Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Qantas A380 Warns LAX  
User currently offlineWheelie67 From Australia, joined May 2007, 19 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 30230 times:

Have a read - click below

http://www.smh.com.au/news/travel/qa...-lax/2008/08/05/1217702013246.html


wheelie67
99 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVC10DC10 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1036 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 30122 times:

Well, even if they suspend A380 service at LAX for a while, it isn't as though they'll stop flying there. Seems like much ado about nothing to me.

User currently offlineWheelie67 From Australia, joined May 2007, 19 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 29937 times:

I am due to fly SYD to LAX on Dec 21st on Qantas (QF149 - 747-400) and returning on Jan 14th (QF 12 - A380) as i was looking forward of flying on A380 as it was my 1st trip on A380.


wheelie67
User currently offlineVC10DC10 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 1036 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 29913 times:



Quoting Wheelie67 (Reply 2):

I am due to fly SYD to LAX on Dec 21st on Qantas (QF149 - 747-400) and returning on Jan 14th (QF 12 - A380) as i was looking forward of flying on A380 as it was my 1st trip on A380.

I highly doubt that there will be any equipment-related problems with your flight. Have a great time!


User currently offlineAznCSA4QF744ER From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 692 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 29824 times:

Not sure if this had anything to do with the contracts QF had in place with AA. If I remember correctly when QF moved its SYD flight to T4 and opening of the lounges (QF invested $10million) it was said that AA would ground handles all SYD bound flights. Having said that I think QF is afraid that since T4 cannot accommodate A380 at the gate they'll have to board the plane via People mover bus to the West Remote Stands. Sneaky but smart move!

User currently offlineFlyboy7974 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 1540 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 29677 times:

Oh well, who cares the A380 isn't going to fly to LAX, oh well, I'd much rather have the line up and amount of flight activity that Qantas already has at LAX rather than flights flown with A380 a/c and later flight reductions because of overcapacity. I know when I land at LAX when flying in, it's impressive to taxi by and see the lineup of Qantas B744 a/c and just what a domineering presence the airline has there in L.A after seeing some 5, 6 or 7 747 parked all at once,

When the notice was sent out, I hope nobody at the airport gave a rat's a__ and hit the delete button or better yet, they should have forwarded it to Airbus. I think airports that didn't care when the A380 was in development were smart not to run out and spend millions and millions of dollars on ground construction to become A380 compatible. Airbus is the dummy there for not designing an aircraft that could fit well within the limits of most airports around the world, and with the market as it is now, the airlines flying the A380 might start to reevaluate some of their orders if they are confronted with these and other operational issues.

The plane is awesome, it is truly a flying machine, and I love the technology and reading all the stories of how each airline is configuring their fleet and what the next airline has or does with their A380, but, reality check, how many airports here in the U.S alone weren't and still are not A380 ready? I mean it is overwhelming to observe first-hand, look at, and watch and just witness, but then again, cool big toy that cost quite a bit, hmmmm, Airbus has taken quite a hit on during first delivery stages, and all the costs not associated just with the aircraft purchase, but with airports worldwide having to spend just to have the chance to get an A380 landing, no way, Airbus can pay those costs or fire and rehire more intelligent aircraft designers.


User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 504 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 29410 times:

The A380 takes off shorter than a 747, has a better weight repartition than a 747, fits in the 80x80m box, has a similar turn around time to the 747. The most significant modification to airport infrastructure was the widening of the paved shoulders.
Airbus put in alot of work with airlines and airports to minimize the size impact.
Airports need to adapt anyhow: there are more pax every year so their masterplans need solutions for x % annual growth. A380 is one part of that solution for some airports. It's no surprise that LHR will be a big A380 hub for airlines.
Please bear in mind that 747-8 is in the same ICAO/FAA size category as the A380.


User currently offlineAirlineAddict From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 419 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 29203 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting AznCSA4QF744ER (Reply 4):
Not sure if this had anything to do with the contracts QF had in place with AA. If I remember correctly when QF moved its SYD flight to T4 and opening of the lounges (QF invested $10million) it was said that AA would ground handles all SYD bound flights. Having said that I think QF is afraid that since T4 cannot accommodate A380 at the gate they'll have to board the plane via People mover bus to the West Remote Stands. Sneaky but smart move!

Very interesting... two thoughts

1. A380 flights to Sydney would have to check-in at Tom Bradley International Terminal (TBIT) rather than T-4 and could therefore would not be serviced by AA. I'm a little surprised if this is QF's concern since this has been known for a long time. There's also a shiny new OneWorld lounge in TBIT. As for arriving A380 flights, passengers could disembark at TBIT but then walk to T4 similar to some CX flights.

2. QF is posturing to get preferential use of the one A380 gate closest to T4: Gate 101... definitely a smart move.


User currently offlineAstuteman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 10036 posts, RR: 96
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 29188 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Flyboy7974 (Reply 5):
I think airports that didn't care when the A380 was in development were smart not to run out and spend millions and millions of dollars on ground construction to become A380 compatible. Airbus is the dummy there for not designing an aircraft that could fit well within the limits of most airports around the world

Perhaps LAX should have had a chat with you first....  Smile

Quote:
Airport spokeswoman Nancy Castles said it had already purchased eight gates to accommodate the A380 - which are much larger than for a normal aircraft - two of which will be attached to terminals.

"We built it in time [for the inaugural A380 flight]. I don't understand why they're saying that," she said. "I can see why he'd be concerned if we were to say you have to park out there on the remote side of the terminal, but that's not the case as it stands.

"Unless Qantas have plans to expand that we're not aware of, there's no reason for that."

She said the airport would have an additional eight gates attached to terminals by 2012.

Seems like LAX think the ARE spending the money, to me...  scratchchin 

Rgds


User currently offlineBruin787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 117 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 28471 times:



Quoting AirlineAddict (Reply 7):

I think its the latter. Just yesterday, QF were here to continue finalizing the details of the first flight inauguration activities.



http://taxiwayalpha.blogspot.com
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25399 posts, RR: 49
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 28348 times:

Bizarre article.

I'm not sure what QF is commenting on, as the airport authority LAWA does have two terminal gates at TBIT which are 380 compatible.

If its something to do with with AA's T-4, that is something the airline needs to work out with AA directly, but doubt AA would ever modify its terminal and subsequently loose other gate space itself to simply handle QF 380s.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6144 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 28328 times:

Dear Qantas

We currently have 2 gates in a modern 8 years young International Terminal waiting your arrival

Signed SFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineKhobar From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2379 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 28267 times:

Exactly why would LAX care about Wantas' A380? Qantas bought the plane, Qantas should deal with any issues caused by that decision. Not flying to LAX is one solution - go for it!

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 27837 times:



Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 6):
The A380 takes off shorter than a 747, has a better weight repartition than a 747, fits in the 80x80m box, has a similar turn around time to the 747. The most significant modification to airport infrastructure was the widening of the paved shoulders.
Airbus put in alot of work with airlines and airports to minimize the size impact.

They put a lot of pressure on airports to accomadate an aircraft they might not see for a while, and even then, only once or twice a day.

And while it fits in the "80x80" box, that only matters if you are parking it in an "80x80" box. LAX doesn't have too many of those. Most of the large gates at LAX are 65m x 75m or smaller. The "80x80" box is a fiction, as no commercial jet came close to having an 80m wingspan until the A380. It's 15m wider than the 744, and still 11m wider than the 748. That's a full HOUSE wider than any other plane. Airports don't generally have space to randomly place houses between aircraft wingtips.

Quoting Khobar (Reply 12):
Qantas bought the plane, Qantas should deal with any issues caused by that decision. Not flying to LAX is one solution - go for it!

Ding. This goes back to the "A380 ready" argument and who should foot the bill. QF will not stop flying to LAX. LAX should not care if it is done with 744s or A380s or 787s or whatever.

