Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Airports Need A-380 Infastructure $$$  
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3548 times:

According to the airport management trade magazine, US airports need to still spend an average of $40M for airfield and terminal improvements to support the A-380.

http://www.airportbusiness.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=1&id=6436

JFK has this programmed into a $147M airfield improvement project. Upon completion JFK will have 4 gates that are A-380 capable.

LAX has a $87M airfield imporvement program that includes A-380 airfield upgrades. It will have 2 gates that are A-380 capable and 4 more "remote boarding gates" specifically for the A-380.

DFW expects 2-6 A-380 operations per day, including UPS A-380 cargo operations. DFW is a "second tier" airport for the A-380 in the US. They have 3 gates that are A-380 capable gates in the newly open Terminal D (but only one jetway per gate). DFW needs to add an additional $6.2M for airfield improvements for the A-380.

The first A-380 US operations are expected to be at LAX and SFO in early 2007.

In contrast to US airports, CDG has 4 runways already capable of handling the A-380 (35' {10.5m} shoulders). By 2009, CDG, is expected to have 14 A-380 capable gates, as well as 3 A-380 cargo dedicated cargo stands.

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1608 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3530 times:

As I said in a thread that was going on regarding the A380 and YYZ and whether or not it's capable...

It'll be cheaper to build it now, in anticipation of future demand, versus 10-15 years down the road, when one of your major carriers is demanding you do it, in 2020 $$'s.

Everyone is thinking strictly today's travel #'s, and arguing over whether or not we need a plane that large.. The 747 wouldn't have been such a successful platform (and will CONTINUE to be) if we didn't need it.

Everyone was saying the same old tiring stuff back in 69 when the 747 rolled out, that we'd never need a plane that big, that it'd fall out of the sky, and that you'd NEVER see it at places like YYZ, but guess what?

Build it, and they will come.

1011yyz



Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4137 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3471 times:

Quoting Lnglive1011yyz (Reply 1):
It'll be cheaper to build it now, in anticipation of future demand, versus 10-15 years down the road, when one of your major carriers is demanding you do it, in 2020 $$'s.

I just don't see that kind of demand for the A380 in North American Airports. In the US only NYC-JFK, LAX and SFO will be seeing the A380 for awhile (although DFW & ORD might see it on occasion), and north of the 49th YVR and YYZ are the only places I see the "white whale-jet" coming in operated by Asian and Middle-Eastern carriers. Why blow alot of money if the a/c isn't selling like the 787 or even the 777 and more likely operators aren't adding them to the fleet. The A380 WILL NOT have the impact on North America that the 747 did 36 years ago when it went into service.



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 3, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3458 times:

How many of the FedEx hubs around the US will be WJ ready by the time it is delivered to them?

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineSpartanmjf From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 514 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3442 times:

Maybe the airports could get Airbus to ask for A380 Readiness Aid.

 duck 



"Nuts to the man in 21D!"
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3433 times:

Quoting Newark777 (Reply 3):
How many of the FedEx hubs around the US will be WJ ready by the time it is delivered to them?

Harry

MEM, DFW, FWA, ANC, ORD, SFO, LAX, JFK, and possibly BOS.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3433 times:

The A-380Fs that FedEx and UPS have on order are less of a problem for airports. The only need the airfield improvements to be supported. They don't need any gate modifications.

User currently offlineLnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1608 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3412 times:

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 2):
Why blow alot of money if the a/c isn't selling like the 787 or even the 777 and more likely operators aren't adding them to the fleet. The A380 WILL NOT have the impact on North America that the 747 did 36 years ago when it went into service.

Who knows what the next 20 years will bring my friend.. Markets that once had no need for a 747 MAY in fact change...

I just think that you're doing a dis-service by NOT upgrading infrastructure now.. plus, you place yourself out of the running for an A380 flight should a carrier who will have them wants to bring them to your airport..

OBVIOUSLY I'm talking major airports here, not your local Cessna barn.

1011yyz



Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
User currently offlineCospn From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1658 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3313 times:

IND says they are on track for FED-EX A380 Regular: and other Airlines PAX Diversions....

