vfw614
Topic Author
Posts: 3786
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:52 am

LCY is obviously a challenging airport, given the glide path required for approaches and the shortish runway. Largest aircraft certified for LCY are the A318 / Embraer 190 / Avro RJ100.

In general, for "challenging" airports the A319 seems to be the aircraft of choice nowadays as it operates into places like Vagar on the Faroe Islands, Santos Dumont in Rio oder Paro in Bhutan, airports that in the past were the domain of BAe 146/Avros (Paro and Vagar) or other hot rod types of aircraft. Now, with the arrival of the A320NEO, even the larger A320 has become an option at those airports.

So I was wondering what the issue with the A319 is at LCY. It should have the necessary runway performance and glide path should also be doable. Would there be a tail-strike issue that prevents it from serving LCY, just like with the E195?
 
HBJZA
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:23 pm

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:02 am

Appart from the approach path, there might be parking and ground manoeuvring issues due to the length and wingspan of the 319 compared to the 318.
 
Avgeek21
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:44 am

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:10 am

Firstly the A319 is not certified. Second there are going to be serious parking issues. Especially at peak times. LCY is busy and only has a few larger spaces. And what about takeoff performance? LCY is quite restrictive, especially when the runway is wet or it's hot. I'm sure the approach is fine and similar the runway legth for stopping. I'm sure Airbus and in particular BA would have run the numbers and deemed it not worthwhile.

LCY was my base for many years. Especially on a wet runway or when it was hot we needed every degree and knot of wind we could get to get as many bags and pax on. We would go right down to the last second to calculate our maximum weight we could lift off. I think the A319 will just be too restrictive for it's purpose which is extra volume over the E190. Not range. Then the A319 will also inqure more ATC cost, handling charges etc etc all mitigating it's business case.

If I can fly 98 pax to Faro in summer with all of their bags on an E190 why would I pay more to run an A319 with only an additional 28 seats that I can potentionally not fill anyways due to takeoff performance? Maybe inbound you are also restricted by landing weight. You pay more for third party services as the aircraft is heavier too. Yes the A319 has more range but also a higher fuel burn/cost. We burned around 1.8T an hour on the E190. My gues is about 2.2 or so for an A319.
Last edited by Avgeek21 on Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
Elshad
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 am

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:19 am

HBJZA wrote:
Appart from the approach path, there might be parking and ground manoeuvring issues due to the length and wingspan of the 319 compared to the 318.

A318 wingspan is the same as A319 and all other A320 series
 
Avgeek21
Posts: 51
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:44 am

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:24 am

[photoid][/photoid]
Elshad wrote:
HBJZA wrote:
Appart from the approach path, there might be parking and ground manoeuvring issues due to the length and wingspan of the 319 compared to the 318.

A318 wingspan is the same as A319 and all other A320 series


But you need the aircrafy especially during peak times. And there are only 5? spaces for the A318 today. So minus the daily A318 you are left with 3-4 spaces in the morning. Once they extend the parking it might have a better business case. Not now.
 
QF744
Posts: 349
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 3:05 pm

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:50 am

Sounds like the A220-300 would be ideal then!
OVER 150 FLIGHTS PER YEAR.
 
vfw614
Topic Author
Posts: 3786
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:01 am

The Embraer 190 - which is the most commonly used aircraft at LCY - at 117ft 8in is 6ft 8in longer than an Airbus A319 (111 ft). The Airbus A319 has more wingspan (117ft 5in), though, although it is the same as that of the A318. And given that the Airbus A220-100 / CS100 now also operates into LCY with almost the same footprint as an A319 (the CS100 at 114ft 9in has a slighty longer fuselage and at 115ft 1in slightly less wingspan) and is accommodated, there must be another reason why there are no A319s at LCY (all the more so as BA ordered A318s instead of using A319s which they already operated in large number (unless the reason was that a beefed up, ACJ-style A319 would not have made it nonstop JFK-LCY - which I don't know)). I doubt that it is performance and the tail-strike risk that prevents some types from flying into LCY appears not very likely either given that the A319 sits relatively high above the ground with a not too long fuselage aft of the wing.
 
smartplane
Posts: 1024
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2018 9:23 pm

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:31 am

Would an A319 require a step up in firefighting equipment investment?
 
HBJZA
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2006 6:23 pm

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:44 am

Elshad wrote:
HBJZA wrote:
Appart from the approach path, there might be parking and ground manoeuvring issues due to the length and wingspan of the 319 compared to the 318.

