Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft  
User currently offlineAirportPlan From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 469 posts, RR: 3
Posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 14992 times:

Aviation Daily
U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Lufthansa
By Steve Lott
03/09/2004 10:36:20 AM


Lufthansa executives declared yesterday that the largest U.S. airports are not ready to accept the Airbus A380 and a lot of work must be done before the carrier can feel comfortable from an operational perspective landing the plane on U.S. soil.

Even though the airline won't begin operating the super jumbo aircraft until 2007 and a lot of improvements can be made in three years, Executive VP-Operations Carl Sigel said only a few airports around the world could handle the A380 and he has his doubts if some facilities in the U.S. and Asia can tackle the problems.

While there has been a lot of focus on how an airport's runways and taxiways will be able to accommodate the plane, Sigel believes gates pose the most significant problem.

Sigel told reporters in Frankfurt yesterday that he would prefer airports have at least two loading bridges and preferably three on two different levels. The double-decker A380 will carry 35% more passengers than the Boeing 747-400, and Sigel said it could take more than two hours to turn an A380 under current conditions. He noted that Los Angeles and New York Kennedy are not yet ready for the A380 and need gate upgrades.

The good news is that Lufthansa's two main Frankfurt and Munich hubs are already prepared for the A380. Frankfurt has several gates that allow loading and unloading on two floors. Sigel said the airline has a special project group of about 40 staffers preparing for the A380 and is working with local airport authorities around the world. Sigel suggested that the resistance to upgraded gates at U.S. airports might be both a political and a funding issue.

It is not only a U.S. problem, he added, because the airline has some questions about airports in Asia, as well.





138 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 14847 times:

The real question is who pays for these upgrades. If the airlines want to fly the A380, should they be responsible for the infrastructure costs to operate them or do the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

I work with a number of airports and a common refrain I'm hearing is that money is very tight right now and they're mostly focused on their security budget chewing up $ for capital improvements.

If the runways and taxiways can bear the load they may have to put up with the 2 hour loading times.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineScottb From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6712 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 14779 times:

Well, the solution to this problem is simple -- Lufthansa pays to upgrade the upgrade the gate areas it plans to use for A380 operations. It certainly does not make sense to have government-owned airports like JFK and LAX subsidizing LH's A380 operations by putting up the money to upgrade, especially in light of the European Union's view on government subsidies to airlines.

Very few other airlines operating to airports in the U.S. will require these facilities, so it makes sense to have the limited set of A380 operators pay for them. The airports gain little to no benefit from having A380 operations vs. 747's, A340's, 777's, etc., which are all compatible with existing facilities.


User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 33
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 14741 times:

This topic has come up a couple of times, especially regarding LAX and the A380. Starrion is correct that there are basically two options as to how any upgrades would be paid for: either by the airport or by the airline. Those airports (at least those in the US) that are not yet ready for the 380 are finding it tough to be able to find the money to pay for the upgrades that would be needed. Usually upgrades that would basically not benefit all airport tenants (most often terminal improvements) would be paid for by the airline.

As an airport operator, I, for one, would encourage the airline to pay for the improvements.

For a lively discussion on this issue, checkout: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1295006

Tom at MSY



"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1637 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 14718 times:

.....Sigel said it could take more than two hours to turn an A380 under current conditions......

Ohh Noo!!! At that rate that will mean a pasanger Deplaneing/Boarding every 6.4 seconds.


The reason that U.S. airports arn't in a rush to Upgrade the gates is that it only takes about 3 months to install them. Make it a year if you included the Planning and Bidding portion. And an Airport is not going to spend money until on a upgrade is needed. I'm sure it's pretty much the same thing in Asia.
Taxiways and Runways are a totaly diffrent subject.



My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 14575 times:

To quote from the other thread, the difficulties facing LAX and the A380:

1. The extreme inadequecy of the Bradley International Terminal. As it currently stands, the Bradley Terminal is already bursting at the seems trying to accommodate the large number of 747-400's flying in and out of that airport, and the A388 with its (on average) 150 more pax per plane plus luggage for those extra 150 pax is going to cause major bottlenecks in ground servicing the plane.

2. The fact the south east-west runways may be inadequate to handle the massive load of the A388, especially the Sepulveda Boulevard underpass.

3. The need to widen taxiways to accommodate the wider stance of the A388.

We're talking a project that could run way over US$1 billion to complete. LAX officials should have realized this like back in the late 1990's when Airbus was already in serious design definition phase of the plane

As someone who's worked at LAX for the last 16 years, this post is a BINGO!!! It goes well beyond the capability of TBIT (or any other terminal, for that matter) to accomodate an A380. The whole friggin' airfield needs a revamp to accomodate it.

