Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
A380 North America West Coast Diversion Airports  
User currently offlineFlyPBA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 431 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5604 times:

The A380 is scheduled to operate into three West Coast airports ... LAX / SFO / YVR.


What happens if any of these are closed due to weather or other issue? I would imagine that it would be easy to divert LAX to SFO and vice versa ... but what about YVR? Would they fly to Moses Lake in Washington? Or could they actually fly into SEA/BFI/PAE? Can those airports' infrastructure support the A380 (weight and dimensions)


Just curious?

thanks

G

36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5581 times:

It can fly anywhere a 747 can, so it should be no problem. It may not be able to have a gate, but it can land and take off there.

User currently offlineUnited_Fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7483 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5570 times:

VCV is close to LAX,not much in the way of hotels and the like,though. Obviosuly OAK handles UPS 747's , so there's an SFO alternative. SEA is close to YVR,so is PAE.


'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5570 times:

Quoting ScrubbsYWG (Reply 1):
It can fly anywhere a 747 can, so it should be no problem. It may not be able to have a gate, but it can land and take off there.

Depends upon runway loading characteristics.


User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5767 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5562 times:

Anchorage. We've already built three parking spaces for her (under the assumption that FedEx would be bringing them in... multi-million dollar mistake) and taxiways.

Bring 'er on.


User currently offlineCOSPN From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1619 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5545 times:

Is IND still going ahad with an A380 Pax Gate and freight parking (also mainly FedEx) and a bit of back up for ORD..

Seems IND and ANC should get some kind of refund fron FedEx for spending millions for nothing


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25117 posts, RR: 22
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5505 times:

Quoting FlyPBA (Thread starter):
The A380 is scheduled to operate into three West Coast airports ... LAX / SFO / YVR.

Which carrier has announced plans to operate the A380 to YVR? I can't recall anything but may have missed it.

Re YVR diversions, YYC or YEG are sometimes used as alternates for YVR and both should be able to handle the A380.


User currently offlineAirframeAS From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 14150 posts, RR: 24
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5495 times:

We all know that ATL said no to any A380 service and diversions, which was discussed in another thread about a year or so ago.

Disclaimer: Before any of you flame me, the search function doesn't work.



A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5490 times:

i know it can land anywhere a 747 can but dont the taxi ways and the rest of the airport have to have some modifications to allow the A380 to move around?

User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4049 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5475 times:

SLC runway 16L-34R could take the A380, but the west runway (16R-34L) must cover a taxiway viaduct that I'm not sure could handle the weight. Any of the two major runways at SLC can handle the 747, and have done so on a diversionary basis from time to time:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Devin B.




DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6123 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 5468 times:

Quoting ScrubbsYWG (Reply 1):

Not true at all. It can fly there,Yes. Be handled, No.

Runway length: Yes
Taxiways: May not be strong enough
Jetbridge: Most likely no
Airstairs: Most likely no
Fuel Truck: Maybe can or can't handle the A380

I diverstion airport would most likely need to be another international airport as most flights will be international and need Customs. Its not just that easy to land somewhere, fuel, and go.

On the west coast most likely SFO and LAX will be diversion cities for each other. YVR could be added to this, though could be a Customs issue.

The East coast I think is well covered with airports that can handle the bird.

Quoting FlyPBA (Thread starter):

BFI: I don;t think the taxiway could handle it
PAE: Not sure.
YVR: I think would be used for a diversion city if a A380 was going to SEA

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25062 posts, RR: 46
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 week 2 days ago) and read 5410 times:

ONT is ready and able to handle the A380.

Minimal changes were required and were completed with assumption UPS would be operating the type on Asia services.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineA3xx900 From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5246 times:

While YVR is quite a distance away from LAX and SFO, I think it should be no problem to file VYR as second alternative airport for SFO or LAX (first alternative would be either LAX or SFO of course). The A380 is a loooong range aircraft and it should be able to land in SFO even with all the extra, holding, alternate, reserve, contingency fuel planned for an eventual diversion to YVR. It's just about 730 NM distance. No big deal.

[Edited 2007-08-15 04:44:05]


Why is 10 afraid of 7? Because 7 8 9.
User currently offlineAA61Hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5234 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 4):
under the assumption that FedEx would be bringing them in... multi-million dollar mistake) and taxiways.

It could still happen, just not anytime soon..FedEx has not completely ruled out getting A380's...



Go big or go home
User currently offlineONTFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 380 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5218 times:

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 11):
ONT is ready and able to handle the A380.

 checkmark 

I would think that LAS would be another viable option should LAX and ONT be unsuitable for any reason. For SFO, perhaps SJC or SMF?

