Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 At ATL?  
User currently offlineEaglewarrior From Barbados, joined Aug 2005, 32 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12105 times:

Will ATL ever be able to handle the A380?

34 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineGr8SlvrFlt From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1599 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12102 times:

Unless Delta or AirTran order it, very unlikely.

User currently offlineDILF From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11961 times:

My god - iimagine how hideous that thing would look in AirTran colors! Blechhh!!

User currently offlineAlitalia744 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 4743 posts, RR: 45
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11905 times:

Quoting Eaglewarrior (Thread starter):
Will ATL ever be able to handle the A380?

The airport is not currently, nor will it be A380 ready.



Some see lines, others see between the lines.
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11803 times:

The only A380 I could ever see @ ATL is the A380-800F, and the chances of FX or 5X ever bringing them in to ATL are slim and none. None of the other current airlines that have cargo flights into ATL have ordered the A388F, so I doubt we'll ever see a pax one here, as AF, LH, and KE really don't have the loads to justify flying the A380 on the route, which is why the airport doesn't intend to make any A380 related improvements.

User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22726 posts, RR: 20
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 11759 times:

Bag claim from a 380 at Terminal E? The thought of it increases my blood pressure...


I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineMPDPilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 991 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 11611 times:

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 4):
which is why the airport doesn't intend to make any A380 related improvements.

if you go on to the airport website they have or had a plan to extend rwy 9L/27R to 13,000' or longer to accomodate the A380. they also mentioned that the length would be useful for other aircraft on long routes, but it did at least have blurb about it. I think it was meant more as a divert airport or something of that sort.



One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
User currently offlineGoldorak From France, joined Sep 2006, 1830 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11508 times:

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 4):
as AF, LH, and KE really don't have the loads to justify flying the A380 on the route

Don't know about LH or KE loads, but AF has clearly loads on CDG-ATL which can justify A380. There are 4 daily flights between the 2 cities (DL & AF) and they are "always" full. So it makes sense to have an A380 on this route, at least during the summer season.

The only pb is that the director of ATL has said last year that there's no plan and there will be no plan for ATL to be A380-ready. How can you manage the 1st world airport and say such stupid things like your facility will never welcome the biggest bird. I hope a more competent person will soon change this stupid statement.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11465 times:

Quoting Goldorak (Reply 7):
How can you manage the 1st world airport and say such stupid things like your facility will never welcome the biggest bird. I hope a more competent person will soon change this stupid statement.

There is nothing stupid about it at all. There is no rational basis to believe that there will ever be enough WhaleJets flying to recoup through landing fees the costs of upgrading the infrastructure. This is all about costs and benefits. Pride does not count as a benefit.


User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11206 times:

Quoting Goldorak (Reply 7):
Don't know about LH or KE loads, but AF has clearly loads on CDG-ATL which can justify A380.

Is that why AF only operates one of the 4 flights on the route  Wink ?

Quoting Goldorak (Reply 7):
How can you manage the 1st world airport and say such stupid things like your facility will never welcome the biggest bird. I hope a more competent person will soon change this stupid statement.

Um, because you are responsible for managing your airport's resources and consider what multi-million dollar investments are worthwhile for the future. As has been stated in previous replies, the chances that the A380 are slim and none, and slim just took the last flight out. But to make it even clearer so it is fully understandable, let's look at the carriers with A380s on order that serve ATL:
Air France - No point here. Thanks to their close cooperation, AF and DL can coordinate their schedules, which meant DL went to 1 JFK-CDG flight, while AF went to 1 ATL-CDG flight. And even with 4 flights per day, this route is all about inter-hub frequencies, to allow as much connection opportunities on both sides. And for 1 single flight per day, AF sure as hell is not gonna waste an A380.
Korean - Only has ordered a rather small number of A380s anyway to begin with which will all be required for LAX, NRT and JFK anyhow. Even if they had more, DL will soon be entering the ICN-ATL market, which eliminates any need for an A380 for the foreseeable future, and if even if demand grows, this route would see a 3rd or even 4th flight before the A380 would even be considered.
Lufthansa - One single A340 to FRA. Been that way more or less for the past years, and doesn't appear to change. Even if LH were to grow at ATL, they would add a flight to MUC or a second flight to FRA before they would even consider sending the A380 there.
UPS/FedEx: ATL-SDF/MEM with A380Fs? Hell no, they wouldn't be wasting their precious large longhaul planes for such a short stint.
So once again, clear and simple:
A380 at ATL won't happen within the next decade, if even at all ever.


