Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Whale Of A Arff Problem?  
User currently offlineBravogolf From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 539 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2111 times:

Just ran into an interesting article in Jane's Airport Review. Seems that Atlanta is ordering 10! new 3000 gallon Oshkosh crash trucks. The 380 is rated category 10 and requires 15,000 gallons of water in the first responding rigs. Seems like new jet bridges and the like are not the only new airport costs

12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2078 times:

There is no industry where companies can afford to refuse to keep up with innovation. Not either airports. Nobody is blaming Boeing for selling the 747 while many airports cannot handle that.

Yet Airbus is being bashed for the 380.

Atlanta should keep up to date if they want ongoing major business.



Putana da Seatbeltz!
User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2072 times:

Quoting Bravogolf (Thread starter):
Seems like new jet bridges and the like are not the only new airport costs

Usually the FAA picks up something like 75% of the purchase price of an ARFF vehicle.....the airport owner/operator picks up what's left over.

Tom at MSY



"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
User currently offlineSteph001 From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 315 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2072 times:

Quoting Nudelhirsch (Reply 1):
There is no industry where companies can afford to refuse to keep up with innovation.

Right, although buying new crash trucks isn't exactly what I would call innovation Wink. In the end, ATL has to decide whether the estimated A380 traffic justifies the costs for updating the airport. In any case, neither will ATL die without the A380, nor will the A380 die without ATL. I guess it's more about money and costs than about refusing to keep up with innovation.


User currently offlineNudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2063 times:

The innovation here is the A380. It's new, as a product, and also new to the industry.
If ATL wants to get contracts with the big players, here the ones who bought the 380, they need to be all over the place. ATL is a supplier to airlines, we all expect suppliers to be up there, just not when it's about the 380?



Putana da Seatbeltz!
User currently offlineSrbmod From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2045 times:

Quoting Bravogolf (Thread starter):
Seems that Atlanta is ordering 10! new 3000 gallon Oshkosh crash trucks.

I doubt the order has much to do with the A380. They're probably ordering some of them to replace older vehicles (There are some ARFF vehicles @ ATL that look like they date back to the 1970s) and are also supposed to be adding an additional fire station or two as well.


User currently offlineSteph001 From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 315 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2045 times:

Quoting Nudelhirsch (Reply 4):
ATL is a supplier to airlines, we all expect suppliers to be up there, just not when it's about the 380?

If the airlines themselves won't order the A380 or have no interest in using it to ATL then ATL has no incentive to adapt for the A380. ATL is only offering the product that meets the necessary demand. DL, ATL's biggest customer has expressed no interest for the A380, neither have any of the major pax carriers in the US. The only potential carrier flying the A380 to ATL AFAIK is AF (Skyteam member, as DL) . If time will show that the companies not ordering the A380 were wrong and the demand for such a plane will increase dramatically, I'm sure that in such a case ATL will have to adapt quickly to the new situation. Anyway, the A380 was mainly built with Asia and Europe in mind, not especially for the US


User currently offlineNudelhirsch From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 1438 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2006 times:

ATL is the hub in the south of America. USA, I mean here...  Wink
A bunch of airlines have ordered the 380, also ATL is competing with ORD and thusly interested in hub&spoke traffic, beyond Skyteam. If they only look at DL requirements they are lost.
And ORD is traffic restricted, they will try to snap away some business from ATL and invite airlines to run a hub on the 380 if ATL is not keeping up. Which they do, that's what we duscuss here...  Wink, but ATL needs to be up there or they lose a ton.



Putana da Seatbeltz!
User currently offlineBravogolf From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2002 times:

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 5):

I doubt the order has much to do with the A380. They're probably ordering some of them to replace older vehicles (There are some ARFF vehicles @ ATL that look like they date back to the 1970s) and are also supposed to be adding an additional fire station or two as well.

According to the article, the oldest truck Atlanta has is a 1996. Atlanta has 5 stations and will get two trucks for each station. The FAA pays through AIP funds to replace the trucks on a 20 year cycle. They are also ordering two ladder towers and a stair truck.


User currently offlineArffguy From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1895 times:

I would have to agree with Srbmod. The truck order is probably not based on the A380 alone. He lives there and has probably seen the trucks. Besides the 1996 date could be a typo. Does the article state a delivery timeframe?


Time to spare, go by air.
User currently offlineCOSPN From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1651 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1874 times:

Guess IND will be buying some for A380 FedEx Scheduled, and Diversion Pax flights.... :0 good Job IND !!!

User currently offlineAfrikaskyes From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1844 times:

So are they replacing those whacky bug eyed looking trucks they call the Jaguar K-15's? I am always intrigued when I see them cruising around.
Big version: Width: 275 Height: 141 File size: 7kb


User currently offlineBravogolf From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 1761 times:

No time frame for delivery. Yes they are replacing the Jaguars Seems like theywill have a whole new fleet.

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...
TAM Aware Of F-100 Airstair Type Pax Door Problem? posted Mon Aug 14 2006 18:57:50 by PPSMA
Universal 757-200 Out Of JFK With Gear Problem posted Sat Oct 16 2004 06:55:21 by B777fa
FAA Knew Of Problem With Tail Of Airbus A-300 posted Mon Nov 19 2001 00:23:53 by DELL_dude
Problem With Length Of 747x posted Thu Dec 14 2000 13:23:22 by ZRH
ETA Of A380 In Johannesburg? posted Thu Nov 23 2006 09:25:43 by Voyager
Flashback: THe Birth Of Southwest At SNA posted Thu Nov 23 2006 02:57:55 by Matt D
New Rumours Of Easyjet To BRU! True? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 18:05:17 by VinnieWinnie
Market Value Of Delta Shuttle? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 17:16:36 by Jmc1975
What Is The Status Of The A380 Wiring Rework? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 14:48:08 by Nitrohelper
Economics Of The Avro RJs posted Tue Nov 21 2006 20:17:54 by FokkerVII