ONTFlyer



Doin' just fine thanks...
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5174 times:

If it's a diversion, the aircraft won't have to depart at anywhere near MTOW to reach its final destination. It will land (by definition) at a weight below max landing weight -- 386 tonnes -- and probably take off at somewhere below that as well. So, a diverted A380 will likely weigh less than a 77W at MTOW... and it rides on 20 wheels instead of 12, with almost twice the wing area.

Bottom line: if the diversion airport can handle a 777, any concerns about pavement loading or taxiway bridges are baseless.

Quoting AS739X (Reply 10):
Airstairs: Most likely no

What do you suggest... knotted rope? Seriously, just how would airstairs not work?

Quoting AS739X (Reply 10):
Its not just that easy to land somewhere, fuel, and go.

That I can agree with, but a 747 would cause identical concerns. It's not like the A380 is unique in a diversion scenario.


User currently offlineGemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5629 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5159 times:

Quoting AS739X (Reply 10):
Not true at all. It can fly there,Yes. Be handled, No.

Runway length: Yes
Taxiways: May not be strong enough
Jetbridge: Most likely no
Airstairs: Most likely no
Fuel Truck: Maybe can or can't handle the A380

WRONG! Assuming the airport can take a B747.

Runway: yes
Taxiways: are strong enough, The A380 has a LOWER pavement loading than a B747, so strength is not a problem. Taxiway turning radius MAYBE a problem with some turns, but if an airport see regular B747 traffic its main taxiways will be suitable. If it does not there is still most likely a route or routes that will work for a diversions.
Jetbridge: If it fits a B747 it will fit an A380. You might have problems with the aircraft fouling the next gate, but a remote stand will work.
Airstairs: Most definately yes, what do you think was used in SYD? QF B747 airstairs!
Fuel truck: Once again was not a problem in SYD.

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 9):
the west runway (16R-34L) must cover a taxiway viaduct that I'm not sure could handle the weight.

Indeed this could be a problem, depending on its ABSOLUTE weight limit. But in general if its OK for a B747 it should work for diversions, in most cases.

What is about some people and the A380 using XYZ airport? Airbus has repeatedly stated that it can use ANY airport a B747 can, unless the airport has an absolute weight limited structure it can't avoid. There is a complete airport compatibility manual on their site, that has more details than anybody, except maybe an airport civil engineer, could possibly want!

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8002 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5052 times:

For SFO, the following diversion civilian airports are likely available:

Los Angeles International Airport
Oakland International Airport
Mather Field in Rancho Cordova, CA
McClellan Field in North Highlands, CA

It's extremely unlikely they'll use Sacramento International Airport due to runways only being 7300 feet long. Because Mather and McClellan used to be USAF bases, they have long and wide enough runways to easily accommodate the A380-800--after all, they had to accommodate the B-52 bomber!

An A380 could land at Travis Air Force Base near Fairfield, CA, but only under the most dire circumstances due to Travis being a highly active USAF base.


User currently offlineFlyPBA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5034 times:

I was under the impression that the Taxi-way clearances at SEA are inadequate for the A380 ...

As for YVR ... that is the only airport in the Pacific NW (with the exception of ANC) that will most likely ever get the A380


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21505 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4991 times:

Quoting ScrubbsYWG (Reply 1):
It can fly anywhere a 747 can, so it should be no problem.

A diversion airport must be able to handle the passengers including hotel facilities, and since an A380 is larger than a 747 in capacity, it could exclude some airports around the world. This is one of the factors in ETOPS, and it's why some airports must be excluded from the list for VLAs.

But this isn't an issue in CA, since any airport that is diversion capable is also going to have the ability to service the passengers many times over, and because the diversions would be very close to the O or D airport.

ONT, SMF, OAK, SJC should all suffice. FAT as well, since the plane won't be at MTOW.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineUPS707 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4991 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 17):
Mather Field in Rancho Cordova, CA
McClellan Field in North Highlands, CA

If one lands at these fields, I'll be flying across town with my camera!  Smile I'd love to see one here one day and who knows... maybe we'll get it. If I recall correctly, we got an Air China B744 at SMF last year , so who knows...


User currently offlineMX77W From Mexico, joined Apr 2007, 115 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4957 times:

Quoting ONTFlyer (Reply 14):
I would think that LAS would be another viable option should LAX and ONT be unsuitable for any reason. For SFO, perhaps SJC or SMF?