User currently offlineGoldorak From France, joined Sep 2006, 1830 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 10209 times:

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 9):
Is that why AF only operates one of the 4 flights on the route

AF used to operate 2 of the 4 flights, and, as you said, it decreased to 1 in "exchange" of one of the DL flights JFK-CDG. This may change again in the next years. Nobody knows.

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 9):
And even with 4 flights per day, this route is all about inter-hub frequencies, to allow as much connection opportunities on both sides. And for 1 single flight per day, AF sure as hell is not gonna waste an A380.

Just because it's a very important route between 2 of the biggest Skyteam hubs, with a very strong traffic, in my opinion, it could whithout doubts sustain an A380 on one of the daily flights, at least in summer


User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9968 times:

Quoting Goldorak (Reply 10):
Just because it's a very important route between 2 of the biggest Skyteam hubs, with a very strong traffic, in my opinion, it could whithout doubts sustain an A380 on one of the daily flights, at least in summer

It could? No-one has posted any evidence that indicates the increase in capacity achieved by changing the one daily AF 772 flight to a 380 would profitable. You would most likely see a shift in that flight to a 773 if the numbers made sense. Also, neither ATL or CDG is particularly movements constrained another flight could always be added (though I think the time geometries make this undersirable).

Hell, I am not even sure why AF intends to use the 380 out of CDG which is pax constrained. The only rational is constraints on the frequencies or slots at the airports on the other end.


User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8284 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9730 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Air France would be the most likely to operate a passenger A380 at ATL. Because of the alliance with Delta, they operate 4 daily trips together to CDG, in a few years I could see demand for a A380. JFK will most likey be the first US AF A380 city, AF has during the summer peak 5 or 6 daily trip to CDG.

User currently offlineGeorgiaAME From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 958 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9620 times:

The thought might raise Cubsrule's blood pressure, I think it would drop mine to zero in a flash. Concourse E at 5PM is a horror. The thought of the regular crowd plus 500+ is not my idea of a good time. (The trick is to arrive around 1-2PM and it's a delight.)

You have to realize that only Korean flies a 747 in and out of Hartsfield. JAL used to, I think Lufthansa did for a while, but we just don't see aircraft of that capacity here. I don't really understand why. That being said, AF would be an interesting candidate. I really miss the 4PM 340 out to CDG, but the 9:30 flight continues to be a 777, and it always seems full. That single 380 flight would significantly add capacity that I am sure would be utilized, at Delta's expense, and still turn a profit. But of course, the arrival would be a horror, and I have no idea if Concourse E or the pending Concourse F would handle the aircraft.



"Trust, but verify!" An old Russian proverb, quoted often by a modern American hero
User currently offlineRiddlePilot215 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 318 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9186 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Eaglewarrior (Thread starter):
Will ATL ever be able to handle the A380?

Why?

Getting THAT airport of all places ready for anything is nothing short of a complete nightmare....just due to all the logistics involved with setting up construction, and the progressive closure/opening of multiple runways....It would be an airport director's NIGHTMARE. Plus, there is no need for that jet at ATL just yet. IMO there isn't the traffic (I know that sounds a bit retarded, but I have my reasons), the kind of O&D traffic required per day to slam some 600 people in an a/c and call it a day.



God is good, all the time. All the time, God is good.
User currently offlineGoldorak From France, joined Sep 2006, 1830 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8675 times:

Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 11):
Hell, I am not even sure why AF intends to use the 380 out of CDG which is pax constrained

CDG is not pax constrained. You're probably referring to a statement from a former very bad transport minister we had in France some years ago who said that he'll limit CDG to 55 millions pax/year to calm down some neighbors who were protesting against aircraft noise. Hopefully, this has been forgotten as soon as this guy left the government and everybody came back to reason.


User currently offlineDAL767400ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8643 times:

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 12):
Because of the alliance with Delta, they operate 4 daily trips together to CDG, in a few years I could see demand for a A380.

Demand, yes, but still no reason to justify spending millions of dollars on runway extensions, taxiway widenings and gate modifications. It is simply not economical for ATL, or any airport for that matter, to spend of millions of dollars for 1 single A380 flight that might happen 5 years from now, period.


