Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Calledonian
Topic Author
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:10 pm

Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:06 pm

According to Wikipedia, the Airbus A319 has a range of 3750 nautical miles. On paper at least, this is only 150nmi less than the Boeing 757.

So my question is quite simple, why was the Airbus A319 never used on longer haul (i.e. transatlantic) routes? Surely there is/was some demand for an aircraft smaller than a 757 that could fulfill the same role? Or is it a case that it's real world performance significantly less than what's on paper?
 
Ishrion
Posts: 2960
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:09 pm

Avianca used the A319 on Bogota to Montevideo - 2,964 miles, nearly the same distance as Boston to Dublin.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 2077
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:10 pm

AA has used the A319 on longer routes to Latin America (not deep South America) but plenty of routes to Colombia, etc...Think the issue is cargo and pax capacity and range.
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:13 pm

Calledonian wrote:
According to Wikipedia, the Airbus A319 has a range of 3750 nautical miles. On paper at least, this is only 150nmi less than the Boeing 757.

So my question is quite simple, why was the Airbus A319 never used on longer haul (i.e. transatlantic) routes? Surely there is/was some demand for an aircraft smaller than a 757 that could fulfill the same role? Or is it a case that it's real world performance significantly less than what's on paper?


AC used the A319 to fly to LHR, so it did happen, but as far as I know that's the only one. Why? Maybe something to do with the poorer economics compared to the larger siblings, but I couldn't explain.

 
Theseus
Posts: 276
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 8:35 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:18 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
AC used the A319 to fly to LHR, so it did happen, but as far as I know that's the only one. Why? Maybe something to do with the poorer economics compared to the larger siblings, but I couldn't explain.


I was about to mention this flight. I think it was departing from Halifax. Not sure the 319 could make it westbound much further west. The A319, A320 and A321 NEO have much greater practical range.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24653
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:19 pm

Calledonian wrote:
According to Wikipedia, the Airbus A319 has a range of 3750 nautical miles. On paper at least, this is only 150nmi less than the Boeing 757.

So my question is quite simple, why was the Airbus A319 never used on longer haul (i.e. transatlantic) routes? Surely there is/was some demand for an aircraft smaller than a 757 that could fulfill the same role? Or is it a case that it's real world performance significantly less than what's on paper?

I presume this is after PIPs and after winglets. Before that it was used a lot in US TCON settings, which used to be thought of as long range for a narrow body. Once the engine PIPs and the winglets came along, A320 and A321 became viable for TCONs and A319s faded.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
drdisque
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:57 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:20 pm

Air Canada also used it on YYT-LHR, which is technically transatlantic.

I think the issue was the small payload it could carry on most transatlantic routes led not many carriers to opt for ETOPS certification for their A319 fleet as they didn't see many financially viable ETOPS missions for the aircraft.
 
Newark727
Posts: 2123
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:42 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:25 pm

I think Air France tried long-haul with business-class A319s for a little while as well.
 
User avatar
FLALEFTY
Posts: 803
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 11:33 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:40 pm

Back before NW and DL merged, NW had a sub-fleet of A319's with executive interiors that they used to fly their NBA charter contract. They were ETOPS-certified and used on occasion to fly NBA teams from the US to Europe for exhibition games. After the merger, a new requirement from a recent NBA/Players Association CBA called for larger aircraft for charters, so Delta moved to executive reconfigured B752's for their new NBA charter contract. Ironically, this CBA callout was inspired by the Dallas Mavericks flying around on Mark Cuban's custom B752 and the Portland Trailblazers flying around on Paul Allen's custom B752 (A side note: Allen's B752 was later purchased by Donald Trump).
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4591
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 5:46 pm

Newark727 wrote:
I think Air France tried long-haul with business-class A319s for a little while as well.


They did. Air France had a dedicated fleet of long range A319s for flights into Africa and the Middle East. 82 seats, 28 business and 54 economy. It started in 2004 and was ended in 2012, where the aicraft were reconfigured to normal AF standard.

Edit: Qatar Airways also keeps a small fleet of A319s for the Rangoon route. That's a pretty long one if I recall correctly, 7 hours and something.
 
Boof02671
Posts: 2198
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2016 12:15 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:27 pm

One reason is lack of cargo capacity. Transcons are loaded with cargo.
 