Side issue here - are all the terminals owned by the airport, or are some owned by individual airlines?"
Terminals are usually owned by the airport, leased to the airlines on a long-term basis (usually a 30-year lease).

Tom in NO,
At LAX, Terminals 3 and 6 actually reverted back to LAWA control. LAWA had a plan (pre 9/11) to rebuild T-3 completely. This plan is/was outside of the LAX Masterplan debacle. Not sure about T-1; T-2 is leased to LAXTWO Corp.- the consortium of AC, NW, HA, NZ, VS; T-4, AA: T-5, DL: T-7/8, UA.
Also, though SFO's new Int'l Terminal is Y-A380 compliant, SFO has similiar, if not more severe, airfield configuration issues.




Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14541 times:

I would expect that the airlines that are purchasing the A380 have factored in the readiness of the airports they're planning to use them at into the decision.

At least I would hope so....



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineSHUPirate1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3670 posts, RR: 17
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14547 times:

Much to the chagrin of the Nobody IMportant But Yourstruly's near the airport, I can't help but shake the feeling that LGB, which is A-380 ready (biggest runway 10,000x200), will get the brunt of the international traffic that would otherwise be headed to LAX...


Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
User currently offlineCRFLY From Costa Rica, joined Jan 2004, 197 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14518 times:

I'm so sorry that LH is going to retire all its 747-400's and 737's some day and become an ALL-AIRBUS operator... I'm gonna miss flying the 74' to FRA =(


With Age comes Wisdom...
User currently offlineScbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12394 posts, RR: 46
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14477 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Everything I've read about this on Airbus' website, suggests that the runway and taxiway loadings for the A380 are designed to be no more, if not less, than a 773. So if a 773 can taxi over the Sepulveda Boulevard underpass, an A380 should be able to.


Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana!
User currently offlineUAL747DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2392 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14425 times:

I know that DEN is ready for the A380 on the runways and taxiways. We do have the option of unloading pax on 2 levels. I do think that LF will eventually fly the A380 here considering they fill the 747 that currently serves DEN (747 and the A330 I think)
Other airlines that want to use the A380 on US routes could just fly into DEN and from there connect their pax on codeshares. DEN is a good central point to have such an operation.

Just a thought.......



/// UNITED AIRLINES
User currently offlineBrons2 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3007 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 14379 times:

Everything I've read about this on Airbus' website, suggests that the runway and taxiway loadings for the A380 are designed to be no more, if not less, than a 773. So if a 773 can taxi over the Sepulveda Boulevard underpass, an A380 should be able to.

I think on a PSI loading basis on each landing gear, the A380 is similar to the 773 but on that bridge the overall loading of the plane comes into play.



Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2924 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14112 times:


This is going to turn into one of those silly debates, like the thread mentioned above did, about how American Taxpayers shouldn't subsidise the A380 operations. I can already see the same players from that thread here in this one ready to jump all over anyone who mentions the fact that its generally the airport, not the airline, that pays for upgrading its infrastructure. It's therefore the community, or the airports operating entity in the case of privatised airports, that raises the funds to pay for the reconfiguration.

The most vehemont members of the last threads debate would rather see 1000 more WN movements at LAX than a single A380 flight I'd bet. Anyway if you want my opinions read the thread mentioned above.


User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1521 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14103 times:

Tom in NO,
Your insight into airport management is valuable. This issue of upgrading facilities for larger gauge aircraft had (obviously) occurred in the past, with the 747 representing the last "next big step" in capacity and physical dimension. Do you have info as to which entity (entities) paid for 747-compliant upgrades? Did the airlines, or the airports pay for upgrades? Or was it some combination of both? Or, was decided on an airport-by-airport basis?



With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5621 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 14035 times:

This is silly! Airports are businesses, upgrades and everything else are paid for in the end by the airports customers, thru landing/handling fees. In the first instance it is the airlines, who then pass it on to their customers, the traveller.

The debate is really about who funds it to start with, not who pays for it. Its a pretty poor business that cant take the Airbus requirements document, run it aganist their current sitution, prepare an estimate, then make a businees decision as to if its worth while for the airports to upgrade to accept the A380 or not to do so.

And of course the answer is different for every airport. SYD will be home base for 12 of the monsters and will see at least one a day from SQ, maybe up to 3 a day and at least one a day from EK, also up to 3 and at least one a day from MH. From KE I would guess not, but who knows? So the business case for SYD to do what ever has to be done is strong, dont want QF basing them in MEL do we???


Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineAs739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6098 posts, RR: 23
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 13959 times:

Bons2: Actually SFO would have almost no problem in handling a A380 tommorow. As I spoke to the Airfield Safety Coordinator today. He stated that we have 2 gates on either end of the terminal that can handle the plane. The taxiways though not a preferred layout can be used. The only hinge will be that ground control will have to be on the top of its game to stagger anything wider then a 757 away from passing a A388. The 2 taxiways in question are Alfa and Bravo and will be a headache if the A388 arrived during peak rush operations. The runways of use for the A380 will be able to handle its wait as well. No worries here according to him.
ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16822 posts, RR: 51
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 13921 times:

I think a factor people are not considering when criticising US Airports who are hesitent about investing in new gates, ramps, taxi ways etc for the A380 is the fact that no US Airline (not including FedEx) ordered the aircraft or are likely to order the aircraft.

Why should local Governments (who control most major airports in the US) use scarce Airport improvement funds for the purpose of hosting 3 A380 flights a day from foreign carriers, perhaps they are better off not hosting the A380s at all.

It's not like Qantas, Lufthansa etc. are going to drop LAX or JFK from their route networks because they are not capable of hosting A380s, also it's not like LAX and the Port Authority of NY & NJ would see less revenues or less traffic if they did not host A380s.

The carriers such as Lufthansa, Qantas etc would just compensate with more 747, A340 flights.

The comparison of the A380 and the 747 are mute because the 747 was ordered in large numbers by both US (Pan Am, TWA, AA, UAL etc.) as well as Foreign Carriers, not one US passenger carrier has expressed interest in the A380.

Not one.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2093 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 13820 times:

Planes carry passengers. Passengers pay the bills for airports and are the reason they are there in the first place. Passengers arrive on airplanes of different shapes and sizes. Airlines on some routes operate more efficiently by using larger aircraft. If we have airports or people with their heads up their asses they should not be in the business. Lets stop talking a complete load of, if they fly the big Airbus they cannot use our airport, bull shit, and get on doing what we should be doing. Make the airports suitable for Passengers we pay your salaries. LAX International terminal is a disgrace, we should not be proud that this is how we welcome people to our home. JFK and others are just as bad. The A380 is not the problem, shortsighted and lack of vision is.

Sorry for the harsh words, but it upsets me when I travel globally to the new and better looked after airports in Asia and Europe, then come home and have to read the trash some people write here.


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2924 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 13714 times:


"not one US passenger carrier has expressed interest in the A380."

Thats because the ones that would have the requirement, ie 747 operators, are either bankrupt, (UAL), or are introducing A330's and not interested in replacing 747's on their Asian runs.

Col, I completely agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tom in NO, would you therefore sell the Bradley terminal to a consortium of foreign airlines for them to upgrade????? Dont be stupid. I too work in Airport Management and know that the International Airlines dont pay for upgrades to International terminals. They are separated from Domestic Airlines who DO pay for them.


User currently offlineFRA-Runway From Germany, joined Jul 1999, 79 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 13707 times:

STT757:
What if NW or UA would decide tomorrow to buy some A380?
If LAX wouldn't like to invest, UA could use it from SFO or DEN.
Same with LH, i suppose that for most of LH's passengers LAX is not their final, therefore they don't have to go your proposed way to add an additional 747/A340 flight to LAX, but increase routing their passengers through SFO or DEN, saving a lot of money.

Or, to be provocative, is it just that US airport facilities want to protect US airlines from foreign airlines who can achieve cheaper operating costs by using the A380 ?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy


User currently offlineScottb From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6712 posts, RR: 32
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 13590 times:

"Planes carry passengers. Passengers pay the bills for airports and are the reason they are there in the first place. Passengers arrive on airplanes of different shapes and sizes. Airlines on some routes operate more efficiently by using larger aircraft."

Explain to me the benefit to all passengers of paying higher rents and landing fees through their ticket prices to subsidize the operations of a few airlines which use larger aircraft. Passengers pay the bills for airports and are best served by the airport doing its best to keep its capital and operating costs under control - thus decreasing per-passenger operating costs. It isn't fair to "spread the pain" of A380 upgrades to passengers and carriers which will obtain no tangible benefit from them. It's not fair for jetBlue (as the largest user of JFK) to have to subsidize airfield and/or terminal improvements for the A380 from which they will obtain absolutely no benefit. I fail to see why it would be fair for Virgin Blue to pay for upgrades at SYD which only benefit its competitor. In many situations in the U.S., the airlines DO pay for their own terminal improvements. CO built itself new terminals at IAH and CLE and new facilities at EWR, DL is building a new terminal at BOS, US built an addition for its BOS terminal, AA extensively refurbished its terminal at LAX, and a consortium of foreign carriers built Terminal 1 at JFK.

It is a matter of sound fiscal policy on the parts of the airports. I would assume (and hope) that the relevant authorities at FRA, MUC, etc. analyzed their traffic numbers and found that A380 improvements would bring in more revenue long-term than the cost of the improvements. It's not clear that the cost of the improvements are outweighed by the benefits for most U.S. airports, particularly if those benefits show up primarily in the bottom line of airlines which do not pay taxes in the United States. If the European Union feels that the U.S. shouldn't subsidize its airlines, then the U.S. certainly shouldn't be subsidizing foreign airlines by footing the bill for airport improvements.

If LH, AF, QF, SQ, VS, etc. are unhappy with LAX or JFK or any other airport not offering A380-compatible facilities, they are free to use other equipment or to withdraw/move their services in protest. LH could channel New York-bound passengers through YYZ or LAX-bound passengers through SFO.


User currently offlineRjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 13555 times:

I agree with STT757 110%!

User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1521 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 13512 times:

"The A380 is not the problem, shortsighted and lack of vision is."

Errr....I'm not sure this is totally accurate. Using LAX as an example: First discussions regarding expansion (which included modifications for Group VI aircraft), 1991. Initial spate of expansion alternatives introduced in 1996. Now, if the process had not been sidetracked (hijacked!!!), the timeline would be as follows: Selection of preferred alternative, 1997; Final EIS/EIR preparation/completion for preferred alternative, 1999; submission to L. A. City Council for approval, 2000; submission to FAA for approval 2001.
Groundbreaking 2002-2003, with first phase completion by 2006.

So convince me, a plan was put forth. Does that reek of a lack of vision? You be the judge.

Transportation, particularly air transport, is a transborder activity. Because of this pecularity, accomodations have been made for advances in size, speed, and capacity regardless of what borders were crossed.
Because air transport (airlines and airports) are competitive, there is going to be pressure on ill prepared facilities. Think that SFO or YVR isn't going to tout themselves as A380 compliant versus LAX?
Ultimately, the question for airports is at what cost do we not upgrade? Is that cost the inconvenience of ground delays? Is it the inconvenience of passengers clogging that single level jetway; clogging the baggage claim area? Is it the inconvenience of inadequate baggage and passengers holdrooms for A380 operators.
No comparison between the A380 and 747? You be the judge.

A380 will fly scheduled service, SOON, on the routes deemed most appropriate for it's operators. Airports that have adequate runway length and strength will see it.

[Edited 2004-03-10 01:11:54]

[Edited 2004-03-10 01:24:34]


With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2924 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 13466 times:


ScottB - VirginBlue isn't paying for the upgrades to Sydney airport, Southern Cross Holdings, who is the parent entity of the airport, is!!!!!

Once again, very shortsighted. I agree with you that the domestic airlines in most countries pay for the upgrades to their terminal facilities. Do you think LAX will sell the Bradley Terminal to Foreign Carriers or let them build their own terminal???? Of course they wont!!! The reality is that airlines pay for improvements to their own domestic facilities but rarely do for improvements at common user International facilities. Besides which you have higher landing charges and gate usage fees for the A380 plus the additional passengers bought in spend more in the airport shops, require more space in airport lounges, require additional check-in counters, increase turnover in the carpark or a hike in fees if no carpark expansion takes place etc etc all of which means more revenue for the airport operator.

"cost of the improvements are outweighed by the benefits for most U.S. airports"

Just how many airports do you think will have A380 service???? I count only 3 being LAX, SFO, JFK. I could also understand Dulles and O'Hare making a provision for them as well but not many others. Your only talking about major US gateway cities having airlines use A380's to operate into them. Your Federal government gave a $900 million loan to US Airways so clearly they have money to burn.

"which do not pay taxes in the United States"

Of course those airlines dont have employees in the US that pay taxes??? Nor do they buy fuel in the US that has tax on it??? Nor do they buy food which has tax on it??? Nor interline with US airlines who do pay taxes??? Nor do their passengers spend any money in the US on products and services that attract tax??? Thats a silly argument to make.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16822 posts, RR: 51
Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 13446 times:

"STT757:
What if NW or UA would decide tomorrow to buy some A380?
If LAX wouldn't like to invest, UA could use it from SFO or DEN."

That's different because in that case there would be a "hub" for the A380, FRA is willing to upgrade their facilities for the A380 because LH will base them there, as will Qantas in Sydney.

LAX, JFK etc are not hubs for the A380s, they are spokes.





Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
25 Sydscott : Heathrow is also upgrading its facilities for the A380 yet its biggest operator isn't buying them. If you think about it both LAX and JFK WILL be hub
26 STT757 : "Heathrow is also upgrading its facilities for the A380 yet its biggest operator isn't buying them" No but it's second biggest operator Virgin Atlanti
27 Sydscott : Thats true but Virgins operation at LHR is no-where the scale of BA's who would account for the bulk of LHR's passengers and flights. If we apply the
28 UALAX : Aaway, It seems that TBIT expansion and A380 related improvements are the least controversial part of the LAX masterplan. Could they take out these im
29 Post contains images 5T6 : An A380?? Heck...here in ELP we get giddy if anything bigger than an MD80 shows up!! I know for sure that there's ONE American airport that isn't read
30 STT757 : Im sure Memphis is upgrading their facilities because FedEx will be basing their A380s there, it's in their economic interests to upgrade the airport
31 PVD757 : I've been saying this since the last year on previous A380 subjects. It is going to cost more and be more difficult than people think. Security is mor
32 Sydscott : STT - Just look at who has ordered. I think practically all the airlines that have ordered A380's will operate them to either JFK or LAX. Combining Q
33 Sydscott : PVD - I have to make a few points on what you wrote. "Security is more important to major airports than getting a few more fringe flights in" Thats tr
34 PVD757 : I thought LHR's second largest operator was BMI. If the airlines want the airplane to operate at these airports, they should have to incur higher cost
35 Sydscott : It doesn't matter if its BMI or Virgin, neither of them have anywhere near the operation that BA has at LHR. I dont think anyone has said the biggest
36 Gigneil : But then if your government can afford to waste $900 million on US, and still have it go under, then a billion dollars to upgrade LAX and JFK wont be
37 MAH4546 : No problem, just send all the A380s over to Miami. The new Star Alliance Terminal will have 3 A380 capable gates, and an A380-capable maintenance hang
38 ORDnDFW777 : Don't expect to see one at DFW or ORD for quite some time.
39 Sydscott : "Our government hasn't invested a dime in US, nor have they/will they lose a penny" I didn't say you had invested nor that you would lose it. I said y
40 Rjpieces : Can't airlines still choose to operate A380 flights to JFK and LAX, they just shouldn't expect a quick deboarding process and might have to use stairs
41 M404 : Isn't this the same argument that Boeing had against the bigger aircraft?
42 Areopagus : So, how is Heathrow paying for the A380 upgrades? Is it raising landing fees for all classes of airplanes, or getting moola from the national governme
43 Mir : Can't airlines still choose to operate A380 flights to JFK and LAX, they just shouldn't expect a quick deboarding process and might have to use stairs
44 AirframeAS : I think that the airlines should be the ones paying for upgrades in the U.S. out of their customers. Why should the airports have to shell out all tha
45 Antonovman : "If the airlines want the airplane to operate at these airports, they should have to incur higher costs for bringing it in." This is exactly what they
46 T prop : One billion + dollars just to upgrade LAX to handle the 380, is this true? If any politician wants to spend that much of MY tax dollars to upgrade any
47 Aaron747 : Look, too often, as exemplified by sydscott's posts in particular, the externalities of this issue gets oversimplified in ignorance of the larger cont
48 NWA Man : One billion + dollars just to upgrade LAX to handle the 380, is this true? If any politician wants to spend that much of MY tax dollars to upgrade any
49 MAH4546 : MAH - I take it back, so there is 1 airport in the US that has a plan and is taking action. Well, it is not really that they are "taking action". It i
50 Stefandotde : Who has to pay for the upgrades? LOL - what a question! The airports have to pay for it. They have customers who pay lots of money to the airports. If
51 Tavve : MAH4546: And there have always been rumors that Iberia is looking at leasing A380s from A380 customer ILFC. Those would likely fly to Miami too. Rumor
52 Post contains links Tavve : ...Well, the IB hub switch has been discussed today... http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1439576/ Out of this thread's t
53 Russophile : Personally, I don't see what the big fricking deal is -- these airports are already capable of receiving fully laden An-124 and An-225 -- the A380 wil
54 Setjet : "Well, the solution to this problem is simple -- Lufthansa pays to upgrade the upgrade the gate areas it plans to use for A380 operations." What a stu
55 Sk : That's really a stupid discussion - who paid the necessary upgrades to operate to handle the 747? But I gues that's something different. No no - the a
56 SailorOrion : I'm impressed by the runway weakness that exists on multiple US airports: For example (strongest runway's PCN number): KORD: 72RCWT (not sufficient fo
57 Adria : "One billion + dollars just to upgrade LAX to handle the 380, is this true? If any politician wants to spend that much of MY tax dollars to upgrade an
58 Col : Lets keep this simple. 1) 380 is coming - like it or not. 2) Don't know how many it will sell - don't care. 3) US Carriers have not bought it, need it
59 Eg777er : Virgin? Second biggest user of LHR? In their dreams! I believe it goes something like this: 1. BA 2. BMI 3. Lufthansa. 4. Then probably either America
60 STT757 : "Yes, and that's not good, is it. Good for frequency for business class customers but what about airport and air ongestion?" A340s and 777s don't caus
61 Aaway : "It seems that TBIT expansion and A380 related improvements are the least controversial part of the LAX masterplan. Could they take out these improvem
62 Setjet : Lufthansa will also go to LAX with the A380.
63 Aaway : Setjet, I purposely omitted AF and LH. My thinking is that since these carriers are operating LAX service to/from non slot-restricted fields, they'd o
64 Scottb : If the A380 operators are willing to pay for the cost of the upgrades through some sort of surcharge (as part of their landing fees/rents) to recover
65 NWA Man : so do you pay for a chair and a table at the Restaurant which you intend to go in? Absolutely not... but that's an extremely poor analogy. I might be
66 Gigneil : 380 operators are clearly prepared to pay higher landing fees, and those fees are supposed to provide the required services. Miami's runways are clear
67 SailorOrion : I don't want to interpret the data, I just posted what I more ore less official data I got. If anyone could get me better runway data, I'd be glad. Sa
68 Sydscott : ScottB says - My comment: Tell me who exactly pays fees to Southern Cross Holdings to use the airport. I'd guess the answer is Qantas, Virgin Blue, ot
69 Ken777 : I think the simple long term reality is that the major airports will become 380 ready and that the airlines using 380s will pay a very hefty surcharge
70 Fdxgirl : passengers? what about freight (FEDEX)? im sure they can handle the A380 at the hub in MEM or in ANC, but what about emergency landings? where is it s
71 MAH4546 : MAH4546: And there have always been rumors that Iberia is looking at leasing A380s from A380 customer ILFC. Those would likely fly to Miami too. Rumor
72 Tom in NO : Do you have info as to which entity (entities) paid for 747-compliant upgrades? Did the airlines, or the airports pay for upgrades? Or was it some com
73 Scottb : Sydscott states: "Since our landing charges are based on the number of passengers per plane, the A380 operators will pay proportionately more than the
74 Aaway : "If the A380 operators are willing to pay for the cost of the upgrades through some sort of surcharge (as part of their landing fees/rents) to recove
75 Col : It is very sad that our once great nation can't design or afford to upgrade an airport with 380 capability. Where is the pride in our skills and ambit
76 Cs03 : Yes, the 380 is coming, and as usual, JFK and the like will be ready, even if a "Cobb" job! It will not be the first time, but, as many before me have
77 Post contains links Gigneil : If anyone could get me better runway data, I'd be glad. http://www.airnav.com/airport/KMIA
78 Ken777 : Col I can understand your frustration with some US airports, but we are in a somewhat different situation than the cities/airports you mentioned. Look
79 Sydscott : Ken 777 said - can understand your frustration with some US airports, but we are in a somewhat different situation than the cities/airports you menti
80 AirframeAS : I dont think there are enough markets for an A380 to take, expecially in the U.S. The airlines, post 9/11, are basically cash strapped. They can't aff
81 SailorOrion : Gigneil: thanks, although I much prefer the PCN/ACN system. But, MIA states the maximum weight for a dual double tandem (747 arrangement) is 850,000lb
82 Adria : AirframeAS: I really don't get your logic! The more passengers an airport gets the greater the income! So it is in interest of airports to have the A3
83 DCA-ROCguy : Airports around the world were upgraded to handle the 747 because their airlines ordered and flew it. "Pan Am didn't pay for it" because Pan Am wasn't
84 Airbazar : It's the same exact scenario as with security. Pre 9/11 no one wanted to pay for it but everyone agreed more security was needed. The result was 9/11.
85 ChrisNH : I agree with those that say the airlines should pay for these 'A380-specific' improvements. With airlines switching aircraft types left and right--oft
86 Sk945 : I think the whole discussion is a bit odd. Airports run business and the Airlines are there customers. Airports attracts new and more traffic to there
87 Adria : The only problem that bugs those A380 hatters is that because it is an Airbus and not a Boeing. Airlines are customers to the airports like Sk945 said
88 Post contains links Agill : Aviation Today have a free sample article about the price of airport conversions. http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/catalog/sample?afn
89 Sydscott : Agill - Thats an interesting article. It's a matter of working within the process you've got for the best and cheapest outcome. If you can make an ai
90 Gigneil : But, MIA states the maximum weight for a dual double tandem (747 arrangement) is 850,000lbs, whereas the 747 has a MTOM of 875,000lbs and the 747ER go
91 Trident2e : Oh dear, do those grapes taste very sour to our American friends!
92 Tom in NO : So all of you that have posted in this thread advocating airlines directly paying should read what your own Airport Council is saying. Thanks for the
93 Aaway : Tom in NO, I admire your knowledge of airport management issues. Gotta add you to my 'Respected List". Also, thanks for the response to my query.
94 PVD757 : Compared to modifiying the airfield landscape, the terminal should not cost nearly as much. Real estate on the ramp however, is the real cost of makin
95 Sydscott : "I would say that LAX has been, and will continue to, explore possible means of funding such a project, but also that they aren't, nor should they be,
96 Col : Sydscott, Typical simple Ozzie logic. Unfortunately this does not seem to work with the huge complicated issues my fellow State Siders are throwing in
97 Sydscott : Col - Nice tongue in cheek there!!!!!! hahaha Dont forget its not just Aussie logic, apparntly the Germans, British and others have it as well.
98 Post contains images RayChuang : I think SFO really lucked out when it came to being compatible with the A380-800. Remember, when the current International Terminal (Concourses A and
99 MAH4546 : But, MIA states the maximum weight for a dual double tandem (747 arrangement) is 850,000lbs, whereas the 747 has a MTOM of 875,000lbs and the 747ER go
100 Shenzhen : Simply put, if an airport feels it is in their best interest to be A380-800 compatible, then they will find a way to fund it. Most of the airports in
101 ScottB : Col says: "From what I am reading our Airports in USA are different to the rest of the world. The rest of the world have invested in their airports, w
102 Sllevin : Those comparing the new A380 era with the 747 era are missing two very, very important points: 1) in the late 1960's, everyone was predicting massive
103 Stefandotde : So who earns money with landing, ground and start fees? The airports. A guy in this forum already asked if Mc Donalds customers have to pay for new in
104 Col : Too much tongue in cheek I guess. We are just going to go backwards and forwards on this one. There are many arguments, the only concrete hard facts a
105 Tom in NO : But dont worry, you'll be dragged into the future, kicking and screaming if necessary Perhaps, but it won't be at the tip of an airlines' bayonet. ---
106 Tom in NO : Simply put, if an airport feels it is in their best interest to be A380-800 compatible, then they will find a way to fund it. I do not have a problem
107 Brons2 : As several have noted, US airports also have hellish political constraints. The US political system stacks the deck in favor of NIMBY's. LAX should ha
108 RayChuang : Sllevin, I think the reason why airports around the world rushed to accommodate widebody jets from the middle 1960's on was that not only was the Boei
109 Aaway : "The deck is indeed stacked in favor of the NIMBY's. The USA has a unique political situation..." Not to veer from the thrust of the thread, but this
110 MasseyBrown : The AW&ST issue highlighting the A-380 says initial planning assumes operations at 30 airports worldwide, including 7 in North America. YYZ, JFK, ORD,
111 Tom in NO : Y'all can fight over which are the other two. I don't think we need to on this one. I'll go with SFO and MIA. A longshot choice would be IAD. Tom at M
112 Spk : Guys, Think of it this way. The number of passengers travelling through each airport is growing every year. A380 is invented to address higher need to
113 Xwizard : Spk, Gotta agree with you - one thing Boeing and Airbus both agree on is the fact that the number of people travelling by air will continue to grow in
