A319 Retrofits
02-01-2026 | 04:25 AM
#11
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2024
Posts: 31
Likes: 17
From: A320 FO
It’s a much heavier aircraft and with the neo engines has a lot of excess performance that isn’t being utilized on low passenger count short haul routes. It’s a fine aircraft but it’s just a product of airline economics of the 90s and early 2000s. The 319 is much more suited for short runway high altitude airports. The A220 is much more economical in the day to day operations.
02-01-2026 | 07:58 AM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 20,899
Likes: 219
It’s a much heavier aircraft and with the neo engines has a lot of excess performance that isn’t being utilized on low passenger count short haul routes. It’s a fine aircraft but it’s just a product of airline economics of the 90s and early 2000s. The 319 is much more suited for short runway high altitude airports. The A220 is much more economical in the day to day operations.
02-01-2026 | 08:19 AM
#13
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2024
Posts: 31
Likes: 17
From: A320 FO
Slightly more thrust than a CFM/IAE 319ceo with the Leap-1A24 but equal to the CFM sharklet CFM56-5B7 with the Leap-1A27. Add the less fuel required onboard and equal to slightly more thrust and you go back to my point of more performance. I wasn’t specifically talking about thrust only
02-01-2026 | 09:19 AM
#14
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 720
Likes: 17
That still makes it less efficient and more expensive to operate than its larger siblings on a CASM basis. Lease rates are also high because of its predicted low value on the second hand market compared with the 320neo. But then again American was still taking delivery of the lame duck 787-8 until like yesterday.
02-01-2026 | 07:01 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 4,154
Likes: 341
It’s a much heavier aircraft and with the neo engines has a lot of excess performance that isn’t being utilized on low passenger count short haul routes. It’s a fine aircraft but it’s just a product of airline economics of the 90s and early 2000s. The 319 is much more suited for short runway high altitude airports. The A220 is much more economical in the day to day operations.
The 319 costs almost the same as a 321 but with 60 less pax. Its trip costs are slightly less of course because it's BOW is less, but it's not that much more to run a 321 and the casm is significantly less.
02-02-2026 | 12:01 PM
#16
SrFOorJrCAisthe?
Joined: Sep 2017
Posts: 1,670
Likes: 319
What you can do with the 319neo you can do with the 737-8. And carry 44(?) more people.
The 319 costs almost the same as a 321 but with 60 less pax. Its trip costs are slightly less of course because it's BOW is less, but it's not that much more to run a 321 and the casm is significantly less.
The 319 costs almost the same as a 321 but with 60 less pax. Its trip costs are slightly less of course because it's BOW is less, but it's not that much more to run a 321 and the casm is significantly less.
AA loves the 73-8. They'll do what a 319 can with more butts for more $$$.
02-03-2026 | 10:34 AM
#17
On Reserve
Joined: Feb 2019
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: 737
02-04-2026 | 11:32 AM
#19
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 543
Likes: 72
From what I understand, a new 319neo sells for close to a 321. Airbus production slots are sold out for quite a while, so no reason to discount, and production costs are similar anyway.
Happy to be shown the error of my ways if I’m wrong.
02-04-2026 | 03:32 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 2,281
Likes: 152
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
antiguogrumete
Your Photos and Videos
0
06-24-2022 11:39 PM
antiguogrumete
Your Photos and Videos
0
01-23-2021 02:15 AM