A318 wingspan is the same as A319 and all other A320 series

Really sorry but 318 wingspan is 34,10 meters while 319 is 35,80 meters.
 
vfw614
Topic Author
Posts: 3786
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:53 am

Thanks for the clarification but I doubt it is the explanation as the Airbus A220-100 has more wingspan than the A318 and only 2ft 4in (= 70cm) less than the A319.
 
User avatar
Elshad
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed May 23, 2018 8:24 am

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 11:58 am

HBJZA wrote:
Elshad wrote:
HBJZA wrote:
Appart from the approach path, there might be parking and ground manoeuvring issues due to the length and wingspan of the 319 compared to the 318.

A318 wingspan is the same as A319 and all other A320 series

Really sorry but 318 wingspan is 34,10 meters while 319 is 35,80 meters.

Sorry, my mistake.
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8425
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:20 pm

The A319 has never been certified for the approach angle of 5.5°.
 
User avatar
helmat
Posts: 29
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:27 pm

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 12:36 pm

HBJZA wrote:
Elshad wrote:
HBJZA wrote:
Appart from the approach path, there might be parking and ground manoeuvring issues due to the length and wingspan of the 319 compared to the 318.

A318 wingspan is the same as A319 and all other A320 series

Really sorry but 318 wingspan is 34,10 meters while 319 is 35,80 meters.

wrong, 34,10m is for A320 series with wingtip fences, 35,80m is for A320 series with sharklets
 
vfw614
Topic Author
Posts: 3786
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 1:26 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The A319 has never been certified for the approach angle of 5.5°.


Yes, of course. But that is just a certification. The question is - could it be certified or are there technical aspects that make it impossible to certify the A319 (just like the E135, E170, E190, Fokker 70 or A318 can operate into LCY, but not their slightly larger siblings E145, E175, E195 or Fokker 100)?
 
Longhornmaniac
Posts: 3118
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 2:00 pm

vfw614 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The A319 has never been certified for the approach angle of 5.5°.


Yes, of course. But that is just a certification. The question is - could it be certified or are there technical aspects that make it impossible to certify the A319 (just like the E135, E170, E190, Fokker 70 or A318 can operate into LCY, but not their slightly larger siblings E145, E175, E195 or Fokker 100)?


I'd argue you've answered your own question. The aircraft almost certainly has the performance to do so (as would the 737-700), but there's no business case for an operating carrier to get the aircraft certified when they already have aircraft in their fleet that serve that purpose extremely well.
Cheers,
Cameron
 
Luftymatt
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:27 pm

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 3:20 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
The A319 has never been certified for the approach angle of 5.5°.

Neither had the A318 before they certified it. Besides the topic author is aware of that and is asking why.
chase the sun
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 8425
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:05 pm

vfw614 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
The A319 has never been certified for the approach angle of 5.5°.


Yes, of course. But that is just a certification. The question is - could it be certified or are there technical aspects that make it impossible to certify the A319 (just like the E135, E170, E190, Fokker 70 or A318 can operate into LCY, but not their slightly larger siblings E145, E175, E195 or Fokker 100)?


To be able to keep to the 5.5° glide slope, you need a frame that does not accelerate while flying at that angle. The A318 is quite a bit lighter frame than the A319 with the same wings, so less acceleration due to the glide angle. I would assume you would need speed brakes that do not destroy lift.on the A319, at least Airbus has not found it reasonable to certify the A319 for that glide slope. Perhaps nobody asked for, but IMO Airbus did not design for it. They designed the A318 for such use.
 
vfw614
Topic Author
Posts: 3786
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 8:41 pm

Longhornmaniac wrote:
but there's no business case for an operating carrier to get the aircraft certified when they already have aircraft in their fleet that serve that purpose extremely well.


I think that is open to discussion. The E190 seats between 98-112 passengers, the A319 up to 156. Particularly airlines with a mixed 319/E90 fleet like BA, LH, LX (and to a lesser extent TP and AZ) could use A319s for peak time flights on trunk routes. The fact that this apparently has never been contemplated leads me to believe that technical aspects make it impossible to get the A319 certified. Hence my asking.
 
Kilopond
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 10:08 am

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 9:52 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
[...]Perhaps nobody asked [...]


This seems to be the core question, methinks. Who wants to operate the tiny LCY facilities with 150 people at one time?

And there could also be weight limitations on the pontoon-like runway. (That is a very rare problem but it does occur: for instance, ORY had to reinforce the runways in order to become compatible with the AF 777`s wheel loads),
 
Longhornmaniac
Posts: 3118
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 2:33 pm

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sat Apr 06, 2019 10:56 pm

vfw614 wrote:
Longhornmaniac wrote:
but there's no business case for an operating carrier to get the aircraft certified when they already have aircraft in their fleet that serve that purpose extremely well.


