Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Accident At CDG. Big Trouble For AF And A380  
User currently offlineFraT From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 1101 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11298 times:

I just heard in the German news that AF might be in trouble if they have to tear down the whole Terminal 2E as this is the terminal which is planned to be used for the A380 AF has ordered.
Can anybody confirm that??
Cheers


42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline7E72004 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3587 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11226 times:

If they have to tear it down, i think they would/should be able to rebuild it in time for the A380...am i not correct?


The next generation of aircraft is just around the corner!
User currently offlineJaspike From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 1 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11185 times:

Could they really have to tear the whole thing down?!  Wow!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © TriplET
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Walter Pietsch



Tom


User currently offlineRichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4199 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11165 times:

Wow - hadn't thought of that FraT. But it sounds like it is right.
This terminal was only in service one year before the tragic (and incredible) accident yesterday. It is amazing to me that no one noticed any problems before this happened. My guess is that the terminal will have to come down - at the very least it would take months or perhaps a year or two to check the rest of the terminal and fix the broken section.
RIP to the poor passengers who lost their lives being in the wrong place at the wrong time.



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offline7E72004 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3587 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11068 times:

I think they almost have to...if they heard cracking again then they should be safe and not take any chances.


The next generation of aircraft is just around the corner!
User currently offlineAFa340-300E From France, joined May 1999, 2084 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 11026 times:

Hello,

The president of ADP (the Paris airport authority that operates and owns the infrastructure) said that they would tear down the terminal if its structure is not safe. But we will have to wait for the inquiry before making any speculation.

BTW, correct me if I'm wrong but they're already building the S3 terminal extension that was to add more gates to Terminal 2E (the numerb of available gates next to terminals has been a concerned ever since AF launched its hub).


Best regards,
Alain Mengus
ATBiz.com -- Air France 777-300ER


User currently offlineARGinMIA From Argentina, joined Nov 2001, 487 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10998 times:

This could be fixed fast by adding support beans right in the middle.. it will be the fastest way to fix it.. but look bad.. and it should save them tons of money and time.. I really don't think this should be teared down..


Alto.. Mucho mas alto.. hasta la cumbre
User currently offlineFraT From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 1101 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10989 times:

As also mentioned in the other thread, they heard cracks in other parts of this building. I think nobody can take the responsibility to reopen it.

User currently offlineFJWH From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 968 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10759 times:

IF they need to tear down the whole terminal and rebuild it....well there in good shit! They are already in good shit. They... we don't know exacly who, (builders, architects? etc.) but CDG for certain, and maybe also A380 operations.
First of all: the new structure costed about €750.000.000 (if I 'm correct?).
They have to rebuild that (for at least a part of the structure: MONEY!)
I can already hear the money claims from family and relatives coming.
France gets a bad name I guess!




FlightS in the next 3 months: MSP, PHX, MEM, NCE, TFS, BCN. All round trips from AMS
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 912 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10698 times:

Could they really have to tear the whole thing down?!

I think it is a tad early to declare the entire structure unsafe, and to being demolition. It could require a brace of some sort, not unlike the CitiCorp Tower in NYC, but I would close the terminal until I knew it was safe. As for disrupting A380 ops, EOS is still 2 years away...


User currently offlineCPH-R From Denmark, joined May 2001, 5909 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10535 times:

First of all: the new structure costed about €750.000.000 (if I 'm correct?).
They have to rebuild that (for at least a part of the structure: MONEY!)
I can already hear the money claims from family and relatives coming.


Isn't that what insurance is for? I highly doubt that ADP would be operating a terminal that wasn't insured against just about everything.


User currently offlineStefanDotDe From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10481 times:

I think they still have enough time to build another terminal and no fear (hope): the 380 will fly to/from Paris without delay  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

User currently offlineIcarus75 From France, joined Oct 2003, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10399 times:

I fly to/from CDG at least once a month and it seems to me ADP is already building a new terminal, dedicated to the A380.
This new terminal will close the two branches made by terminals A, B, C, D, E & F : there are a lot of construction works in this area.



Flying is amazing!
User currently offlinePsa53 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3049 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10335 times:

Does this prove the point?



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Philippe Noret




Tuesday's Off! Do not disturb.
User currently offlineMikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1395 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 10188 times:

The structural stability of the entire terminal likely is not compromised by the missing section, i.e. little load transfer probably occurs lengthwise by virtue of its segmental construction (at least from what I can tell by looking at the pictures), but rather through an analysis of the stresses that occur principally in each individual section (read: arch). My guess is just as good/bad as anyone's while this "cracking" mystery remains...

Regardless, as DfwRevolution pointed out, amazing retrofits can be applied to buildings that seem hopelessly salvageable such as the Citibank saga. That building went up and maintained service while a significant retrofit was added to ensure proper wind bracing on the tower...very few, if any, in the building even knew about it. It's a great story and a tribute to engineering ethics, but I digress...