QF wants to park SYD flights at T4. They want to fly the A380 on the route. T4 was not designed for a plane this large. The 744 can barely fit at the few gates it's approved for. Something has to give.

LAX has a mechanism for dealing with this. The remote stands. If QF wants to park A380s at gates, they will have to do so at TBIT for the time being, or on remote stands.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6144 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 27549 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 13):

Ding. This goes back to the "A380 ready" argument and who should foot the bill. QF will not stop flying to LAX. LAX should not care if it is done with 744s or A380s or 787s or whatever.

This coming from the same airport that was up in arms about not getting the A380 visit before JFK. I agree with Khobar's statement, but knowing LAWA, someone does care.

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21532 posts, RR: 59
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 27195 times:



Quoting AS739X (Reply 14):
This coming from the same airport that was up in arms about not getting the A380 visit before JFK. I agree with Khobar's statement, but knowing LAWA, someone does care.

I am not an airport. Just in case you were confused.

LAX is A380 ready. 2 gates at TBIT + remote stands. So far, there are zero scheduled flights to LAX. When there are 3 parked at LAX at one time, then maybe there is a point to this whining.

It's not as if those remote stands sit empty and would only be used by the A380 to "penalize" it or something. They are used every day for everything from 744s to 737s.

Does QF want special A380 treatment because it's supposed to be such a premium experience? Well, then pay for it. Find a way to do what you want by offering LAWA money. Otherwise, it's just another plane, and if that means parking at remote stands when the A380 gates are full (or because it can't part at T4), then that's the facts of life of LAX.

We all know LAX needs to expand it's gate space. But the political will is lacking. And it hurts everyone, not just QF. Try fitting 777s or 747s in the T5-T6 alley for example. Or T6-T7.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6144 posts, RR: 23
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26754 times:

I think you completely missed what I am saying. I was not referring to you my friend. If you remember, LAX was having a hissy when the A380 was visiting JFK before LAX. That's what led to the dual flights when both JFK and LAX received A380 visits the same day. I was not going at you personal, I was saying that LAWA has a real ego about them. I worked with LAWA for 2 years, they can come out and say they don't care about QF A380's, but they do.

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26565 times:



Quoting Khobar (Reply 12):
Exactly why would LAX care about Wantas' A380? Qantas bought the plane, Qantas should deal with any issues caused by that decision. Not flying to LAX is one solution - go for it!

Typical ignorant as a door knob comment. Last I checked domestic airlines were not exactly doing that great. It's not QF problem because they have an alternative. It's LAX's problem becuase they would lose their biggest international carrier. We're not talking about moving only their A380 flights to SFO (or DFW). I suspect QF would move most of their hub operations from LAX and that would be a huge loss for LAX. As it is, LAX has been passed out by other airports already as an A380 destination. I don't think they are in a position to afford losing such a huge customer.

Quoting AirlineAddict (Reply 7):
2. QF is posturing to get preferential use of the one A380 gate closest to T4: Gate 101... definitely a smart move.

Most likely looking for preferential treatment and they will get it too. QF knows they have the bigger stick here and they're waving it. The TBIT terminal in itself is a s%it hole to begin with.


User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6144 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26387 times:



Quoting Airbazar (Reply 17):

Could QF really afford to move most its operation to SFO from LAX? There is nowhere near the AA feed here. LAX probably knows this.

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineEXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 26386 times:



Quoting AS739X (Reply 11):
Dear Qantas

We currently have 2 gates in a modern 8 years young International Terminal waiting your arrival

Signed SFO

Bluff: QF cant fill a A380 to SFO, there is no One World partner there for onward connections like in LAX.

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 17):
It's LAX's problem becuase they would lose their biggest international carrier.