I think that is open to discussion. The E190 seats between 98-112 passengers, the A319 up to 156. Particularly airlines with a mixed 319/E90 fleet like BA, LH, LX (and to a lesser extent TP and AZ) could use A319s for peak time flights on trunk routes. The fact that this apparently has never been contemplated leads me to believe that technical aspects make it impossible to get the A319 certified. Hence my asking.


Not to be argumentative, but the very fact it hasn't been done would suggest that's the case. Admittedly, it's possible there's other factors at work, but I couldn't imagine that if a carrier so desired, they couldn't fly a 319 or a 73G in/out of LCY.
Cheers,
Cameron
 
airlineworker
Posts: 93
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:20 am

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:08 am

Any chance of LCY adding a bit to the runway, say 400-500 feet? It could make a big difference.
 
vfw614
Topic Author
Posts: 3786
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 12:34 am

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:53 am

To be honest, I was first reluctant to open this thread as I thought that I was too stupid to google the answer asI suspected it was common knowledge among aviation buffs. Lust like everybody seems to know, for example, that the E95 cannot operate into LCY because of the tailstrike risk. But the A319 seems to be some kind of mystery as far as LCY ops are concerned.

Longhornmaniac wrote:
vfw614 wrote:
Longhornmaniac wrote:
but there's no business case for an operating carrier to get the aircraft certified when they already have aircraft in their fleet that serve that purpose extremely well.


I think that is open to discussion. The E190 seats between 98-112 passengers, the A319 up to 156. Particularly airlines with a mixed 319/E90 fleet like BA, LH, LX (and to a lesser extent TP and AZ) could use A319s for peak time flights on trunk routes. The fact that this apparently has never been contemplated leads me to believe that technical aspects make it impossible to get the A319 certified. Hence my asking.


Not to be argumentative, but the very fact it hasn't been done would suggest that's the case. Admittedly, it's possible there's other factors at work, but I couldn't imagine that if a carrier so desired, they couldn't fly a 319 or a 73G in/out of LCY.


I am not so sure as A319 operator specifically ordered the A318 for LCY ops despite having a large fleet of A319s. Granted, LCY A319s would have been a non-interchangeable sub-fleet anyway, but having 2 more A319 instead of two orphaned A318 (now just one) certainly would have been more desirable.

Plus, the 737-700 and A319 both have business variants, the BBJ1 and the ACJ. Certainly LCY would be a very attractive gateway (although aircraft would need to be ferried in and out due to a lack of space for parking business jets.
 
Andy33
Posts: 2450
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 9:30 am

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:36 am

airlineworker wrote:
Any chance of LCY adding a bit to the runway, say 400-500 feet? It could make a big difference.


No chance whatsoever.
Look at the photo here
https://www.londoncityairport.com/corporate
The airport is pretty much surrounded by water (disused docks) or tall buildings, and was originally sold to local residents as a STOL-port. It has a weekend curfew (lunchtime Saturday to lunchtime Sunday) to mitigate effects on the residents, but is still far from popular locally - unusually the airport only opened in 1987, so there are still many people in the area who were there before it was built.
The airport is going through an expansion plan, which will take the number of stands capable of taking an A318/A221 (CS100) sized plane all the way up to 12 from the current 4. There are several more stands that can take E190/E170/RJ100/RJ85/BAe146 sized planes. The expansion plan took literally years and a change of London Mayor to get through the approval process. If it had been possible to extend the runway, this would certainly have been included in the plan. Construction is extremely difficult as taxiway, apron, and terminal work has to be on piles in the water. The extra stands are supposed to be ready for Q4 2020. The terminal expansion to cope with additional passenger numbers is due by Q3 2022.
 
mandala499
Posts: 6589
Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2001 8:47 pm

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sun Apr 07, 2019 9:37 am

I don't think the steep slope would be too much of an issue with the steep approach package... it may need more speedbrake deployment though, so that could reduce roll control, it may result in less crosswind allowance for steep approaches for A319...


The problem is... Runway length. Don't be fooled by LCY's 1500m of asphalt runways because...
LCY TORA is 1199m only with TODA at 1319 (09) and 1385 (27)... the TORA is artificially short due to the obstacles.
SDU TORA is 1260m and 1323...

(Take Off Runway Available)

airlineworker wrote:
Any chance of LCY adding a bit to the runway, say 400-500 feet? It could make a big difference.

the obstacle clearance requirement already reduced the now 1500m to... the TORA numbers above...

