Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Is LAX A380 Ready?  
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5300 times:

Does anyone know what LAX airport is doing for the A380 preperation? As far as I know, none of thier current gates can handle the aircraft.

48 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 1, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5281 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Thread starter):
Does anyone know what LAX airport is doing for the A380 preperation? As far as I know, none of thier current gates can handle the aircraft.

Actually, there are gates that can handle the A380 now, the main issue is the taxiways.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2214 posts, RR: 56
Reply 2, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5278 times:

This article describes some of the preparations.

http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/articles/1911852.html


User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 5263 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Thread starter):
Actually, there are gates that can handle the A380 now, the main issue is the taxiways.

Believe me, I live in L.A. LAX is my home airport. I know it like the back of my hand. NO gate at LAX can handle the A380. Only the remote parkings can. And those aren't realy gates.


User currently offlineAirlinerfreak From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5251 times:

Having traveled through the remote gates before, I would find it a burden to have to go through that whole process after a 13 hour flight. I find that LAX is screwing themselves by not solving this problem. How stupid can they be? But as Alireza mentioned there are a number of gates that can handle the A380 and I believe there is also one in T4 that can right now....I do not remember which one it is off the top of my head though. But LAX will be A380 ready in 6 months you just watch.

User currently offlineAirlinerfreak From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5223 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 3):
Quoting Kaitak744 (Thread starter):
Actually, there are gates that can handle the A380 now, the main issue is the taxiways.

Believe me, I live in L.A. LAX is my home airport. I know it like the back of my hand. NO gate at LAX can handle the A380. Only the remote parkings can. And those aren't realy gates.

I live in the greater L.A. area as well and you look and see there are actually gates that can handle the A380 at this present point in time. Loot at T4....they have two QF 744's at a time in there sometimes with a good 25 yards in between wings there it is quite an impressive sight. Now explain to me how that could not handle the A380. The only problem would be how to taxi it into that alley, that's the tough part.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5212 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 3):
Believe me, I live in L.A. LAX is my home airport. I know it like the back of my hand. NO gate at LAX can handle the A380. Only the remote parkings can. And those aren't realy gates.

L.A. is my home town and LAX is my home airport as well, I am well aware of the configuration at LAX. AA built the widebody gates at T4 big enough so that an A380 can park there. It is a matter of getting the A380 to the gates. Additionally, the remote gates are there and you can load aircraft from them, so how are they not gates?



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5195 times:

Are the underground tunnels strong enough to support the weight of the heavier A380 driving over them to get to those T4 gates? They may be, but I don't know yes or no. That is one of the concerns all airports have with tunnels under taxiways/runways/gate areas.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5189 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
Are the underground tunnels strong enough to support the weight of the heavier A380 driving over them to get to those T4 gates? They may be, but I don't know yes or no. That is one of the concerns all airports have with tunnels under taxiways/runways/gate areas.

The Sepulveda Tunnel should be strong enough to handle the load, and that was main concern as it is under the two longest runways



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1523 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5052 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Thread starter):
Does anyone know what LAX airport is doing for the A380 preperation?

One visible element of the preparations is now occurring with the reconfiguration (widening) of several taxiway intersections along Echo (parallel to 6L/24R). LAWA is working eastbound and the E-16 and BB intersections have been completed. Work is currently in process on the AA intersection.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Thread starter):
As far as I know, none of thier current gates can handle the aircraft.

This will be the next major step in the process. The reconfiguration of gates 101, 102, and 123A were scheduled to begin this month. However, the timeline has slipped a bit due to infrastructure issues and will commence in the 1st quarter of '06. The current plan (still subject to some modification) is to have dual level boarding at 101 and 123A. Holdrooms will be modified as well. The modification at 102 involves down-gauging the aircraft parking spot when 101 is occupied by an A380 and when 103 is occupied by B747.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 6):
AA built the widebody gates at T4 big enough so that an A380 can park there. It is a matter of getting the A380 to the gates.

Actually, AA modified gates 41 and 43 to accomodate up to B744. Theorectically, 43 has dimensions wherby it could accomodate an A380. However, gates 41 nor 45 could be used if 43 were occupied by the aircraft. The same holds for 48B - good physical dimensions but would block 48A and 49B if occupied.

But the true limitation in using gate 43 is the width of alleyway C-10 as the wingspan of the A380 would penetrate the apron limit lines parallelling T-4 and TBIT South.



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 offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25406 posts, RR: 49
Reply 10, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4933 times:

Good summary AAway.

LAWA did get a late start on A380 work as much of the required changes got mired in the much grander LAX redevelopment plans.
After much pressure from airlines (some of it very public ala Virgin) LAWA did finally begin to proceed with what I would term minimal improvements to make A380 operations possible at LAX until larger portions of the LAX masterplan come to fruition.

Much of the needed work for the A380 reminds me of similar issues experienced by airports around the world to make them B747 capable in the late 60s and early 1970s.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
Are the underground tunnels strong enough to support the weight of the heavier A380



Quoting N1120A (Reply 8):
The Sepulveda Tunnel should be strong enough to handle the load,

The Sepulveda tunnel is not an issue for the A380. As part of taxiway C extension a few years back when the tunnel was widened there were several structural improvements made to strengthen it primarily for seismic reasons but also allow higher weights to pass above.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1523 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4912 times:

Laxint,
Glad you're around to chime in. A question, I know LAX-Two has signaled its intention of modifying at least one T-2 gate, but haven't heard any news or specifics on that front lately. Any info on your end?



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 offlineByrdluvs747 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 2361 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4877 times:

Will LAX(or any airport making A380 related changes) charge substantial fees to A380 operators to pay for any changes? It seems unfair to make smaller airlines pay for changes they are not inducing.


The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
User currently offlineZephyr98 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4847 times:

Very interesting thread Kaitak744, and to all the responders, thanks for the awesome information. After a recent thread showing the dimensional differences between the 747 and A380, I was extremely curious about what airports would be doing to get ready. Especially those with underground transportation systems. Thanks to all you A-Netters who are so knowledgable, for answering the question so thoroughly, and once again Kaitak744, great thread question !! Also, does anyone know of any other airports that are getting ready ? Or should be ??

[Edited 2005-10-30 02:29:25]


Some days it's just not worth chewing through the restraints...
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4837 times:

Quoting Aaway (Reply 9):
Actually, AA modified gates 41 and 43 to accomodate up to B744. Theorectically, 43 has dimensions wherby it could accomodate an A380. However, gates 41 nor 45 could be used if 43 were occupied by the aircraft. The same holds for 48B - good physical dimensions but would block 48A and 49B if occupied.

Well, yes, I am aware of that. T4 does the same thing when Qantas brings in 2 747s at once. They use 3 gates for 2 aircraft. If the A380 did that where ever it went, it wouldn't pretty for the airlines being kicked out.  Smile.

The thing is, LAX needs at least 2 gates at Tom Bradley Terminal (for SQ, Korean Air, LH, Emirates, TG, and QF) and at least 2 in Terminal 2 (for VS and AF).


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 15, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4765 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 14):
LAX needs at least 2 gates at Tom Bradley Terminal (for SQ, Korean Air, LH, Emirates, TG, and QF)

On a pure polar routing, DXB-LAX is almost 7300nm. Given the heat in Dubai, winds and the possibility that the A380 will miss its targeted range of 8000nm still air by even a little bit, EK will likely have to stick to A345 service. QF prefers to be with American in T4, though that presents its own issues, and the others can use the remotes quite easily for the time being. In fact, I see a shift of who uses the TBIT gates and who uses the remotes at these times because of the A380

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 14):
at least 2 in Terminal 2 (for VS and AF).

In all likelihood, VS and NZ may have to do a gate swap as 744s already come close to interfering with the taxiways while parked in the VS gate. AF becomes a seperate issue, as they are a new tenant but own one of the partner carriers in T2. It may come down to juggling times for the A380 there or using remote gates as well



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4718 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
On a pure polar routing, DXB-LAX is almost 7300nm. Given the heat in Dubai, winds and the possibility that the A380 will miss its targeted range of 8000nm still air by even a little bit, EK will likely have to stick to A345 service. QF prefers to be with American in T4, though that presents its own issues, and the others can use the remotes quite easily for the time being. In fact, I see a shift of who uses the TBIT gates and who uses the remotes at these times because of the A380

