-BOS against the jetstream with their 320s, why can they not fly FLL-LIM? Unless Barger was speaking very, very generally about geography, he made it pretty clear Colombia is the southernmost point that they can reach with their current fleet. There's obviously something different about FLL-LIM and the only thing I can conclude is it's an alternate issue. I'm just not familiar enough with what the requirements are for alternates, especially since this is an international flight. There are other international airports in the country, and in the vicinity of LIM, but nothing that's anywhere near the scale of LIM.
From what it sounds like, this issue is the aircraft not having enough range to reach a suitable alternate, and I'm just not sure what the requirements for such an alternate would be.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8747 posts, RR: 52 Reply 6, posted (9 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 3074 times:
I wouldn't take that comment so literally. Lima and Caracas are both within reach of FLL on the A320. Because of elevation Quito probably isn't.
I think they were referring to going farther south into Brazil.
Lima has the benefit of being due south of Florida which helps because there are no jetstream winds to contend with. All they need is overwater equipped A320s (no ETOPS required) and Jetblue already has those.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
flyBTV From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 17 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3019 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 6):
I wouldn't take that comment so literally. Lima and Caracas are both within reach of FLL on the A320. Because of elevation Quito probably isn't.
Thanks. That clears up my confusion - it is possible. I don't see Caracas on the horizon as a B6 destination (though perhaps I'm wrong), but I certainly see a fit with their brand with LIM.
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6180 posts, RR: 74 Reply 8, posted (9 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2953 times:
Quoting flyBTV (Reply 5): If B6 can fly SFO-BOS against the jetstream with their 320s, why can they not fly FLL-LIM?
Well, they will look for the routing to avoid or minimize the headwinds. At LRC, for 2500NM, a headwind of 50kt would add 300NM to the distance... at 100kt headwind, that goes to 3200NM, and at 150kts, it shoots up to 3700NM... the good news is, change the routing to avoid the worst of the headwind, add another 100NM or so, and your net air distance can go up by less than 200NM if you do it right...
So, the case with FLL/MCO-LIM is:
1. Route Reserve Fuel. (Trip + Res + Hold +Alternate... domestic, doesn't require the "Res"... this is 10% of Trip I think).
2. Less numbers of near alternates, and less further alternates... the airfield density per area is significantly less outside the USA.
FLL being 150NM nearer makes LIM a heck of a lot more accessible... at the far end of the endurance charts, any distance savings can make a lot of difference.
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 6): I wouldn't take that comment so literally. Lima and Caracas are both within reach of FLL on the A320. Because of elevation Quito probably isn't.
Why would it not work? Quito is 900NM shorter from FLL/MCO... the TOW required is significantly less, and the only problem is, can it take off within UIO's runway for that TOW...
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8747 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2948 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 8): Why would it not work? Quito is 900NM shorter from FLL/MCO... the TOW required is significantly less, and the only problem is, can it take off within UIO's runway for that TOW...
I doubt the A320 can takeoff with enough payload from Quito's elevation.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
mandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6180 posts, RR: 74 Reply 10, posted (9 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 2863 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 9): I doubt the A320 can takeoff with enough payload from Quito's elevation.
If the runway is long enough, from 9000ft altitude, TOW is limited to about 70 tons.
But, 3000m runway there, you're limited to below 65 tons or so....
65 tons means you're limited to 150 - 165 seats filled for that route.
Add another 1000 meters of runway length at Quito and you can fly out with 180 seats filled to FLL... *wish wish wish*
Yeah, we can cross UIO off the list then... (TACA I think does the longest 320 from UIO? But to San Salvador from Quito is a lot shorter too!)
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
ROSWELL41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 576 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2261 times:
As someone who has flown FLL-LIM in an A319, I can tell you that takeoff performance can be a factor depending on the temperature. Also, distance to alternates can be an issue on that route thus requiring even more fuel. B6 could do it with an A320, but they will have to block a large number of seats on a regular basis. That may make the route unprofitable I would think.
brains From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 255 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (8 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2213 times:
Quoting mandala499 (Reply 8): Why would it not work? Quito is 900NM shorter from FLL/MCO... the TOW required is significantly less, and the only problem is, can it take off within UIO's runway for that TOW...
With a departure fuel of 39,000lbs on average plus a full a/c (max zero fuel weight of 129,000lbs +/- ) you've exceeded max t/o weight (call it 166,000lbs) it more than likely will be even further restricted by the rwy in FLL as Roswell said. You cant carry full paylod and a full load of gas. The more weight you carry the more fuel you need...its a fine line carrying the max pyld with the fuel required to get you to where you're going.
Max T/O weight is the most limiting of several different weights/limits. Being structurally limited (exceeding manufacturers max TOW) happens very infrequently.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 17 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2011, 64 posts, 
From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6180 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