QF isnt taling about pulling oout of LAX

Quoting Airbazar (Reply 17):
We're not talking about moving only their A380 flights to SFO (or DFW). I suspect QF would move most of their hub operations from LAX and that would be a huge loss for LAX

See above, they cant. AA and AS are all smaller in SFO than in LAX and SFO btw happens to be UAL's most loyal hub in terms of the % of the population enrolled in MP. Not to mention that the OD SFO-SYD is a fraction of the OD LAX-SYD. Yeah, am I am sure we'll see SFO-BNE and SFO-MEL......nope.

Now QF might fly SFO-SYD with a A380 but only out of spite, not cuz economics allow it. Never underestimate the stupidity of airlines, even non-US ones.


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5163 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 25725 times:



Quoting Jonathan-l (Reply 6):
there are more pax every year

Not anymore.


User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8379 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 24586 times:



Quoting AS739X (Reply 18):
Could QF really afford to move most its operation to SFO from LAX? There is nowhere near the AA feed here. LAX probably knows this.

They have 65 firm orders for 787's, a lot of them I suspect will be flying to DFW. If LAX pisses them off they will likely move. Later improvements to the A380's should be able to fly SYD-DFW too. QF could quite possibly keep only a token presence at LAX for premium O&D traffic.
Again, I don't think this will happen. I think they're just flexing their muscle as the largest international carrier at LAX, and in the end both parties will find something that makes them happy.


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3647 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 24014 times:

QF is not leaving LAX, they derive something like 30% of their revenue from -LAX routes alone.

It's nothing more than QF rattling its saber to use as a bargaining chip to obtain carte blanche on those TBIT 380 gates.



PHX based
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7615 posts, RR: 24
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 23641 times:



Quoting Airbazar (Reply 17):
We're not talking about moving only their A380 flights to SFO (or DFW). I suspect QF would move most of their hub operations from LAX and that would be a huge loss for LAX. As it is, LAX has been passed out by other airports already as an A380 destination. I don't think they are in a position to afford losing such a huge customer.

The mere fact that anyone could think for a moment that QF would move the majority of their North American operation to SFO is absolutely laughable. Not only LAX has alot more feed from AA, but LAX has a lot more local traffic to Australia. Why would QF shoot themselves in the foot?

Quoting AS739X (Reply 18):
Could QF really afford to move most its operation to SFO from LAX? There is nowhere near the AA feed here. LAX probably knows this.

LAX knows that they have the local traffic and the feed. QF isnt going anywhere. LAX has the upper hand not QF. Besides LAX has made several gates to accomodate the A380.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineEghansen From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 23610 times:



Quoting Airbazar (Reply 17):
Typical ignorant as a door knob comment. Last I checked domestic airlines were not exactly doing that great. It's not QF problem because they have an alternative. It's LAX's problem becuase they would lose their biggest international carrier. We're not talking about moving only their A380 flights to SFO (or DFW). I suspect QF would move most of their hub operations from LAX and that would be a huge loss for LAX. As it is, LAX has been passed out by other airports already as an A380 destination. I don't think they are in a position to afford losing such a huge customer.

Sorry, but LAX does not have a problem. You don't understand the mentality of LA.

LAX is owned by the City of Los Angeles. All major decisions regarding the airport are made by the LA City Council. Expansion at LAX has been tied up for decades by the City Council and with several different mayors.

With 16 million people, LA has too many people, too much traffic, too much airport noise, too much smog, not enough water, not enough electricity, and is too expensive to live in.

The reason that LAX has not put too much effort in accommodating new traffic is for the same reason that SAN operates out of 640 acres with a too short runway and insufficient terminal facilities.

People (and by that I mean voters) in Southern California want LA and San Diego to shrink. They do not want to do anything that would accommodate growth because they think that there are too many people here already and that LAX is much bigger than it needs to be.