A320GOUZO
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 9:14 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 6:37 pm

Qatar Airways operated the A319 between DOH and LHR in all business class configuration
Between 2014 to 2015
QR15 Doha to London departing 2:50PM arriving 8:25PM
QR16 London to Doha departing 9:55PM arriving 6:40AM (+1 day)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qatar_Air ... _15_and_16
 
User avatar
Boeing757rb211
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 8:24 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:14 pm

I've done Phoenix to Anchorage and back many many times Most of the time on an A319 and if i had ANY other options i would have absolutely taken them. HATE The 319 with a freakin passion in terms of comfort, noise and handling turbulence after 5+hrs. And its Hot field Takeoff Performance on a long 5+hr flight say leaving Phoenix on an extremely hot summer day is deplorable,,, although you know in your head the runways are plenty long enough,, it Literally feels like its accelerating slower than a little 4 cylinder Dodge Neon, for what feels like actual Minutes going down a runway that feels like its going to run out of space any second. And dont get me started on the climb-out and climb to cruise altitude, with 3-5 different "step climbs" and more than half the flight just to be able to reach 36,000Ft+
 
User avatar
Cyrus
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:49 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 7:29 pm

Air France had big plan for A319 network to Africa and the Middle East some 20 years ago. Some of those routs where suppose to very long. Unfortunately most of it didn't even start and some of A319LR, as AF called them, even left the fleet.
Its seems the thin routs with A319 have always been very few.
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1567
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:41 pm

Funny you should ask this, as in another thread someone mentioned the surprising fact that AA recently added nonstop PHL-PSP service on the A319. IIRC AA has the most A319s of any carrier in the world - yet A319s are still very much a rarity on their transcon flights. Apparently their CASM is just not competitive versus the 737-800s and A321s that normally ply AA's routes of that length. I believe VX may have also struggled to make A319s work in the transcon realm relative to larger aircraft types. Given that pax tend to pay quite high fares to fly into PSP, perhaps yields will be sufficient to support that rather long PHL-PSP A319 flight. Then again, wasn't UA's ill-fated EWR-PSP service operated by the A319?
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 8:41 pm

The range was less than the 757. So you could just barely do TATL flights; the A321LR however got a significant range bonus over the 757 and is a much better replacement. For comparison, the longest 757 route was IIRC EWR-TXL at 3458 nmi, whereas some examples for 'long' A319 routes are
PHX-ANC (2217 nmi)
BOS-SAN (2249 nmi)
YYT-LHR (2012 nmi)
STR-DOH (2427 nmi)
JNB-ACC (2517 nmi)
Lufthansa served MUC-PNQ (3475 nmi) briefly, but they added a refueling stop in GYD.

There's two problems: The CASM is relatively poor compared to larger aircraft, and it has to trade payload for range earlier than the 757. The ACJ / A319LR have extra tanks in the hold for a truly phenomenal range of ~6000 nmi but at the cost of limited cargo & bag volume; also a typical ACJ doesn't carry more than 40 passengers.
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2852
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 9:02 pm

Theseus wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
AC used the A319 to fly to LHR, so it did happen, but as far as I know that's the only one. Why? Maybe something to do with the poorer economics compared to the larger siblings, but I couldn't explain.


I was about to mention this flight. I think it was departing from Halifax. Not sure the 319 could make it westbound much further west. The A319, A320 and A321 NEO have much greater practical range.


It was YYT-LHR. The shortest of AC’s transatlantic routes. YHZ used to be a 763 and then was downgauged to the MAX, while YYT was upgauged to the MAX. Both routes have been suspended since the MAX’s grounding and will only come back when COVID gets under control...likely post-MAX ungrounding. 319s are/were common on both Canadian and American transcons. Long ops but not over large bodies of water.

YYT-LHR wasn’t even AC’s longest 319 route. YYC-YHZ is longer and I think AC has operated them on as long as YYZ-BOG. Now I believe all but the Jetz 319s at AC are retired, save for a few mainline birds flying...but for who knows how long?
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:29 pm

Boeing757rb211 wrote:
I've done Phoenix to Anchorage and back many many times Most of the time on an A319 and if i had ANY other options i would have absolutely taken them. HATE The 319 with a freakin passion in terms of comfort, noise and handling turbulence after 5+hrs. And its Hot field Takeoff Performance on a long 5+hr flight say leaving Phoenix on an extremely hot summer day is deplorable,,, although you know in your head the runways are plenty long enough,, it Literally feels like its accelerating slower than a little 4 cylinder Dodge Neon, for what feels like actual Minutes going down a runway that feels like its going to run out of space any second. And dont get me started on the climb-out and climb to cruise altitude, with 3-5 different "step climbs" and more than half the flight just to be able to reach 36,000Ft+


This and PHL-SAN are probably the examples for the AA A319 fleet.