ONTFlyer

Agreed, LAS's runways and taxiways (as far as I am aware) are more than able to handle the A380, in fact, the currently under construction T3 will have some A380 parking spots. Currently, I think probably the holding pads in front of T2 would be able to accomodate her, or if all else fails, she could always go the the Cargo Area, and LAS is always a good diversion point for westbound flights either coming from Europe or the Middle East and heading to LAX (LH, EK, AF?, VS?)

My 2 Cents

MX 77W



When Will MX Fly to Europe??? I guess '09 is the year!!!
User currently offlineTdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4806 times:

Quoting FlyPBA (Thread starter):
but what about YVR?

I would assume they divert to YXX first. It can handle a C-5 Galaxy so I'm pretty sure it can take an A380. And it's international, so you don't have a Customs problem.

Quoting FlyPBA (Thread starter):
Or could they actually fly into SEA/BFI/PAE?

SEA could do it...might have to clear some stuff out of the way or use an odd taxi routing though. PAE could handle it but only on the ramp between the main runway, the Boeing factory, and the Goodrich hangers...most of the rest has an absolute weight limit that's too low, I think. PAE and BFI both limited terminal facilities so they're probably not the first choices.

Tom.


User currently onlineRedChili From Norway, joined Jul 2005, 2246 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4682 times:

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 9):
the west runway (16R-34L) must cover a taxiway viaduct that I'm not sure could handle the weight.

You, and others on this thread, keep forgetting that an A380 being diverted will be low on fuel, so it will actually be lighter than a fully fueled and loaded 747. If the taxiways can take a fully fueled and loaded 747, they can also support the weight of an arriving A380.



Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25062 posts, RR: 46
Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4458 times:

Funnily enough, in addition to all the previously completed tarmac work, just today the LA City Council directed LAWA staff to look into the feasibility of modifying two passenger gates at either one of ONT terminals to accommodate the the A380.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
25 Post contains images Coronado990 : Hmmm...I don't see anyone mentioning San Diego-Lindbergh.
26 United_Fan : I read that A380's will not be allowed in LAS,at least loaded ones due to undeground tunnels not being strong enough. There was questions about VS usi
27 AirframeAS : SAN is a definate no, IMO. Not very much room at all.
28 474218 : Many commerical flights have diverted to Edwards AFB and its runway can easily handle a A380. I remember a Pan Am L-1011 that was scheduled to land at
29 Aveugle : Lol I doubt we can handle it although there has been 747s in the past. Took the words out of my mouth. Its definetly long enough. :p (04/22 are atlea
30 Marcus : How about TIJ?.....it has seen 747's and An124's in the past.
31 Post contains images Coronado990 : Well, why not. It wouldn't be the first time a double decker has landed at SAN...
32 Post contains images Lightsaber : It amazes me how many people don't realize most airstairs sized for a wide body can reach the doors of an A380. Heck, the project I'm on has a couple
33 Post contains links and images Osprey88 : I'm surprised no one had mentioned NUQ! As for Bay area airports, I would think that diversions for an A380 would go in this order: SJC, OAK, NUQ, Tra
34 Jbernie : I would be under the assumption that if an A380 were to need an alternate for some kind of emergency, they would pick the nearest appropriate field to
35 Laxintl : Commercial airlines generally dont bank on military fields for diversion planning -- neither does the military. In a dire emergency one can surely put
36 Indy : IND neither has nor had a plan to have an A380 pax gate. The plan is to use a regular gate and its all 500+ people out through a normal gate.
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...
North Atlantic Diversion Airports posted Wed Aug 30 2006 10:37:49 by FraT
A380's To North America? posted Sat Aug 19 2006 17:54:28 by BoeingFever777
When Will The A380 Make A North America Trip? posted Thu Dec 1 2005 14:58:51 by Tappan
North America And The A380 posted Sun Nov 13 2005 17:51:51 by AirworldA320
Potential A350 And A380 Customers In North America posted Sat Nov 12 2005 09:58:09 by Columba
America West "teamwork Coast To Coast" posted Mon May 26 2003 13:08:35 by Godbless
West Coast-Latin America Service posted Fri Feb 8 2002 02:05:26 by Dutchjet
Busiest Airports In North America posted Mon Jan 10 2000 04:39:34 by Ywg777
America West Gates At MSP posted Wed Aug 8 2007 06:38:32 by Af773atmsp
America West 757 Engine Shutdown Over The Pacific! posted Tue Jul 31 2007 00:49:11 by ShootTheMoon