Why A319 instead of A320?

bigjets

Veteran
Jan 14, 2011
1,881
1,288
Does anyone know the reason behind getting A319 over A320s? It seems like the A320 can be used the exact same way but will carry more PAX.
 
It is all about flexibility to rights size the AC to the market. To many seats or to few is a killer in this business.
 
The smaller size is the whole idea.  We don't need 150 or 160 seats in every market.  We need a smaller plane for a lot of places, and have the 737 and soon the A321S, which will have 16/165, for larger markets. 
 
When I started at TWA in 1972 we had DC9-10s which held 16/50, all the way up to 747s.
 
MK
 
USFlyer said:
If I remember correctly, the A319 also has slightly better range than the A320.
 
And it lands a whole lot better than any 320.  11 out of 10 AB pilots think the 320 should be decertified. :lol:  
 
When AA placed orders of the 319's the plan was to get rid of Eagle and fill the RJ slots with 319's to be more competitive with carriers like JetBlue who flew into cities that Eagle flew into with smaller aircraft. Not that all 319's would replace eagle but fly eagle routes where feasible.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #10
1AA said:
When AA placed orders of the 319's the plan was to get rid of Eagle and fill the RJ slots with 319's to be more competitive with carriers like JetBlue who flew into cities that Eagle flew into with smaller aircraft. Not that all 319's would replace eagle but fly eagle routes where feasible.
 
That makes sense, since they fly to Memphis and Cleveland. 
 
I think the A320 is terirble. Im in one now in 5C . I havent felt this crammped in a Mainline aircraft in a while. I would hope the "NEW" AA (DP) would make more leg room a priority in these things if hes planing to fly 3+ hour legs with them.
 
I hope AA can survive, the people Ive had the pleasure of meeting during my travels with AA have been top notch, cant say so much for US Air. 
 
Just a full fair paying clients' 2 pennies worth!
 
Mike
 
CONFUSED1 said:
I think the A320 is terirble. Im in one now in 5C . I havent felt this crammped in a Mainline aircraft in a while. I would hope the "NEW" AA (DP) would make more leg room a priority in these things if hes planing to fly 3+ hour legs with them.
 
I hope AA can survive, the people Ive had the pleasure of meeting during my travels with AA have been top notch, cant say so much for US Air. 
 
Just a full fair paying clients' 2 pennies worth!
 
Mike
The thing is that the A320 is a vastly popular aircraft as is the 737. And it looks like these models will be around for many years to come. Leg room and seat width can make the difference between feeling cramped and being reasonably comfortable. But realistically, i don't see any airline removing seats especially when seats are being added.
 
CONFUSED1 said:
I think the A320 is terirble. Im in one now in 5C . I havent felt this crammped in a Mainline aircraft in a while. I would hope the "NEW" AA (DP) would make more leg room a priority in these things if hes planing to fly 3+ hour legs with them.
 
I hope AA can survive, the people Ive had the pleasure of meeting during my travels with AA have been top notch, cant say so much for US Air. 
 
Just a full fair paying clients' 2 pennies worth!
 
Mike
If the past performance of DP (the new chief poobah of AA, formerly of LCC)  is any indicator of future actions, then the new AA will have more seats rather than fewer in the same cabins you are complaining about now.
Cheers.
 
PullUp said:
If the past performance of DP (the new chief poobah of AA, formerly of LCC)  is any indicator of future actions, then the new AA will have more seats rather than fewer in the same cabins you are complaining about now.
Cheers.
Who?
 
If I recall correctly.... AA in the last century was fined for installing more seats in the MD80s. They were forced to remove them , when they did they started a more room in coach campaign. Sen Rockefeller was part of that Campaign.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top