Your comments about the performance being weak are unexpected. Its big wing and engine poewr should guarantee strong performance.
 
CXH
Posts: 155
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:37 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:45 pm

Dominion301 wrote:
Theseus wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
AC used the A319 to fly to LHR, so it did happen, but as far as I know that's the only one. Why? Maybe something to do with the poorer economics compared to the larger siblings, but I couldn't explain.


I was about to mention this flight. I think it was departing from Halifax. Not sure the 319 could make it westbound much further west. The A319, A320 and A321 NEO have much greater practical range.


It was YYT-LHR. The shortest of AC’s transatlantic routes. YHZ used to be a 763 and then was downgauged to the MAX, while YYT was upgauged to the MAX. Both routes have been suspended since the MAX’s grounding and will only come back when COVID gets under control...likely post-MAX ungrounding. 319s are/were common on both Canadian and American transcons. Long ops but not over large bodies of water.

YYT-LHR wasn’t even AC’s longest 319 route. YYC-YHZ is longer and I think AC has operated them on as long as YYZ-BOG. Now I believe all but the Jetz 319s at AC are retired, save for a few mainline birds flying...but for who knows how long?


About ten years or so ago, AC used A319s to fly YVR-YHZ for about a years or two. I flew it return once. I think it was six hours westbound but the late evening YHZ departure and red-eye from the YVR departures meant it wasn't that popular.

As for retirements: indeed, still a few daily 319 flights.
I've seen the future, I can't afford it. - Martin Fry
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:45 pm

Boeing757rb211 wrote:
I've done Phoenix to Anchorage and back many many times Most of the time on an A319 and if i had ANY other options i would have absolutely taken them. HATE The 319 with a freakin passion in terms of comfort, noise and handling turbulence after 5+hrs. And its Hot field Takeoff Performance on a long 5+hr flight say leaving Phoenix on an extremely hot summer day is deplorable,,, although you know in your head the runways are plenty long enough,, it Literally feels like its accelerating slower than a little 4 cylinder Dodge Neon, for what feels like actual Minutes going down a runway that feels like its going to run out of space any second. And dont get me started on the climb-out and climb to cruise altitude, with 3-5 different "step climbs" and more than half the flight just to be able to reach 36,000Ft+

I believe your user name possibly gives us a little clue.

I'm sorry that the little A319 doesn't quite match the rocket-ship Boeing 757, but it is what it is.

p.s. just done a quick google search, and I don't see ANY options for PHX to ANC at this time, unless you want to break your journey at SEA (or worse)

Can you elaborate when these "many many" flights took place, what airline, what times of year, etc.

Also I have just examined recent flight profiles for the longest route I could find (PHX-EWR), and they bear little resemblance to what you have described.
I certainly don't consider FL350 in 24 mins to be lacklustre (UA631 8th Sept), and the day before the same flight made FL330 in just 22 mins, stepping up to FL370 within 48 minutes. I have yet to find anything close to "3-5 step climbs" taking "more than half the flight". :shakehead:

Then again September isn't going to yield "an extremely hot summer day", which is what your diatribe seems to be based upon. I suspect all types suffer somewhat in those conditions, no? (except the sainted 757 of course)

LCDFlight wrote:
Your comments about the performance being weak are unexpected. Its big wing and engine poewr should guarantee strong performance.
But maybe not on an extremely hot summer day out of PHX. :spin:
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:49 pm

Yes, AC did fly the A319 on YYT-LHR, but also flew longer routes. YYZ-BOG, YYZ-POS, YYZ-BGI, YYZ-SJO, YYZ-PTY to name a few.

But the YYT-LHR, route required greater capabilities as it was operated under ETOPS120 rules. Not only were enroute diversion fuel/alternates required, but in winter finding a destination alternate for YYT could be tricky. Sometimes the “usuals” like YQX and YJT, were not possible and a lot of fuel had to be carried for a YYR or YHZ alternate. The only saving grace was that in the dead of winter, there weren’t usually more than a few dozen brave souls looking to go to Newfoundland from England.
 