Yea, I ment a one stop A380 flight. You would think that an airline with 43 A380s would fly into the worlds 5th bussiest airport with one right?  Smile

Quoting N1120A (Reply 15):
I see a shift of who uses the TBIT gates and who uses the remotes at these times because of the A380

I see the remote gates out of the question. The remote gates at LAX are only used when there is contruction at the terminal gates. The rest of the time, the aircrafts are just stored there between arrivals and departures. Not to mention the head ache of bussing 555 people.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26499 posts, RR: 75
Reply 17, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 4703 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 16):
Yea, I ment a one stop A380 flight. You would think that an airline with 43 A380s would fly into the worlds 5th bussiest airport with one right?

Why do a one-stop when business demand is a non-stop? Also, where would you stop it?

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 16):
I see the remote gates out of the question. The remote gates at LAX are only used when there is contruction at the terminal gates.

That is completely untrue. The remote gates are used everyday.

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 16):
Not to mention the head ache of bussing 555 people.

Most will not hold that many. SQ's, for example, will hold 497



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4667 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 10):
The Sepulveda tunnel is not an issue for the A380.

Yeah, that's why I asked about the terminal connection tunnels, and not the runway. You know, the closed to pax sterile tunnels on the south side of the airport?

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 16):
You would think that an airline with 43 A380s would fly into the worlds 5th bussiest airport with one right?

And it is still unclear whether EK will operate 43 at one time. In other words, their delivery may be spaced so that as the last 380s come in they are replacing earlier 380s going out on lease to second tier carriers, a good business model for EK.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1523 posts, RR: 14
Reply 19, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4662 times:

Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 16):
I see the remote gates out of the question. The remote gates at LAX are only used when there is contruction at the terminal gates. The rest of the time, the aircrafts are just stored there between arrivals and departures. Not to mention the head ache of bussing 555 people.

As someone who works for one of the TBIT carriers, I wish the remotes were used sparingly. It's a decided lack of contact gates during peak periods primarily driving remote gate usage.

There are other factors. Long ground time on turns is a factor. OSO comes into play regularly. Even aircraft gauge can be a factor. My carrier is one affected by aircraft gauge and the only TBIT contact gates that can accomodate our aircraft are 103, 105, and 120. Thai Airways will have the same headache beginning next month when they commence BKK-LAX-BKK n/s with the A340-600.

LAWA has a gate mangement policy for TBIT which factors the tenured carriers and their historical scheduling pattern in determining gate usage.

[Edited 2005-10-30 04:31:52]


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 offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1523 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4657 times:

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 7):
Are the underground tunnels strong enough to support the weight of the heavier A380 driving over them to get to those T4 gates?

Not a factor since the wingspan of the A380 will not permit it to manouever in the south side alleyways.



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 offlineKaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (8 years 10 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4640 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 17):
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 16):
I see the remote gates out of the question. The remote gates at LAX are only used when there is contruction at the terminal gates.

That is completely untrue. The remote gates are used everyday.

Well, my mistake. I ment when there are no more space available in TB or T2, only then they use the parkaings. Sorry about that.


User currently offlineLACA773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4018 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4031 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Aaway (Reply 19):

Aaway, does your carrier use the 346? I didn't realize they may have a problem with this ac? Is it because of it's length and they need the TBIT gates on the end to give them enough all around room so not to block the other jetways?

Will QF/AA install two jetways into the gates QF uses for their 744s now? It sounds like that would be a good idea and would allow AA to use them for the 772s? Does this require additional ground space?

Thanks for the information guys and gals.

LACA773


User currently offlineA360 From Portugal, joined Jun 2005, 434 posts, RR: 8
Reply 23, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3965 times:

Quoting Aaway (Reply 19):
Thai Airways will have the same headache beginning next month when they commence BKK-LAX-BKK n/s with the A340-600.

I think that will be done with the 340-500.

It's a bit too long for a non HGW 346.


User currently offlineA350 From Germany, joined Nov 2004, 1100 posts, RR: 22
Reply 24, posted (8 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3932 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 10):
After much pressure from airlines (some of it very public ala Virgin) LAWA did finally begin to proceed with what I would term minimal improvements to make A380 operations possible at LAX until larger portions of the LAX masterplan come to fruition.