User currently offlinePhollingsworth From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 825 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8451 times:

Quoting Goldorak (Reply 15):
CDG is not pax constrained. You're probably referring to a statement from a former very bad transport minister we had in France some years ago who said that he'll limit CDG to 55 millions pax/year to calm down some neighbors who were protesting against aircraft noise. Hopefully, this has been forgotten as soon as this guy left the government and everybody came back to reason.

You are right, though it is still listed in some places as a limit, we shall see what happens when CDG starts reporting consistently above 55 million pax.

Quoting GeorgiaAME (Reply 13):
I really miss the 4PM 340 out to CDG, but the 9:30 flight continues to be a 777, and it always seems full. That single 380 flight would significantly add capacity that I am sure would be utilized, at Delta's expense, and still turn a profit.

The problem is that the capacity would more than double on the one flight. It would be much more economical, and revenue neutral, to spread out the capacity increase over the course of the 4 flights, e.g. move the 763s to 764s (find a way to keep one of the 772s), and move the AF 772 to a 773. JFK already has larger aircraft, so upsizing to the A380 makes more sense. I still think that AF-KL should have an airicraft positioned between the 773 and the 388 to maximize flexibility, but I am not in the postion to see their numbers to really know if it makes sense.

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 16):
Demand, yes, but still no reason to justify spending millions of dollars on runway extensions, taxiway widenings and gate modifications. It is simply not economical for ATL, or any airport for that matter, to spend of millions of dollars for 1 single A380 flight that might happen 5 years from now, period.

The runway extensions will probably happen even without the A380 as other aircraft missions will justify them (think 772LR in the summer). The geometries on a couple of the E gates can fit a 380 at the expense of a/c size on the adjoining gates. The big issue is the Custioms and Immigration and taxiways.


User currently offlineGkirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24911 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8388 times:

Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 6):
if you go on to the airport website they have or had a plan to extend rwy 9L/27R to 13,000' or longer to accomodate the A380

Why? I thought the A380 could operate from airports that can ahndle the B747?
Obviously not? Can Airbus get things right?



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2691 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 8359 times:

Quoting GeorgiaAME (Reply 13):
You have to realize that only Korean flies a 747 in and out of Hartsfield. JAL used to, I think Lufthansa did for a while, but we just don't see aircraft of that capacity here.

I just looked at Google Maps and there is a South African 747 there but I know that they are switching their service from ATL to IAD since they joined Star Alliance.


User currently offlineGoldorak From France, joined Sep 2006, 1830 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8274 times:

Quoting Phollingsworth (Reply 17):
You are right, though it is still listed in some places as a limit, we shall see what happens when CDG starts reporting consistently above 55 million pax.

belive me, this limit has been officially "erased" ! And this number will be probably reached this year as in 2005, ADP had 54 millions pax in CDG (+25 millions in ORY). And with the construction (or reconstruction !) of terminal 2E and S3, it's clearly to go above 55 millions !


User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2176 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8189 times:

Quoting DAL767400ER (Reply 9):
Air France - No point here. Thanks to their close cooperation, AF and DL can coordinate their schedules, which meant DL went to 1 JFK-CDG flight, while AF went to 1 ATL-CDG flight. And even with 4 flights per day, this route is all about inter-hub frequencies, to allow as much connection opportunities on both sides. And for 1 single flight per day, AF sure as hell is not gonna waste an A380.

It is not because the rules are frequency that the A380 will never been introduced at ATL : some hours are more popular than others, and if demand justifies it, one flight could easily be an A380 while all the others will be a 767. For example YUL gets (with AF) both the 744 and 332 depending on the times of the day, which has a capacity difference of about 2 vs 1.


I guess ATL would be A380 compatible when (or if):
1. someone has the serious intention of flying it there, or :
2. they will build an international concourse from nothing (if this happens, it will sure be A380 ready)

However I think they are right to not spend the money now as 1. it does not seem there is an immediate need for it and 2. the Whale is still a while away from its EIS, particularly within AF who is not among the early customers.

Quoting Goldorak (Reply 15):
CDG is not pax constrained. You're probably referring to a statement from a former very bad transport minister we had in France some years ago who said that he'll limit CDG to 55 millions pax/year to calm down some neighbors who were protesting against aircraft noise. Hopefully, this has been forgotten as soon as this guy left the government and everybody came back to reason.

And fortunately, so has been Paris third airport...