Dominion301
Posts: 2852
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2016 1:48 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 10:54 pm

CXH wrote:
Dominion301 wrote:
Theseus wrote:

I was about to mention this flight. I think it was departing from Halifax. Not sure the 319 could make it westbound much further west. The A319, A320 and A321 NEO have much greater practical range.


It was YYT-LHR. The shortest of AC’s transatlantic routes. YHZ used to be a 763 and then was downgauged to the MAX, while YYT was upgauged to the MAX. Both routes have been suspended since the MAX’s grounding and will only come back when COVID gets under control...likely post-MAX ungrounding. 319s are/were common on both Canadian and American transcons. Long ops but not over large bodies of water.

YYT-LHR wasn’t even AC’s longest 319 route. YYC-YHZ is longer and I think AC has operated them on as long as YYZ-BOG. Now I believe all but the Jetz 319s at AC are retired, save for a few mainline birds flying...but for who knows how long?


About ten years or so ago, AC used A319s to fly YVR-YHZ for about a years or two. I flew it return once. I think it was six hours westbound but the late evening YHZ departure and red-eye from the YVR departures meant it wasn't that popular.

As for retirements: indeed, still a few daily 319 flights.


Indeed they did. In fact, didn’t AC pre-COVID announce seasonal Rouge YHZ-YVR on the 319? I think they did.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10741
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:04 pm

Calledonian wrote:
According to Wikipedia, the Airbus A319 has a range of 3750 nautical miles. On paper at least, this is only 150nmi less than the Boeing 757.


This is a very punchy range, and is only valid for aircraft with sharklets and all the latest PIPs - very few frames in other words. The majority of A319s struggle to get anywhere near this.

The actual range depends on the exact certified MTOW variant, which can be substantially lower - easyJet, for instance, suggest their A319s have a range of 1,700 miles whilst Lufthansa is 2,100 miles.
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
Miamiairport
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:14 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:47 pm

AA used to fly the A319 on PHX/ANC year round.
 
SilentEagleC
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:33 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:55 pm

As the already mentioned Avianca operated the A319 in a lot of long thin routes from BOG. The longest being the BOG-MVD route (2,964 miles). They operated the A319 from BOG to EZE (Almost same distance to MVD), to ORD 2500NM, to JFK 2100 NM. They have the A315-115, this is the variant with the most power. But also, A319-132 were used on those routes even BOG-MDV. The A319-115 is beast for Hot and High. Very few aircraft can take off from BOG (8360ft, ISA + 15/20) without penalties. So far in Avianca’s fleet only the A319-115 and the A320-251 are able to take off MTOGW from BOG at certain times (usually night when is cold). Nor even the A332/788, (let us not talk about the AT76). The A321 (CEO and NEO) are affected a lot in hot and high conditions (about 78 tons max out of the MTOGW 93.5 tons). So, the A319 is an excellent performer in hot and high conditions, is overpowered. Talking about CASM maybe not so much. But for airlines like Avianca it worked well since you cannot use a bigger plane without penalties.
 
User avatar
usxguy
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 1:28 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:39 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
p.s. just done a quick google search, and I don't see ANY options for PHX to ANC at this time, unless you want to break your journey at SEA (or worse)

Can you elaborate when these "many many" flights took place, what airline, what times of year, etc.



I live in Alaska, fwiw. AA used to fly ANC/PHX *daily* with the A319, sometimes 737-800 - but mostly A319. Due to Covid, I think the route didn't make the cut and was axed early on. When AA/US *did* fly it, it was a summer-only route daily and I think operated weekends only the rest of the year.
Last edited by usxguy on Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
xx
 
N649DL
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:47 am

UA flew EWR-SFO on the 319 before merging with CO. That's a pretty long flight. And over the summer with COVID they flew BOS-SFO on the 319 as well.
 
Miamiairport
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:14 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:53 am

LUS/AA flew PHX/ANC year round with a LUS319. It was axed a few years back. I flew it in February originating from MIA. Big weather difference to say the least. I got upgraded both ways. I remember the yogurt smoothie prior to landing on the return.
 
DDR
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:06 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Boeing757rb211 wrote:
I've done Phoenix to Anchorage and back many many times Most of the time on an A319 and if i had ANY other options i would have absolutely taken them. HATE The 319 with a freakin passion in terms of comfort, noise and handling turbulence after 5+hrs. And its Hot field Takeoff Performance on a long 5+hr flight say leaving Phoenix on an extremely hot summer day is deplorable,,, although you know in your head the runways are plenty long enough,, it Literally feels like its accelerating slower than a little 4 cylinder Dodge Neon, for what feels like actual Minutes going down a runway that feels like its going to run out of space any second. And dont get me started on the climb-out and climb to cruise altitude, with 3-5 different "step climbs" and more than half the flight just to be able to reach 36,000Ft+

I believe your user name possibly gives us a little clue.

I'm sorry that the little A319 doesn't quite match the rocket-ship Boeing 757, but it is what it is.

p.s. just done a quick google search, and I don't see ANY options for PHX to ANC at this time, unless you want to break your journey at SEA (or worse)

Can you elaborate when these "many many" flights took place, what airline, what times of year, etc.

Also I have just examined recent flight profiles for the longest route I could find (PHX-EWR), and they bear little resemblance to what you have described.
I certainly don't consider FL350 in 24 mins to be lacklustre (UA631 8th Sept), and the day before the same flight made FL330 in just 22 mins, stepping up to FL370 within 48 minutes. I have yet to find anything close to "3-5 step climbs" taking "more than half the flight". :shakehead:

Then again September isn't going to yield "an extremely hot summer day", which is what your diatribe seems to be based upon. I suspect all types suffer somewhat in those conditions, no? (except the sainted 757 of course)

LCDFlight wrote:
Your comments about the performance being weak are unexpected. Its big wing and engine poewr should guarantee strong performance.
But maybe not on an extremely hot summer day out of PHX. :spin:


Several posters have pointed out that this route existed. Perhaps an apology is in order?
 
Calledonian
Topic Author
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:10 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:09 am

Some really interesting responses here, thanks all. It has kind of confirmed my assumptions in regards to performance and CASM.

Very interesting to hear the longer routes it has operated also, I did vaguely know of the Air Canada transatlantic route using the 319 from YYT. Did that get switched over to the 737 MAX and then the route got canned completely, or is my memory totally failing me?
 
JohanTally
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2019 3:44 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:36 am

DDR wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Boeing757rb211 wrote:
I've done Phoenix to Anchorage and back many many times Most of the time on an A319 and if i had ANY other options i would have absolutely taken them. HATE The 319 with a freakin passion in terms of comfort, noise and handling turbulence after 5+hrs. And its Hot field Takeoff Performance on a long 5+hr flight say leaving Phoenix on an extremely hot summer day is deplorable,,, although you know in your head the runways are plenty long enough,, it Literally feels like its accelerating slower than a little 4 cylinder Dodge Neon, for what feels like actual Minutes going down a runway that feels like its going to run out of space any second. And dont get me started on the climb-out and climb to cruise altitude, with 3-5 different "step climbs" and more than half the flight just to be able to reach 36,000Ft+

I believe your user name possibly gives us a little clue.

I'm sorry that the little A319 doesn't quite match the rocket-ship Boeing 757, but it is what it is.

p.s. just done a quick google search, and I don't see ANY options for PHX to ANC at this time, unless you want to break your journey at SEA (or worse)

Can you elaborate when these "many many" flights took place, what airline, what times of year, etc.

Also I have just examined recent flight profiles for the longest route I could find (PHX-EWR), and they bear little resemblance to what you have described.
I certainly don't consider FL350 in 24 mins to be lacklustre (UA631 8th Sept), and the day before the same flight made FL330 in just 22 mins, stepping up to FL370 within 48 minutes. I have yet to find anything close to "3-5 step climbs" taking "more than half the flight". :shakehead:

Then again September isn't going to yield "an extremely hot summer day", which is what your diatribe seems to be based upon. I suspect all types suffer somewhat in those conditions, no? (except the sainted 757 of course)

LCDFlight wrote:
Your comments about the performance being weak are unexpected. Its big wing and engine poewr should guarantee strong performance.
But maybe not on an extremely hot summer day out of PHX. :spin:


Several posters have pointed out that this route existed. Perhaps an apology is in order?