User currently offlineKITH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 378 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3268 times:

When will Airbus bring the A380 to JFK for a "test" run? Any chance of this summer?

User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 10, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3260 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
US airports need to still spend an average of $40M for airfield and terminal improvements to support the A-380.

An AVERAGE of $40 MILLION! Chicken feed! A lot less than the annual repairs & maintance bill for a major airport.

And as what most airports need to do is taxiway fillers and such like, it would most likely help B744 operations too.

JFK $147M , LAX $87M, Average $40M, DFW $6.2M. Lets face it, you are NOT talking about large amounts of money in the context of operating a large airport!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineSiromega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3246 times:

I remember the hub-bub when the director of avaition of my local airport (LAS) said he doesnt want the A380. Of course I dont blame him since they'd have to rebuild the vehicle tunnels underneath 7/25, which would mean shutting down one runway at a time, as well as shutting down the tunnel's access to the airport. Both very highly unlikely. You'd slightly more likely see they submerge the road on the north side of the airport (Tropicana Blvd) and extend and rebuild 1/19 northward (about 1000' or so for each runway, to bring them to 10,000' and 11,000').

User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3226 times:

Quoting Siromega (Reply 11):
Of course I dont blame him since they'd have to rebuild the vehicle tunnels underneath 7/25

Why? Are they absolute weight limited structures? If so whats the limit?

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3210 times:

I would think that most folks coming into LAS on an A380 would actually land on the A380 somewhere like LAX or SFO and then take a smaller plane into LAS. Therefore, there is very little need for major A380 ops at LAS. The reason I say this is that right now, anyone coming in on an A380 is likely a foreign traveller and will come into one of the bigger airports first.


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineSiromega From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 735 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3183 times:

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 12):

Why? Are they absolute weight limited structures? If so whats the limit?

The problem is that they dont know the weight limit. There is a slim chance of them not having to be altered, but I dont think its likely as they (runway + structure underneath) were built to Class V specs.

And yes, there was a recent thread on why LAS and PHX dont see a lot of international traffic. One of the "conclusions" was that LAX and SFO see most of it, and anyone visiting the US from another country would probably also want to see LA or SF while they were here. The few exceptions are mostly European travelers (specifically British) who come to LAS to party (VS has a soon to be daily 744 service LGW-LAS). Even if LAS starts to see more international traffic, it'll likely be 787s, not A380s. They're hoping to have the 787 reshape international traffic just like WN and their 737s changed domestic traffic at LAS.

[Edited 2006-05-24 08:48:46]

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3178 times:

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 10):
And as what most airports need to do is taxiway fillers and such like, it would most likely help B744 operations too.

JFK $147M , LAX $87M, Average $40M, DFW $6.2M. Lets face it, you are NOT talking about large amounts of money in the context of operating a large airport!

Not really. The infastructure to operate B-747-400 and B-747-800 at US airports is already there. In the US, most airports are owned by the cities. They have to balance a budget, by federal law each year. Therefore, a $40M (average) infastructure improvement for ONE airplane type is a rather expensive endevor. Since US airports are only going to average about 5 A-380s per day (the airports that it will fly too), that is only 1850 operations per year (out of 903,000 annual operations at DFW, or about 0.2%, for example). The additional landing fees paid by the A-380 carriers will take more than 30 years to pay off the investment. That means all the other carriers that searve those airports will have to make up the difference to pay off the investment within the standard 15 years (read increased PSFs for all of us). That does not even count the additional pavement, electrical, and other maintenance costs the new fillets will need.

Airports are more like small cities, not states or a nation. Their budgets are relitively small. For example, the annual operating budget for DFW is about $509M (this year). Taking an additional $6.2M out of that is going to hurt somewhere. DFW cannot sell any more bonds for a few more years as they sold more than $2.5B in bonds just 6 years ago to build Terminal D and the SkyTrain system. There are additional planned airfield construction projects that will start soon. But, these projects will benifit all tenants and aircraft, not just a few.

In a cost/benifit analisis, it is not economically for DFW to pay for these improvements. Perhaps Airbus should pay for them?


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

Quoting Siromega (Reply 14):
There is a slim chance of them not having to be altered, but I dont think its likely as they (runway + structure underneath) were built to Class V specs

If they were truely built to classE (5) specs then, according to Airbus, they A380 is within there design limits.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineTootallsd From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 564 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3072 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I would say that the comment that better to build now in 2006 dollars rather than wait until 2010 or 2015 and build with inflated dollars lacks some key elements.

First off, as pointed out, this funding comes from municipal agencies and they are obligated to balance their budgets each year. So, if you have a large airport with a $100 million capital budget that needs to spend $40 million over 1-3 years in improvements, it is relatively easy. However, if the airport is smaller or there is a pressing need for other terminal and field improvements then the case gets more difficult.

I would also say that completing these improvements YEARS ahead of cash flow from landing fees (in the case of an airport with no service by early operators of the 380 and in advance of the EIS of the type) means that you have big cash outflow with no corresponding cash inflow. In a tight situation, it makes the NPV of the capital outlay less favorable.

However, I do think that visionary airport operators will find a way to make acceptable improvements if there is a relatively high probability of A380 operation at their aiport. There are probably 3 tiers of airports: definites (LHR, LAX, NYC, CDG, etc.) and the nevers (SAN -- my home town) and in-betweens (CPH?, MAD, DEN). The conversation really is only of interest in the last tier.


User currently offline7E72004 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3587 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3024 times:

Maybe the European government should subsidize the cost of improvements  Big grin


The next generation of aircraft is just around the corner!
User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 952 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (8 years 7 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3000 times:

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 2):
I just don't see that kind of demand for the A380 in North American Airports. In the US only NYC-JFK, LAX and SFO will be seeing the A380 for awhile (although DFW & ORD might see it on occasion), and north of the 49th YVR and YYZ are the only places I see the "white whale-jet" coming in operated by Asian and Middle-Eastern carriers.

i agree with this whole-heartedly.

as an addition to this point, US airports need a whole lot more improvement just to make regular operations run more smoothly. PHL practically needs to be completely rebuilt, for instance. BWI is over-capacity, as are about a dozen other major airports in the US. let's spend this money to upgrade airports to improve conditions for 99.9% of flights that will land, not for the 0.1% of flights (or less!) that will be a380s.


User currently offlineYULYMX From Canada, joined May 2006, 977 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (8 years 7 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 2868 times:

Sorry to disappoint you, but north of the 49th parallel, YUL will see regularly the AF 380 coming from Paris beggining July 2007, and the airport is ready  Smile

User currently offlineLnglive1011yyz From Canada, joined Oct 2003, 1608 posts, RR: 15
Reply 21, posted (8 years 7 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2744 times:

Quoting YULYMX (Reply 20):
Sorry to disappoint you, but north of the 49th parallel, YUL will see regularly the AF 380 coming from Paris beggining July 2007, and the airport is ready

We know.

1011yyz



Pack your bags, we're going on a sympathy trip!
User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4137 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (8 years 7 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2668 times:

Quoting YULYMX (Reply 20):
Sorry to disappoint you, but north of the 49th parallel, YUL will see regularly the AF 380 coming from Paris beggining July 2007, and the airport is ready

You might get the occasional AF flight, but YUL will not become a more important AC hub than YYZ, no matter how often Milton and the others cry and moan about how expensive the later is. AF will likely use the A343s to YUL from CDG more often than not. I don't see AC procuring any A380s either anymore likely than you would see DL do it.

Quoting Tockeyhockey (Reply 19):
Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 2):
I just don't see that kind of demand for the A380 in North American Airports. In the US only NYC-JFK, LAX and SFO will be seeing the A380 for awhile (although DFW & ORD might see it on occasion), and north of the 49th YVR and YYZ are the only places I see the "white whale-jet" coming in operated by Asian and Middle-Eastern carriers.

i agree with this whole-heartedly.

as an addition to this point, US airports need a whole lot more improvement just to make regular operations run more smoothly. PHL practically needs to be completely rebuilt, for instance. BWI is over-capacity, as are about a dozen other major airports in the US. let's spend this money to upgrade airports to improve conditions for 99.9% of flights that will land, not for the 0.1% of flights (or less!) that will be a380s.