There are other circumstances where structures just, well, aren't conceivably saved. Only a few weeks ago, inspectors effectively condemned a significant portion of the yet-to-be-opened Memorial Causeway in Florida due to some hella cracks that formed under construction loads. It'll likely mean tens of millions of dollars in lost monies, but sometimes that happens.

-Mike



I plan on living forever. So far, so good...
User currently offlineRichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4199 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10046 times:

Geez what a mess! I wonder if this will hurt Paris' chances at hosting the 2012 Olympics? Probably not but I thought I would throw that out there.

If this whole terminal is condemned, which I almost have a hard time believing, there is no way a new terminal could be built in just two years or before the A380 enters service. There is an enormous amount of work that goes into a project like this and everything from architecture to construction would be under the microscope on any new projects. I'm sure if they have to build a new terminal it would be much more reserved and less extravagant than this one - too bad.

My guess is that (a) the section that collapsed will be rebuilt and finished within 18 months and (b) they will not have to tear down the entire terminal. Obviously (b) depends on exactly what caused the accident and how they shore up the rest of the structure. It still amazes me that no one noticed any problems before the collapse - there must have been signs such as cracks or noises that just went unnoticed or were not acted upon.

I guess it could have been worse. I noticed there wasn't an aircraft at the gate (anybody know which gate number?)- if there had been, one could reason there would have been quite a few more people in harms way.



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlineEUSWISS From Switzerland, joined Apr 2004, 39 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9955 times:

-In the short term, the closure of terminal 2E means an important loss for AF.
Terminal 2E as the most performant and most efficient, and its closure is a blow to AF.
-In the medium term, if the terminal can not be reopened soon, it could cause a delay in the launch of the A380 which is scheduled to be delivered to AF between 2006 and 2007. The first 2 gates to accomodate the A380 are planned to be from terminal 2E, and later from 2A, 2C and S3 in 2007-2008
-In the long term, a long closure or even demolition of the terminal 2E DOES NOT threaten AF profitability, analysts say.


User currently offlineMeister808 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 973 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9744 times:

Well, I'm not going to speculate on the cause of the collapse or the feasibility of fixing it vs. tearing it down. I simply don't know enough about the millions of things that I need to know about to make an adequate guess on that.

However, it seems to me that the A380 is something of a pride issue with Air France. You know... an extraordinary aircraft, built in France, flying for its first revenue flight with the flag carrier of France. It seems to me that the sheer political importance of having that happen will mean that AF will still use the 380, no matter if they have a terminal for it or not. If need be, they will use a remote stand and bus people to it for the short-term. That may not be the most desirable option, but, as I said, I am certain that they have extremely high stakes in being the launch customer.

-Meister



Twin Cessna 812 Victor, Minneapolis Center, we observe your operation in the immediate vicinity of extreme precipitation
User currently offlineRichierich From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 4199 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9695 times:

I agree Meister.
Even if Terminal 2E has to be razed and started over, Air France will not delay the delivery of their flagship A380 aircraft!
My guess is that in two years they could temporarily build something at another CDG terminal to handle the A380.



None shall pass!!!!
User currently offlineFLYSSC From France, joined Aug 2003, 7379 posts, RR: 57
Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9549 times:

The A380 will join the fleet in 2007. At that time, the satellite S3 with several gates dedicated to the A380 will be operational.

The biggest problem is not the A380. The biggest problem is if ADP has to destroy the whole Terminal 2E. Actually, they are talking about tearing down "just" the part that collapsed, the part with the boarding lounges and the jetways, not the WHOLE building where are located the Check-in areas, luggage delivery etc...Even though, if they decide to do so, it will take months and even years before they can re-build it as new (long) studies will have to be undertaken before starting the reconstruction...

Anyway, it is far too early to speculate on the future of the 2E.

Concerning the Traffic itself, 2E was just partially opened, and "only" 60 flights a day were treated at 2E. If 2E has to remain closed for several months, Terminal 2C is likely to become the temporary "Skyteam" terminal, some AF flights will be redistributed to 2A and 2B and some airlines, recently moved from T1 to Terminal 2 will return to T1 just like Iberia, who had recently transferred its flights from CDG1 to CDG2, and who returned as soon as today to CDG1.


User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1892 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9360 times:

Yes, I too, agree with Meister808. There is a way around the problem until things are sorted out.

This building is not an arch. Arches fall in on themselves and are supported by the center piece. This is an oval. The two sides are pulling away from each other. Collar ties on the inside, and supports on the outer, bottom portions of the structure might save it, if it is not already deemed unsafe and must be condemned.

God's speed to all involved in this. Prayers for the deceased.



Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9260 times:

flying for its first revenue flight with the flag carrier of France

The first revenue flight will be for Singapore, not France.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9147 times:

If the engineers determine that the entire terminal needs to be torn down and replaced, then Air France will have a problem. I read that the new terminal was part of Air France's competitive response to Lufthansa and BA which are using terminals at AB) (FRA / FRF / EDDF), Germany">FRA and LHR to near their capacity.

If Air France is deprived of this asset, it will have a harder time persuading travelers to transit through their hub.

Even if insurers ultimately foot the bill for all the repair/reconstruction of the terminal, Air France will probably will not be able to recover lost revenues that result from yesterday's tragedy.


User currently offlineCmckeithen From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 617 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 8895 times:

If im not mistaken, that looks like the center part was what collapsed. Thats the most important part.

User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1892 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 10 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 8690 times:

No, Cmckeithen. All sections are more or less constructed independently. The fear here is, that if one section has a flaw, the section that collapsed, that the others have the same flaw. Time will tell. Too many variables involved to start placing blame. Be patient.


Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
25 Cmckeithen : Okay thanks for the explaination. Its more like a jigsaw puzzle (or modular building).
26 Post contains links DfwRevolution : Here's another a quote from Reuters- PARIS (Reuters) - New cracks have appeared at a Paris airport terminal, a day after part of the roof collapsed, a
27 Post contains links BoingGoingGone : Here's another link. Man... Bad deal. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040524/D82P6AI01.html
28 Post contains links Wilco : This NY Times article is specifically about the terminal collapse's affect on the AF 380. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/business/worldbusiness/25a
29 Lfutia : er... i cant access the NYT Article! This is bad for AF, ADP and CDG... This wont hurt the AF-KL deal will it? Im very against the AF-KL deal so uhh..
30 Ken777 : The building will probably need to be torn down, at least to the lowest floor level. The rebuild will also need to be something besides an oval. I don
31 N79969 : "I don't think insurance companies will be willing to live with a situation where the terminal is patched up and filled with thousands of passengers f
32 Post contains images IMissPiedmont : "If" the terminal is torn down? It's gone as soon as the cranes, front end loaders and dump trucks can get there. But it will have no effect, sorry do
33 Spike : I for one have no intention of flying via CDG Terminal 2 at present. You would constantly be looking up to check that the ceiling wasn't about to land
34 Nosedive : The building will probably need to be torn down, at least to the lowest floor level. The rebuild will also need to be something besides an oval. Let's
35 SailorOrion : I really hopes someone goes into jail for this. From whatever was said in the newspaper (even though most of this is crap) there were some ... catches
36 Sebolino : I really hopes someone goes into jail for this. Let's wait for the conclusions. The architect has said that he doesn't understand what could have happ
37 BoingGoingGone : I really hopes someone goes into jail for this. Yikes man. Guilty until proven innocent. Look, what happened, happened. Could have been the design, co
38 Britmex : As a constant CDG user and a fan of new 2E terminal I really regret what happened. This is a tragedy. Anyway, this is a reminder that man is not perf
39 Neilalp : A few questions did KLM go back to terminal 1 since that's where they moved from? Also will this cause a job loss out at CDG with less people needing
40 FLYSSC : KLM will leave CDG1 on June 1st and move, as expected, to CDG2F. The renovation work in progress at CDG1 have been stopped, to allow airlines to "retu
41 Spike : Goodness CDG1 as in the round thing with the walkways in it? I always feel like I'm in some 1970s film when I go through that one! This is all going t
42 Taca : "Yikes man. Guilty until proven innocent. Look, what happened, happened. Could have been the design, could have been a bad mix of concrete. Could have
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...
Trouble For 747X And A380? posted Wed Mar 21 2001 14:46:54 by Boeing nut
28th April - Big Day For DSA And HUY posted Thu Apr 27 2006 20:36:14 by Humberside
TAM A330 Accident At CDG posted Thu Jul 7 2005 20:06:42 by AF-A319
CDG-Dubai 4 Daily With AF And EK? posted Sun Dec 19 2004 11:52:48 by AirGabon
New Fleet For AF And TG posted Tue Nov 25 2003 20:01:09 by Birka340
Big News For SEA And Seattle! posted Sat Jun 23 2001 19:31:17 by Mason
AF At CDG, The Big Terminal Confusion posted Fri Aug 26 2005 17:05:07 by Sabena332
Last Sunday At CDG : AF And BA Concords posted Fri Jul 28 2000 10:52:01 by 340300
Production Rates For A32X, A330/340 And A380? posted Mon Sep 25 2006 16:23:02 by WINGS
UA And QF Accident At Melbourne-ATSB Final Report posted Tue Sep 19 2006 06:59:26 by Biddleonia007