This route absolutely existed as a US route and lasted for a few years post AA merger. PHX was the US/HP west coast hub before AA.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:12 am

DDR wrote:
SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Boeing757rb211 wrote:
I've done Phoenix to Anchorage and back many many times Most of the time on an A319 and if i had ANY other options i would have absolutely taken them. HATE The 319 with a freakin passion in terms of comfort, noise and handling turbulence after 5+hrs. And its Hot field Takeoff Performance on a long 5+hr flight say leaving Phoenix on an extremely hot summer day is deplorable,,, although you know in your head the runways are plenty long enough,, it Literally feels like its accelerating slower than a little 4 cylinder Dodge Neon, for what feels like actual Minutes going down a runway that feels like its going to run out of space any second. And dont get me started on the climb-out and climb to cruise altitude, with 3-5 different "step climbs" and more than half the flight just to be able to reach 36,000Ft+

I believe your user name possibly gives us a little clue.

I'm sorry that the little A319 doesn't quite match the rocket-ship Boeing 757, but it is what it is.

p.s. just done a quick google search, and I don't see ANY options for PHX to ANC at this time, unless you want to break your journey at SEA (or worse)

Can you elaborate when these "many many" flights took place, what airline, what times of year, etc.

Also I have just examined recent flight profiles for the longest route I could find (PHX-EWR), and they bear little resemblance to what you have described.
I certainly don't consider FL350 in 24 mins to be lacklustre (UA631 8th Sept), and the day before the same flight made FL330 in just 22 mins, stepping up to FL370 within 48 minutes. I have yet to find anything close to "3-5 step climbs" taking "more than half the flight". :shakehead:

Then again September isn't going to yield "an extremely hot summer day", which is what your diatribe seems to be based upon. I suspect all types suffer somewhat in those conditions, no? (except the sainted 757 of course)

LCDFlight wrote:
Your comments about the performance being weak are unexpected. Its big wing and engine poewr should guarantee strong performance.
But maybe not on an extremely hot summer day out of PHX. :spin:


Several posters have pointed out that this route existed. Perhaps an apology is in order?


ANC-PHX A319 was daily or near daily for 10, possibly 15 years. I rode it 2x.

A319 has done scheduled services at (please correct if wrong) EYW, ASE and/or EGE. These are not places you see low performance mainline jets. JAC-MSP has some performance needs too, it always seems to be A319.
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:30 am

Calledonian wrote:
Some really interesting responses here, thanks all. It has kind of confirmed my assumptions in regards to performance and CASM.

Very interesting to hear the longer routes it has operated also, I did vaguely know of the Air Canada transatlantic route using the 319 from YYT. Did that get switched over to the 737 MAX and then the route got canned completely, or is my memory totally failing me?


The route was flown by the 737 MAX, then cancelled with the grounding of the aircraft. It will be restored when the MAX flies again.

The two ETOPS 120 equipped A319s went to Rouge, then were no longer kept at that standard as ETOPS 120 was not needed at Rouge.
 
DLASFlyer
Posts: 171
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 4:06 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:44 am

My home airport is JAC which has become A319 central. All four airlines that fly here use 319s on everything from 35 minute JAC-SLC to 5 hour JAC-BOS. Must be an economical, versatile plane if they all choose it (AA, DL, F9, and UA.) Pretty cool when there is a whole line of 319s in different liveries lined up in front of the Tetons.
 
prebennorholm
Posts: 7089
Joined: Tue Mar 21, 2000 6:25 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:49 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Boeing757rb211 wrote:
I've done Phoenix to Anchorage and back many many times Most of the time on an A319 and if i had ANY other options i would have absolutely taken them. HATE The 319 with a freakin passion in terms of comfort, noise and handling turbulence after 5+hrs. And its Hot field Takeoff Performance on a long 5+hr flight say leaving Phoenix on an extremely hot summer day is deplorable,,, although you know in your head the runways are plenty long enough,, it Literally feels like its accelerating slower than a little 4 cylinder Dodge Neon, for what feels like actual Minutes going down a runway that feels like its going to run out of space any second. And dont get me started on the climb-out and climb to cruise altitude, with 3-5 different "step climbs" and more than half the flight just to be able to reach 36,000Ft+

I believe your user name possibly gives us a little clue.

I'm sorry that the little A319 doesn't quite match the rocket-ship Boeing 757, but it is what it is.

World is slightly more complicated than that. 757 rocket-ship? The most common engine on 757 is RR RB.211-535E4. But here in Europe, when 757 still was a common plane, you would often be on a 757 with the much weaker RB.211-535C. Still an OK plane, but rocket-ship not at all.