Your maximum allowable take off weight for the A319 would be similar to the A318... so that's a few hundred kgs of payload shaved due to extra aircraft weight...

vfw614 wrote:
Plus, the 737-700 and A319 both have business variants, the BBJ1 and the ACJ. Certainly LCY would be a very attractive gateway (although aircraft would need to be ferried in and out due to a lack of space for parking business jets.

Nah, it's more classy to get a helicopter out of the Vanguard(?) Heliport at Isle of Dogs to get to Biggin Hill and get your bizjet to then fly you nonstop to the other side of the world if need be, rather than make a 2 hop on your bizjet (crewing requirements due to extra stop required, etc).
When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
 
TC957
Posts: 3486
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:01 am

airlineworker wrote:
Any chance of LCY adding a bit to the runway, say 400-500 feet? It could make a big difference.

Ever been to LCY ? If you had, you'll soon see why any runway extention won't happen !
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10550
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: Airbus A319 at LCY? What's the issue?

Sun Apr 07, 2019 11:26 am

The A319 cannot maintain a suitable approach speed on the steep glideslope in order to stop safely on a contaminated (wet) runway at LCY. Airbus assessed the A319 alongside the A318, but only moved forwards with the A318 project and only then for lower weights - hence it's use only in low density premium configuration.

Avgeek21 wrote:
[photoid][/photoid]
Elshad wrote:
HBJZA wrote:
Appart from the approach path, there might be parking and ground manoeuvring issues due to the length and wingspan of the 319 compared to the 318.

A318 wingspan is the same as A319 and all other A320 series


But you need the aircrafy especially during peak times. And there are only 5? spaces for the A318 today. So minus the daily A318 you are left with 3-4 spaces in the morning. Once they extend the parking it might have a better business case. Not now.


Length and wingspan aren't actually the main issue dictating LCY's parking.

The A318 and C Series can only use the four new (larger) stands to the East. These extend further back from the runway, not only because of the larger footprints, but because their additional height means the tail would otherwise penetrate the runway's transitional surface. This is an uncompromisable safety issue. Even so, it is very close, hence the reason all aircraft have to park nose out.

This would make the A319 less of a problem, as it is lower than the A318 by 80cm.

QF744 wrote:
Sounds like the A220-300 would be ideal then!


It is under close consideration

HBJZA wrote:
Elshad wrote:
HBJZA wrote:
Appart from the approach path, there might be parking and ground manoeuvring issues due to the length and wingspan of the 319 compared to the 318.

A318 wingspan is the same as A319 and all other A320 series

Really sorry but 318 wingspan is 34,10 meters while 319 is 35,80 meters.


LCY's ground infrastructure is designed to aircraft code C standards - this means it can, in theory, accept any aircraft up to 35.99m wingspan. Obviously the practicality of this depends on the runway length and individual aircraft performance.

airlineworker wrote:
Any chance of LCY adding a bit to the runway, say 400-500 feet? It could make a big difference.


None at all

Even if they could extend the physical length of pavement, the runway lengths used in take off calculations would remain the same. LCY is a Code 2C runway, which means it's ASDA, TORA and TODA declared distances are capped at 1,199m by regulation - only the LDA is unregulated and permitted to be longer. The CAA currently allow LCY a grandfathered 10% dispensation to some distances, albeit very grudgingly.

vfw614 wrote:
To be honest, I was first reluctant to open this thread as I thought that I was too stupid to google the answer asI suspected it was common knowledge among aviation buffs. Lust like everybody seems to know, for example, that the E95 cannot operate into LCY because of the tailstrike risk. But the A319 seems to be some kind of mystery as far as LCY ops are concerned.


The E195 hasn't been certified to operate into LCY due to general runway performance issues. It could physically operate into the aerodrome, even with the steep glideslope, but the inbound payload would be so meaningless to stop safely on a wet runway that there was no point going through the lengthy and expensive process of certifying it. The root issue is that the E190 and 195 share a common wing really doesn't help when it comes to approach speed, and departure performance. This is the same reason that the E175 was not certified for LCY - it has nothing to do with tail strikes.

mandala499 wrote:
The problem is... Runway length. Don't be fooled by LCY's 1500m of asphalt runways because...
LCY TORA is 1199m only with TODA at 1319 (09) and 1385 (27)... the TORA is artificially short due to the obstacles.
SDU TORA is 1260m and 1323...

(Take Off Runway Available)


It isn't due to obstacles, it is due to the regulations resulting from their runway strip width.

Unless they have snuck in an EASA equivalent level of safety recertification just before Britain leaves the EU, 1,385m is most likely a mistake on someone's part in the CAA. As mentioned above, by the book LCY shouldn't have any lengths above 1,199m, and the CAA have pedantically enforced this since their self admitted 'error' in granting 10% dispensations up to 1,319m.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos