A319 YYT-LHR?

The Man from Del Monte · Thu May 11, 2006 5:38 pm

Anyone think that this is a remote possibility, I think I'd rather go YYT-YHZ-LHR and pick up the 767 in YHZ than go all the way on the 319.
Thoughts??

Air Canada Flight Confusion - VOCM News
May 11, 2006

There is some confusion today about whether Air Canada will continue to offer a direct flight from St. John's to London's Heathrow Airport. Federal Cabinet Minister Loyola Hearn says company officials told them this morning that the service would continue, but a spokeswoman for Air Canada says no decision has been made. The St.John's International Airport Authority also has not heard anything about the situation. Hearn says Air Canada officials told his office that the route would continue to be offered pending regulatory approvals at Heathrow Airport. He says the plane would be an Airbus 319 which holds 120 passengers. There is no word on whether it would a daily flight. Hearn says Air Canada says the smaller plane would be sufficient to handle the traffic levels. Hearn says he's pleased Air Canada listened to the concerns of people in this province.

ZBB118.10 · Post by **ZBB118.10** » Thu May 11, 2006 6:26 pm

An A319 all the way to LHR? Direct that distance is 2300 miles which seems long for a baby bus over water, but then I have just read that it has a range at 3697 miles!

Anyone know what the deal is with this a/c and ETOPS approval?

C-FABH · Post by **C-FABH** » Thu May 11, 2006 6:33 pm

Privatair operate their A319s across the Atlantic on a daily basis, however those are fitted with extra fuel tanks, and also carry fewer passengers than a regular J/Y config.

JZA · Post by **JZA** » Thu May 11, 2006 7:09 pm

YYT-LHR is shorter than a lot of routes that AC uses the mini bus on such as YYC-YHZ. It's certainly alot shorter than YVR-HNL in a 737.

Should be interesting to see if it actually happens.

fmrc3ame · Post by **fmrc3ame** » Fri May 12, 2006 5:26 pm

Directly from the Airbus Website:

Airbus A320 Family approved for 180 minute ETOPS by the FAA
9 May 2006

Airbus A320, A321 and A319, including the corporate jet version, are approved for 180 minute extended range twin-engine operations (ETOPS). The approval was granted by the Federal Aviation Administration after European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) had granted the same approval in March 2004.

The first 180 minute ETOPS aircraft certified by the FAA, an A319 corporate jet is planned to be delivered in May to an undisclosed US customer.

A318 ETOPS approval (EASA and FAA) is targeted for 2nd half of this year, leading to the complete Airbus Single Aisle Family to be ETOPS certified by both Authorities.

This 180 min ETOPS Type Design approval granted by the FAA recognises the compliance of aircraft design with current US ETOPS rules and the significant ETOPS experience accumulated worldwide as well as the high reliability of A320 family ETOPS operations.

ETOPS, is an International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) rule permitting twin-engined commercial aircraft operators to fly routes that are up to 180 minutes flying time from the nearest airport.

hind sight · Post by **hind sight** » Sat May 13, 2006 5:16 am

I believe that even if the aircraft comes with 180 Etops that the company has to be approved for it in order to do it.

gr8gazu · Post by **gr8gazu** » Sat May 13, 2006 5:40 am

ETOPS certification is similar to respect in that it isn't indescriminately awarded, it is earned.

The engines must prove reliability within ETOPS operating areas (not overall) which means the number of engine shutdowns within the ETOPS area vs the total engine hours flown within the same area.

We all know the chances engine shutdowns within that area will be very slight.

There have been cases of multi engine failures during oceanic flights over the years. I believe an Eastern Airlines L1011 had departed Miami and lost all 3 engines due to low oil pressure. The same maintenance had been performed on all 3 engines and the oil seals were improperly(or not at all) installed.

Another was a 747 over the Pacific that lost all 4 engines due to volcanic ash ingestion.

We are all aware of an A330 that landed in the Azores after the crew transferred all their fuel into a leak...

Happily, all 3 flights had successful outcomes but it is important to note that all had different engine configurations.

Safety doesn't always come in numbers! Due to improved products, materials, maintenance procedures etc, engines today are very reliable.

If you have a problem that causes 2 engines to fail, it is very likely that it would take out all 4 engines if you were so configured. ie: fuel exhaustion , contamination or mismanagement, heavy precip etc.

My only question would be the value of flying a small aircraft over that route. Is it so thin that the 320 is appropriate so is that route going to be profitable?? That however is off topic and is for the execs to figure out!

Go ahead and get onboard, your chances of going swimming are very, very slight!

hind sight · Post by **hind sight** » Sat May 13, 2006 6:20 am

Etops is for extended twin engine operations

gr8gazu · Post by **gr8gazu** » Sat May 13, 2006 6:23 am

Of course, but my point was that people shouldn't worry about number of engines or size of aircraft on ETOPS routes...

Jaques Strappe · Post by **Jaques Strappe** » Sat May 13, 2006 9:11 am

Air Canada has been discussing this option for years.

Two things crop up:

1) Every Airbus pilot will need ETOPs Training and added simulator sessions along with airframe approval for ETOPS, just for this one route.

2) The Star Alliance, at this point, does not want to offer a narrow body product on the ocean.

That was what the objections were a couple of years ago anyway. ( Pre 911 )

hind sight · Post by **hind sight** » Sat May 13, 2006 11:43 am

Back in the spring of 2001 Skyservice was going to base a 319 in YHZ and go over the pond.
A couple week into crew training the tour operator decided to axe the idea.