Same with A319. It came (before NEO) with nine different engine subtypes. The most common engine is the CFM56-5B5 which is a derated 22,000 lbf version of the CFM56-5B4 with 27,000 lbf, widely used on A320. On the other end of the scale, pay a little extra and get your A319 with one of the other 8 engine subtypes, For instance the 27,000 lbf CFM56-5B7 or IAE V2527M-A5.

And if you need range, then you would buy the A319LR. Some ten years ago a few A319LR were delivered to Qatar, PrivatAir and Eurofly. Nominal range 4,500 NM, but with reduced payload - very premium heavy cabin. A few summers a decade or so ago Eurofly used them between Milan, Italy and NYC. Nothing very special. Airbus just took an A319ACJ and removed one or two belly fuel tanks, and then there was an A319LR.

For instance Atlantic Airways - hub Vagar Airport with 4100 ft runway, terrible weather, and all alternates far away - they bought A319 with high powered engines. Until a couple of years ago, when their runway was lengthned to 5900 ft, then their A319 was suplemented with A320.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
 
asuflyer
Posts: 567
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:48 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:55 am

Calledonian wrote:
According to Wikipedia, the Airbus A319 has a range of 3750 nautical miles. On paper at least, this is only 150nmi less than the Boeing 757.

So my question is quite simple, why was the Airbus A319 never used on longer haul (i.e. transatlantic) routes? Surely there is/was some demand for an aircraft smaller than a 757 that could fulfill the same role? Or is it a case that it's real world performance significantly less than what's on paper?


The A319's were infact regularly used transatlantic albeit with fuel tanks configured similar to the A319CJ version. The longest regular A319 flights were operated by Privatair on behalf of Lufthansa from EWR and ORD to DUS in an all business configuration from 2002 to 2008.





https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... ights.html
 
tmoney
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:05 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 3:27 am

A319 is live and well on long(er) routes.
Currently QR flies a A319LR DOH-RGN.
In fact: It's currently in the air right now! http://flightaware.com/live/flight/QTR919 (3119mi; 2536nmi straightline)
QR have used A319s to RGN since 2005. Upguaged briefly to A330s during summer/winter months to get tourists and students going/returning from colleges in the west.
Yokes > Side-sticks
Mingarladon heros. RGN.
 
jmmadrid
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2016 4:00 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:14 am

QR also flew their A319s from DOH to BCN for a while. When the route matured they introduced a bigger plane.

Also, I read a long time ago that airlines were not very keen on the 319 because the 320 cost a bit more but had very similar operating costs and they had the extra seats when they needed them.
 
konrad
Posts: 590
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 9:54 am

Rossiya used to fly A319's from Sankt Petersburg to Central Asia, places such as Fergana, Namangan, Samarkand, the routes are over 2000 miles.

The strangest one was Prague to Hanoi by CSA with one stop en-route.
 
User avatar
HowardWow1997
Posts: 6
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2020 9:38 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:08 am

It also seems to me that the whole point is in monopoly legislation. Which prohibits the introduction of the A319 model at such distances
 
9Patch
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 10:14 am

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
p.s. just done a quick google search, and I don't see ANY options for PHX to ANC at this time, unless you want to break your journey at SEA (or worse)

There is something that caused the airlines to drastically curtail the number of flights they operate.
It's called covid -19.
Have you heard about it?
 
User avatar
SheikhDjibouti
Posts: 2289
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2017 4:59 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 12:56 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:
Boeing757rb211 wrote:
I've done Phoenix to Anchorage and back many many times Most of the time on an A319...

p.s. just done a quick google search, and I don't see ANY options for PHX to ANC at this time, unless you want to break your journey at SEA (or worse)

Can you elaborate when these "many many" flights took place, what airline, what times of year, etc.

DDR wrote:
Several posters have pointed out that this route existed.
Yes, that was all good and very helpful. (meh; some were more helpful than others)

DDR wrote:
Perhaps an apology is in order?
Er...why? I asked a question, and got the answer. #puzzled

9Patch wrote:
There is something that caused the airlines to drastically curtail the number of flights they operate.
It's called covid -19.
Have you heard about it?
Indeed, which is why I qualified my comment with "no flights.... at this time". But thank you for your sarcasm.

If I had simply left it at that, it would have thrown shade on the idea that flights ever existed at all, so instead I asked the question. (which then seems to have triggered a few people)

My next question is; why has this route been singled out during Covid-19, when so many others are still flying, maybe at reduced capacity?
Is there an issue with the possibility of aircraft going technical en-route, and diverting into Canada? That would cause something of a headache.