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8127 times:

Quoting Gkirk (Reply 18):
Why? I thought the A380 could operate from airports that can ahndle the B747?
Obviously not? Can Airbus get things right?

The WhaleJet can land and takeoff from any airport that can accommodate the JumboJet. The problem is that it may not be able to taxi or to fit at a gate.


User currently offlineGoldorak From France, joined Sep 2006, 1830 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 8089 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 21):
And fortunately, so has been Paris third airport...

Absolutely ! and I hope it's forgotten for long !!


User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 3 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 7093 times:

Quoting MPDPilot (Reply 6):
if you go on to the airport website they have or had a plan to extend rwy 9R/27L to 13,000' or longer to accomodate the A380. they also mentioned that the length would be useful for other aircraft on long routes, but it did at least have blurb about it. I think it was meant more as a divert airport or something of that sort.

Actually, the lengthening has nothing to do with the A380. LH and AF do fly the A340 into ATL, and in the summertime, they use up most of 9L/27R to take off. The extra length gives a measure of safety so that in case of an aborted takeoff, there would hopefully be enough. In fact, the ATL Master Plan site from which you got your information is way out of date, as the part you mention says nothing about the A380. In fact, when the Master Plan Recommended Plan was published, the A380 was still being called the A3XX and was several years away from even getting the green light.

Quote:
The plan features other airfield improvements. One major improvement is the extension of Runway 9L-27R. Presently 11,889 feet in length, Runway 9L-27R will be extended 500 feet to the east and 911 feet to the west to bring the total runway length to 13,300 feet. On very hot days, some international aircraft cannot depart fully loaded due to inadequate runway length. An extension will ensure that the airport has the necessary runway length to serve very distant destinations on all days.


[Edited 2006-10-08 21:13:56]

25 BHMBAGLOCK : The airport gets one 747 and maybe 3-4 A340s per day typically. That doesn't strike me as a good case for really needing the A380. And no, I don't be
26 MD-90 : Last time I had a connection in ATL and was walking around passing some time, I noticed that the only 747 I could see was a SAA 744.
27 Srbmod : Even before SA dropped ATL, they had been sending the A340-600 for a few years. BTW, the Google Maps photo for ATL is about 5 years out of date.
28 Post contains images Dairy : Lufthansa uses 744 when very big (medical) congresses take part in ATL and loads are high. Unfortunatly Luftis 744 is no regular visitor to ATL In 200
29 Af773atmsp : It seems like the A380's first US destination would be ATL, but there have been many posts that the A380 will never come to ATL. Only a A380 diversion
30 LAXdude1023 : Very well said. The A380 can only be justified in markets that see multiple 747's daily (JFK, LAX, SFO, MIA). As its been pointed out ATL sees one. I
31 DeltAirlines : No way it would even make the top 5, let alone number 1. JFK, LAX, SFO and MIA are all going to see the A380, as SQ, AF, LH, etc. will send it those
32 Phollingsworth : ATL is building an international concourse, and new terminal, as we speak. There is currently no reason to fit out the new facility for the A380, tho
33 Zvezda : Don't forget spacing between taxiways, which is dictated by wingspan.
34 Phollingsworth : This is already an issue at ATL and could be delt with for a few A380 ops a day. One this is for sure, ATL will not be moving taxiways appreciably an
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...
A380 At DUS Airport Sunday, 12th? posted Fri Nov 3 2006 16:00:06 by Andreas
Delays Up At ATL posted Sun Oct 22 2006 19:42:54 by TLHFLA
Is 30 Minutes Enough Connect Time At ATL? posted Thu Oct 12 2006 15:14:01 by Quickmover
Airbus To Test A380 At Addis Ababa, Ethiopia? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 01:57:06 by ETStar
A380 At Shannon posted Wed Sep 20 2006 22:24:14 by Masit
A380 At CYYZ Anytime Soon? posted Tue Sep 12 2006 22:00:26 by CFTOA
A380 At Over 800 PAX posted Fri Sep 1 2006 21:56:07 by Naritaflyer
Last DL 732 Flight About To Land At ATL posted Fri Sep 1 2006 18:21:36 by Starstream707
A380 At MUC? posted Thu Aug 31 2006 09:36:53 by Ushermittwoch
DL At ATL : USA's Largest Tatl Gateway posted Sat Aug 26 2006 01:35:29 by WorldTraveler