114 ScottB : Spk- Your logic here is flawed. While additional flights would require "more" gates and parking areas for aircraft, the use of A380's would require la
115 SailorOrion : At most airports I know, the capacity-limiting factor is the airport arrival rate (AAR) especially during bad weather conditions (e.g. FRA and SFO dro
116 AirframeAS : Adria~ And 129 orders from 11 customers are proving that the aircraft is not a mistake. What does this prove?? It doenst prove anything cuz the protot
117 Adria : AirframeAS: "Cents and dollars considering, it just doenst make economically sense to expand an airport just for the A380's arrival when it might neve
118 Tavve : This is not a political forum and the whether the war was useless or not has nothing to do with A380. I think the airlines will require the US airport
119 Spk : ScottB, My point is the airport will need to spend the money to upgrade the airport anyway. Either pay for fewer A380 gates or many more B747 sized ga
120 L-188 : 100% more airport space (gates, aprons, etc). A380 can do that by occupying only 25% more space. Of course the two 777's aren't there at the same time
121 Sydscott : All I can say is that we will see who is right in the goodness of time. But dont worry, you'll be dragged into the future, kicking and screaming if n
122 Aaway : Sydscott, I think the issue of congestion hasn't been appropriately defined. I think it's a given that an A380 will cause 'landside' congestion...spec
123 Sydscott : Good point Aaway. If you go to the terminal issues then a terminal is either A380 compliant or it isn't. If you haven't modified the gates then the p
124 Post contains images AirframeAS : Adria~ "Cents and dollars considering, it just doenst make economically sense to expand an airport just for the A380's arrival when it might never see
125 Adria : AirframeAS: Let me put it this way that you might understand. If there is an airport who desperately needs more car parking space because more travele
126 Post contains images RayChuang : The issue with aircraft movements, citing the RJ/LGA debacle, is an 'airside' congestion issue. Some airports (once again LAX and SFO come to mind) ma
127 Teahan : @L-188 : Of course the two 777's aren't there at the same time, which means that passengers would have two choices of when to split town, rather then
128 Sydscott : Adria and Teahan - good points. Teahan your point is especially relevant given who the potential operators of the A380 are and the relevant time zone
129 Gigneil : Broadly speaking all of LAX's A380's will most likely arrive between say 9 and 11 am and leave from around 9pm. This is when most flights to the Far E
130 Aaway : RayChuang, You guys have a great landside situation at SFO with that wondeful new int'l terminal. You're right in that problems may (will) occur with
131 Col : When will this link end. USA cannot afford to modify their airports, they are screwed up handling anything as large as a 767/330 on international flig
132 Post contains images Tom in NO : While additional flights would require "more" gates and parking areas for aircraft, the use of A380's would require larger gate areas, aircraft parkin
133 Post contains images Tom in NO : When will this link end. Probably along about the same time that the NW DC-9 replacement questions do. Tom
134 Col : Tom Latest news in, NW order 16 A380 to replace whole DC9 fleet (increasing available seats across the fleet by 22, hope to see them in Hartford!!! Ho
135 Starlionblue : This thread should have come to an abrupt halt right about here: Sk945 said: I think the whole discussion is a bit odd. Airports run business and the
136 Post contains images Aaway : Col, Let's take a stab at HNL rarities!!!
137 Sydscott : Col - "When will this link end" As soon as you like. It could have ended overnight if you had ceased posting to it. "Guess I will have to go to a so
138 Pixuk : so do you pay for a chair and a table at the Restaurant which you intend to go in? Absolutely not... but that's an extremely poor analogy. I might be
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
FI - Airports Getting Ready For A380 posted Tue Apr 20 2004 20:31:29 by Scbriml
Which Airports Are Ready For A380? posted Sat Jan 17 2004 03:42:53 by PVD757
Narita To The US: Not A Market For The A380 posted Thu Aug 31 2006 20:01:23 by Incitatus
Price For Airbus A380 posted Sat Jun 24 2006 12:38:32 by Morhas
KLAX Getting Ready For The A380...Finally! posted Mon Apr 24 2006 11:15:05 by EK413
Is NRT Ready For The A380? posted Sun Apr 24 2005 13:21:40 by Leelaw
Are We Ready For The A380? posted Mon Sep 6 2004 10:06:52 by Jalalabad
Airports Not Named For Anyone/thing - Ideas? posted Tue Sep 23 2003 21:11:53 by DeltaMD11
London-Heathrow Preparing For Airbus A380 posted Sun Mar 23 2003 02:17:05 by Teahan
Getting SFO Ready For The A380 posted Fri Jun 21 2002 16:28:12 by UALbrat