Could you tell us more about that masterplan? Since I'm 5000 nm away from LA I'm not so involved in the details  Wink Thanks

A350



Photography - the art of observing, not the art of arranging
25 Post contains links Laxintl : Read away... http://www.laxmasterplan.org/ enjoy!
26 Post contains images Aaway : Thanks for catching my error With the Winter '05 schedule, effective today, TG has begun LAX service with the A346. The routing remains BKK-KIX-LAX-K
27 VT977 : LAX is not ready as SQ was told that they would have to use remote bays for parking.[Edited 2005-10-31 00:52:16]
28 Trex8 : where can you find a list of airports which intend to be A380 ready??
29 Aaway : Yes, China Eastern Airlines. It's the length coupled with the width of the well of the gate. Gates 103, 105, and 120 are the only gates that have bot
30 AirWillie6475 : LoL if you went through 13 hours of light you can take an extra 10 minutes can't you?
31 Ikramerica : Ah, that's kind of what I thought. So the A380 is a strictly an "end of the pier" plane at LAX it would seem.
32 A350 : But there seem to be a good number of "end of the pier" positions that could be upgraded, am I right? A350
33 Kaitak744 : Yea, 2 at each end of Tom Bradely. And mabe one at the end of T4?
34 Ikramerica : What about T2 and/or T7? Both take 744s now, but is the wingspan of the A380 an issue?
35 Kaitak744 : No, but the length is.
36 Ikramerica : That 8 ft is going to make that much a difference? Is there nothing they can do to slightly reorient the angle of the jet when they redo the jetways f
37 Post contains links and images Kaitak744 : Well, thats what they do for the 747. That aircraft barely fits into T7 and T2. Even at the best possible angle. TB and T4 View Large View MediumPhot
38 Satx : Can you go into any detail about this? As someone who has been on a 13 hour flight segment that had a bus ride between it and the next connection, I
39 Aaway : No comment on T-7 since an A380 is not in UA's immediate future. But, IIRC,T-2 has upgrades (dual level jetways) planned for gates 25 and 26. I don't
40 Jush : i find that a very interesting question. I would guess that these expansions are covered generally over the taxes and aren't paid from future A380 op
41 Laxintl : Atleast for LAX, the prospective A380 operators are not penalized. Cost for any airfield modifications come from general funds. The A380 operators li
42 LACA773 : Aaway, Thanks for the information. When you mention "the adjacent gates will be down gauged" what does that mean? LACA773
43 Post contains links Aaway : Sure. Refer to page 85 of the following link: www.laxmasterplan.org/docs/draft_mp/...sting_Conditions_Working_paper.pdf (Figure II-2.15) You'll have
44 Post contains links Aaway : http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8803/fa3xx.htm#airp
45 A360 : That site is very outdated.
46 Post contains links Aaway : Okay, try this one: www.airbuschina.com.cn/pdf/a380/a380airport_compat.pdf And if that still isn't satisfactory, then you may try Google.
47 Post contains images A360 : Thank you. Sorry if I sounded rude in the post before. Didn't mean to. Regards: A360
48 Carpethead : First of all I have never been at the LAX remote gates so I can't speak with any experience. However, I have been bussed to & from aircraft in Europe
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...
Is BOS A380 Ready? posted Thu Feb 17 2005 16:29:05 by Airbazar
AKL Is A380-ready posted Mon May 22 2006 23:36:47 by Jafa39
Is The 2nd A380 Ready To Fly Yet? posted Mon Jun 27 2005 14:34:10 by Nomad
Is Your Home Airport A380 Ready? posted Sun Mar 7 2004 13:11:39 by Qantasclub
Is Federal Express Hub-Memphis Airport A380-ready? posted Mon Jul 22 2002 00:14:29 by Bobcat
Is The A380 Available To Early For Its Market? posted Tue Oct 17 2006 11:06:45 by Grantcv
Is The A380 Coming To South Africa This Week? posted Sun Sep 17 2006 15:14:18 by Andz
STL New Runway A380 Ready? posted Fri Sep 15 2006 17:31:53 by PropilotJW
When Is The A380 Going Into Service posted Thu Aug 17 2006 14:22:48 by Rw774477
LAX A380 Modification posted Mon May 1 2006 01:36:59 by Kaitak744