(But perhaps that is a discussion for another thread?)
Nothing to see here; move along please.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13546
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 1:39 pm

mxaxai wrote:
The range was less than the 757. So you could just barely do TATL flights; the A321LR however got a significant range bonus over the 757 and is a much better replacement. For comparison, the longest 757 route was IIRC EWR-TXL at 3458 nmi, whereas some examples for 'long' A319 routes are
PHX-ANC (2217 nmi)
BOS-SAN (2249 nmi)
YYT-LHR (2012 nmi)
STR-DOH (2427 nmi)
JNB-ACC (2517 nmi)
Lufthansa served MUC-PNQ (3475 nmi) briefly, but they added a refueling stop in GYD..


The A319LR carried up to four ACT and could fly quite far......

VSMUT wrote:
Edit: Qatar Airways also keeps a small fleet of A319s for the Rangoon route. That's a pretty long one if I recall correctly, 7 hours and something.


plus TXL, STR and CPH before. But those where just 6-hour-ish.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
mxaxai
Posts: 2010
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 2:06 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
The A319LR carried up to four ACT and could fly quite far......

True, but that trades belly volume and payload mass for fuel. Boeing offered the same in form of the 737-700ER but it wasn't particularly popular either. It works in the ACJ / BBJ form and certain airlines like Private Air but for regular operations it's not viable.

The 757 and A321XLR are attractive because they can carry a full cabin, their bags and some cargo on TATL routes.
 
jmscsc
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2016 1:09 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:00 pm

UA used the A319 on BDL - SFO. I believe they still do. BA also used it on LCY - JFK until it was axed a month or so ago. Personally, I've never been a fan of the A319 and flying it with DL on ATL - ELP was about as long as I was able to tolerate it. I never found it to be particularly comfortable.
 
User avatar
SASViking
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:06 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:09 pm

jmscsc wrote:
UA used the A319 on BDL - SFO. I believe they still do. BA also used it on LCY - JFK until it was axed a month or so ago. Personally, I've never been a fan of the A319 and flying it with DL on ATL - ELP was about as long as I was able to tolerate it. I never found it to be particularly comfortable.

The BA LCY-JFK service was operated by A318s not A319s
Types flown: A319, A320, A32N, A321, A332, A333, A343, AT43, AT75, AT76, B717, B732, B735, B736, B737, B738, B752, B753, CRJ9, DC10, DH4D, DHC3, E135, E145, E175, E190, E195, F100, MD11, MD81, MD82, MD87, RJ1H
 
9Patch
Posts: 585
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2019 10:38 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:07 pm

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

9Patch wrote:
There is something that caused the airlines to drastically curtail the number of flights they operate.
It's called covid -19.
Have you heard about it?
Indeed, which is why I qualified my comment with "no flights.... at this time". But thank you for your sarcasm.

If I had simply left it at that, it would have thrown shade on the idea that flights ever existed at all, so instead I asked the question. (which then seems to have triggered a few people)

Boeing757rb211's post seems to have triggered you.

My next question is; why has this route been singled out during Covid-19, when so many others are still flying, maybe at reduced capacity?

Could it be there is no demand? ANC is primarily a tourist destination.

Is there an issue with the possibility of aircraft going technical en-route, and diverting into Canada? That would cause something of a headache.

Doubtful. Any flight to Alaska from the Lower 48, no matter where it originates, has the possibility of going technical en-route and needing to divert to Canada. Alaska Airlines is currently operating 14 SEA-ANC non-stops a day, that ALL have the potential to go technical. Furthermore, the border is not completely closed.

The U.S.-Canada border remains closed to all non-essential travel but Americans and foreigners can drive to and from Alaska provided they follow certain rules...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/n ... 553335002/

I'm sure Canada would consider a flight diversion for technical reasons, essential, just as the
 
GSPSPOT
Posts: 2548
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:44 am

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:19 pm

We flew a DL 319 DTW-MEX last year.
Great Lakes, great life.
 
User avatar
DiegoSS02
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:14 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Thu Sep 10, 2020 11:36 pm

Well, I flew LIM-MCO (4500 km/2800 mi) on a LA A319 back in 2016.
 
User avatar
HoboJoe
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 11:03 pm

Re: Why was the A319 never used on longer routes?

Fri Sep 11, 2020 12:18 am

Easy Answer - it wasn't designed for Long Haul

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