The A320 actually used the shorter runway to land, coming back with pax from FLL. They used 6 when they ferried in from PHL. They wanted to use the shorter runway when departing to FLL, but the tower had to check if there were any restrictions, and the F9 crew just used the longer runway so they wouldn't have to wait for an answer. But remember, the winds that day were strong and favored the shorter runway, and assuming they didn't add any more pax from another flight, the A320 would have been almost 20% empty.
Originally Posted by
davywavy
That is what some of us assume may happen. The CEO has said that they want to do it, but they don't - presently - have a plane with "the right engine performance."
Both he and CFO have said they are looking for ways to solve the problem, and - I assume - it might mean a new, as in factory fresh, aircraft, such as the A319 with sharklets, because the retrofit isn't yet available for the A319. Airbus says the sharklets improve take off performance
As to the engine, I'm no Tech Wallah. Frontier has 10 or 11 A319's with the uprated engines - I don't know if the CFM can be upgraded again.
I was surprised that they were able to use the A320 at TTN one day, as a sub for an out of service A319, and that the plane (empty, on arrival from PHL) purposely used the shorter runway to land. The A320 then flew TTN-FLL-TTN with a commercial load.
There are rumours from semi-reliable sources that the problem has been solved, but I have heard nothing from anyone at Frontier, other than the CFO's recent reiteration of their determination to be able to fly TTN-DEN.