A319
Flight Crew Multiengine; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument
Flight Crew Total 9000
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Ground Conflict; Critical; Ground Incursion Runway
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Procedure
Approach told us to expect the visual approach to Runway 06L. The First Officer (Pilot Flying) loaded the ILS 06L in the FMS and we confirmed the approach. We got vectors to a visual approach for 06L and used the ILS 06L as a backup. Approach told us to contact the Tower at the FAF; but I was late switching over to Tower due to completing the Landing Checklist. When I checked in with Tower; I said that we were on final for Runway 06L (I don't remember getting a response). When we were on short final; a B777 taxied onto Runway 06L and it was clear that we had a traffic conflict with the B777. When the Tower contacted us; I stated that we were on final for Runway 06R. Tower then cleared us to land on Runway 06R; but there was no way to make it over to that runway from such a low altitude; so I called 'go-around.' The event occurred because of a traffic conflict with the departing B777 on Runway 06L. I don't think it is a good procedure for Approach Control to tell pilots to contact the Tower at a specific geographical point. How do they know that we won't have a higher-priority task at that point in the future? The truth is that they don't. In this instance; there was time available for me to call the Tower prior to the FAF; but at the FAF; I was busy with a higher-priority task (aviate; navigate; communicate). If I had been given an instruction to switch to Tower immediately; I would have worked it into my work flow at the appropriate time.
A319 First Officer reported executing a go-around due to a conflict with an aircraft of the runway.