25 Post contains images ScottB : Oh, please. The L.A. Basin is the largest O&D market from the U.S. to Australia. It would be self-defeating for QF to cut its existing presence at LA
26 Brilondon : Imagine if we all felt the same way when the B747 was first flying where we would all be today.
27 Nwarooster : If that is Qantas attitude , they can keep their A380s in Australia. Better yet, they can use their A380s to find Amelia Earhart and her Lockheed Elec
28 Post contains images Solnabo : Read that EKs to spend a lot of $$ on LAX for runways, gateways etc. so I guess no problemos for Qantas //Micke    [Edited 2008-08-06 13:03:23][Edit
29 SFOnative : So true, we have been all dressed up but nowhere to go for years now!
30 Airbazar : sounds to me like they have lots of problems then If you don't think LAX's single biggest international customer who's aligned with AA does not have
31 AirNZ : What a laugh I had at such unadulterated, bigoted nonsense! If you're supposedly an aviation consultant, I'd sure as hell hate to be consulting you o
32 ScottB : LAX has the highest O&D traffic of any airport in the United States. If AA and QF choose to reduce frequencies, they lose out on part of that traffic
33 Tockeyhockey : whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat? no way qantas stops flying to LAX entirely because of a little snit over the 380. LAX will get its widebodies no matter what. they
34 Solnabo : You said it mate, a real Airbus basher at it purest
35 DocLightning : QANTAS brings up a good point about remote boarding, though. If you've ever had the pleasure of remote boarding/disembarkation, it's a real hassle. Ev
36 AS739X : That wasn't my quote! ASSFO
37 AznCSA4QF744ER : We've been doing this for years now. QF11 and QF25 arrived into gates 101-105 then walked over to T4 to clear custom. T4 custom is very small and tig
38 Ryanair!!! : I seriously hope you are kidding with your comments. It lacks in depth understanding of what is REALLY going on in the aviation world outside of your
39 Skyhigh : Am I getting this wrong...As far as I can tell, there are 2 A380 capable gates at TBIT but Qantas' Sydney flights normally arrive at Terminal 4 instea
40 Eghansen : California does have lots of problems. When I was born here in 1961, there were 16 million people. Now there are 38 million which is more than those
41 WarRI1 : A typical case of the tail trying to wag the dog. Qantas bought the plane, now everyone should spend millions to fit them. Did Qantas ask LAX before t
42 Eghansen : It is actually more complicated than that. There is no doubt that the management at LAX would be quite happy to have 100 gates that can handle the A3
43 Flynorth : Qantas is one of LAXs customers and they are not happy with what they are being offered and they are trying to do something about it. LAX and Qantas a
44 F9Animal : It seems to me that it is not economical for the airports to upgrade things for just one type of aircraft. I am in no way slamming on the 380, but it
45 Pnwtraveler : The 747 was so out of the blue for airports it created a major crisis. No one had baggage systems capable of keeping up. No one was used to a 747 pull
46 LACA773 : Since the 380 flights will be utiizing TBIT, will QF move other flights to T4 gates 41 & 43? Is AA going to staff The ticketing and gate areas for QF
47 Post contains links and images Eghansen : See 2nd page of this press release for information on the gates. http://www.lawa.org/lax/pdf/LAXpect%20Update%202008%2004.pdf The photo below is for
48 AznCSA4QF744ER : Qantas uses two different ground handlers at LAX. TBIT is handles by Hallmark-Aviation Services (QF26, QF94, QF156) Which will be using gate 101 or 1
49 LACA773 : Thanks Eghansen for the information. I know how crowded it is in that alley way. I've always wondered how they accomplish having back to back 744/773
50 The Coachman : QF can continue to send their 744ER's and GE powered 744's to LAX as they do now and there won't be an issue. V Australia nor UA who are their only co
51 N1120A : Honestly, I don't see how LAWA can take Qantas particularly seriously. QF's SFO service, demand and feed is miniscule compared to LAX and that isn't g