SLC for example needs an entire new terminal and gates from top to bottom. they would need to extend one of their runways from 12,000' to 15,000' to handle the A380 fully laden for take-off on a hot humid and high altitude summer day that can all to frequently happen. SLC needs the entire new terminal to get International service beyond Canada, Mexico and the Caribbean. If they do get Europe flights they will most likely be 767s,777s, A330s and A340s. I highly doubt you'll see 744, 748s or A380s at SLC.



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (8 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2597 times:

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 22):
AF will likely use the A343s to YUL from CDG more often than not.

AF has announced that they will be running daily CDG-YUL-CDG flights with the A380.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineTockeyhockey From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 952 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (8 years 7 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2576 times:

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 22):
SLC for example needs an entire new terminal and gates from top to bottom. they would need to extend one of their runways from 12,000' to 15,000' to handle the A380 fully laden for take-off on a hot humid and high altitude summer day that can all to frequently happen.

that's true, but my main point (and this DEFINITELY applies to SLC) is that so many large city airports in the US need dramatic improvements in other ways just to make regular operations more efficient.

if you live in the salt lake basin and fly out of SLC, you know what a mess it can be in terms of the security gates and checking your bags, especially during ski season. the airport could use $40 million to upgrade its check in facilities and help the 99.99% of people who ARE NOT going to be flying on an a380.


25 SLCUT2777 : If they do use the A380 at YUL, it will purely be for the satisfaction of French egos, rather than market demand.
26 YULYMX : AF is using right now 4 type of aircraft to yul on 3 daily flight per day in summer, B777( AF344), B747(AF346), 330 (AF348) and the 340 for sub on 747
27 RayChuang : A couple of comments: 1. SFO was one of the very first airports designed specifically for A380 operations because it had the extraordinary luck of bui
28 BoeingFever777 : Why don't the carriers that want to fly Whale jet to these airports pay for the upgrades themselves? Makes more sense if they want to fly the a/c ther
29 Tom in NO : As I mentioned in a previous post on this topic, that statement is not necessarily true. I'm sure the airport operators at BNA, RDU, and PIT would wh
30 Post contains images Tjwgrr : I was thinking the same thing...........
31 HB88 : [quote=7E72004,reply=18]Maybe the European government should subsidize the cost of improvements [/quote Except that there is no such thing as "the Eur
32 Tom in NO : A most interesting thought.....the same group/consortium that subsidizes the design and construction of Airbus aircraft could also subsidize the impr
33 SLCUT2777 : LAS has the needed runway length for departure (14,000') but lacks the gates and terminal configuration needed. VS will likely use the 744 for this r
34 KC135TopBoom : They don't want to spend the extra cash. The carriers that have ordered the A-380 want the airports to pay for the infastructure upgrades.
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...
US Airports In Most Need Of A Facelift posted Sun Feb 23 2003 20:42:40 by Zrs70
New Requirements For Foreigners At US Airports? posted Fri Dec 1 2006 19:22:07 by Goldorak
Cute At US Airports posted Thu Oct 26 2006 07:09:10 by Apodino
Immigration At US Airports - Should We Be Worried? posted Fri Aug 18 2006 14:40:22 by Concorde001
US Airports With UA Only? posted Sat Jul 29 2006 00:20:40 by Dsa
US Airports Which Have Lost All Airline Service posted Wed Jul 5 2006 12:28:13 by Jetpixx
Why No Glass Jetways In US Airports? posted Thu Jun 22 2006 16:52:26 by Ilyag
State & Remodelling Of US Airports posted Thu Apr 6 2006 15:53:33 by Komododx
2005 Top Ten US Airports posted Fri Mar 17 2006 02:52:36 by Vegasplanes
US Airports-Model Airplanes posted Mon Feb 20 2006 21:57:00 by Cleared2Land4