52 Mariner : I rather hope they do. A client is stating a position. It's quite common in business negotiation. Whether they do anything about it, or discuss it or
53 EVA777SEA : If any of you even for a second actually believe that any other US airport can even come close to supporting the amount of QF service LAX sees then yo
54 AznCSA4QF744ER : Terminal 2 had dual jetbridges? The last time I travel out of T2 I didn't notice any dual jet bridges. Did LAWA took those out? one word, HELL This h
55 LACA773 : This was prior to TBIT being built when T2 was the international terminal... I'm sure there are many of us who remember what a hellish nightmare T2 w
56 Airbazar : That only makes the case for more A380 gates, not less. If your airport is cramped you want bigger less frequent flights. No but QF will hardly be th
57 Keesje : I disliked long haul arrivals at LAX, the long waiting lines when a group of 747s arrive at the same moment are worse then other international hubs. M
58 Victrola : Besides the fewer One World connections available to Qantas at SFO, you also have take into account the frequent flight delays into that airport due t
59 Jetjeanes : We've made a large investment in our A380s for the benefit and enjoyment of our passengers and we do not intend to lose it on the ground." . As a taxp
60 EVA777SEA : And if it were moved to say SFO, then it would be what, 5%?
61 SFOnative : I think this is not acurate. In your own personal travel you may have experienced this, but as a whole the fog bank rarely extends past South San Fra
62 Eghansen : What the voters in the area want is fewer passengers. In LA, each passenger (or maybe 1 1/2 passengers) means a car trip. The traffic to LAX is part
63 LACA773 : When will QF's new 380 flights to LAX become daily?
64 N1120A : The position the client is stating is one that would put them in a significantly weaker position, and LAWA management know that. LAWA wouldn't have d
65 Mariner : Since the quoted LAWA rep doesn't seem to understand the Qantas position, you may be right, that may be what LAWA believes. And if so, fine, go for i
66 Travelin man : Isn't the issue here that LAWA IS doing something? I.e.: LAWA has made gates A380 ready (including the current two that are attached to the TBIT). I
67 Mariner : The LAWA rep doesn't seem to understand, either. The LAWA rep is talking about what has happened, with which Qantas seems happy. But now, Qantas seem
68 LAXdude1023 : Then why even say it? If QF has been happy with what they have, why make threats? Not that it matters, Qantas needs Los Angeles.
69 Mariner : I dunno, I'm not Qantas. At a guess - just a guess - they are unhappy with the way the future looks? Given the complete misinterpretation of what the
70 LAXintl : As I've said before I'm baffled like LAWA the rep is at the Qantas comments. LAX or the portion that LAWA controls is very ready for the A380 with two
71 Eghansen : Will it be for Virgin Atlantic? There are some airports with lots of space (such as DFW, DXB, BKK, PEK, SIN) which aspire to have the best airport in
72 Ikramerica : I think the key is the "future" but frankly, the QF rep is talking out of his buttocks, because as LAXIntl has pointed out, LAX is planning for A380s
73 Brilondon : I agree that with the latest news about the A380 delivery schedule that LAX will not have to worry for a little while yet. Correct me if I am wrong b
74 Post contains links Mariner : Delivery on September 19, 2008, with service - to LAX - to begin four weeks later - October 20: http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,241444
75 LAXintl : VS might bring the plane eventualy, however push at LAX-Two Corp has been from Air France. 1st QF 380 is due Sept 19th at the moment, with 3 hopefull
76 Post contains links Mariner : Or October 24: http://www.theage.com.au/news/news/q...onth/2008/08/08/1218139063901.html "Qantas' first commercial passenger flight with the A380 wil
77 MSYtristar : It looks like QF will operate one A380 flight LAX-SYD in late October as well... 1- QF 012 /RFA 5 LAXSYD 2230 0715+2 380 0 M 24OCT24OCT JCDWTYBHKMLVSN
78 LAXintl : Thanks Mariner, but that Oct 24th SYD is only a 1x weekly gig. Once the 2nd frame arrives then in November will SYD become 3x weekly.
79 Post contains links Mariner : But LAX-SYD service will start in October. MEL-LAX is only 1 x weekly until November. http://www.qantas.com.au/info/flying/A380/schedule mariner[Edit
80 MSYtristar : Yes indeed...and it's about time. 1- QF 012 /RFA 35 LAXSYD 2230 0810+2 380 0 M 07NOV06MAR JCDWTYBHKMLVSNQO 2 QF 012 /RFA 7 LAXSYD 2230 0810+2 380 0 M
81 Jfk777 : LAX has had 10 years to get ready for the A380, they are still 5 years behind. Politicians shouldn't run airports.
82 LAXintl : Behind?? They have been ready for nearly 12 months prior the first plane entering service. The first A380 compatible gate opened November 2007.
83 AirNZ : You mean the 787 too, right? Yes, you're wrong on the second part. And you're saying LAX doesn't need Qantas? If so, like Mariner states,it's a prett
84 Ikramerica : No, they are not. LAX only has so much money to spend every year. There are a lot of things that need addressing that impact everyone, more important
85 LAXintl : And by then they will have between 8-12 additional A380 compatible gates at the midfield concourse.
86 Ikramerica : Oh, I'm assuming it won't be finished by then because very little in this state/city is ever finished on time. But they may have 1/3rd to 1/2 of it o
87 Post contains links Mariner : No reason at all. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. I remember back in 2005, when ATL gave the A380 the total Big Finger. LAS was in that mix
88 Ikramerica : Well, again, every other TBIT airline has to deal with it, as well as AS and even AA on some occasions. And it's not just LAX that has them. Do I wan
89 Post contains images Mariner : Hmmm? I don't suppose that - and with whom Qantas merge? I've seldom found buses a "positive experience", but each to their own. Anything is possible
90 Lightsaber : QF Does have other options. They now have a plane with SYD-DFW range. Let's not forget half the traffic on QF via LAX is connecting. Since I often mu
91 Astuteman : An interesting new take - A380 the hub-buster..... Rgds
92 MarcoPoloWorld : As much as I (quite honestly) don't much care or agree with some of his other posts, Ikra does mention an important issue here that others seem to wa
93 Mariner : No, it isn't. Even if the curfew at SYD didn't exist, airlines would be reluctant to have intercontinental arrivals/departures at 4 am. Even if the c
94 EVA777SEA : How on Earth would SFO sustain the level of QF service that LAX has? The only other US airport that really could supply the pax would be JFK, and tha
95 Lightsaber : Ok... "Hub-shifter" It will still be hub to hub. In the past LAX and SFO were the only trans-Pacific choices. Add another 1000nm to the range and the
96 AirlineAddict : For those who haven't used the LAX remote stands, they are actually very nice. It's not truck stairs. It's a building with a gradual zig-zag ramp to
97 Ken777 : By the time that QF would face a real issue it might not be that much of an issue. If QF 787s go to DFW and that market grows significantly there will
98 Ikramerica : Sorry, their failed sale. It was late when I wrote it, the distraction was still the same. They were too busy worrying about impressing financiers wi
99 Mariner : It was an (attempted) takeover by external forces. I doubt the Qantas scheduling department was much involved. And if you are implying, as you seem t
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...
Qantas A380 Launch MEL-LAX 20OCT posted Sun Jun 15 2008 20:36:07 by Aussie747
Qantas A380 Names posted Fri Jul 18 2008 22:08:22 by Crownvic
2nd And 3rd Qantas A380 Have Engines posted Sun Jun 22 2008 01:10:07 by AeroplaneFreak
Qantas History At LAX (question) posted Fri Mar 28 2008 22:32:38 by 28L28L
Whats Up With American And Qantas Ops At LAX? posted Fri Mar 21 2008 13:56:45 by Access-Air
Qantas A380 Deliveries? posted Tue Mar 11 2008 17:41:59 by AeroplaneFreak
Singapore A380 At LAX Today, March 8? posted Sat Mar 8 2008 17:13:24 by Dxborbust
Qantas A332 At LAX As QF25 posted Sun Mar 2 2008 13:30:00 by Charles79
A380 at LAX? posted Fri Feb 8 2008 12:34:31 by Mudboy
Qantas A380 Tail In Old Colours posted Mon Jan 14 2008 16:39:20 by N104UA