Ssublyme From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 517 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 3536 times:
Why are US airports so slow (at least it seems) to A380'fy their gates/terminals? Qantas had to put LOTS of pressure on LAX, JFK was slow, ATL has none, does ORD have any? Why the reluctance? Meanwhile many international airports the size of some the ones listed started early planning for the A380? I read somewhere perhaps it is a protest/conspiracy to reduce A380 sales by reducing number pf airports it could fly to?
OzGlobal From France, joined Nov 2004, 2790 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3484 times:
If you go back to the a.net archives a couple of years ago, you'll find half a dozen pseudo arguments. Most distill down to, "it's not made here; if it were a good idea, we would have built it" with a subtext of ('we don't want it to succeed').
If you think I'm exaggerating, do a search on the press and the a.net forum of the time. One US senator even introduced a bill to congress, under the pretext of security, making it mandatory for all aircraft 'capable of carry over 500 passengers' to have on board anti-missile defense systems.
I don't recall any such opposition to the 747 outside the US when it was introduced. The only parallel was again the US opposition to the Concord in the 1970's.
Eventually, A380's will be as normal as 747's and this US opposition will be seen as quaint, but we could save a lot of time an money if people would just grow up a little and make policy on the basis of facts and long term planning.
When all's said and done, there'll be more said than done.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23585 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3427 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1): Most distill down to, "it's not made here; if it were a good idea, we would have built it" with a subtext of ('we don't want it to succeed').
You can laugh this argument off as nationalistic blabber because in a sense it is.
There's some meat to it, though. If there were a huge amount of demand for 380-sized aircraft, Boeing would have built one. There isn't, and it doesn't make much sense for an airport like ORD to spend millions of dollars to make major changes for an airplane that will, for the foreseeable future, serve it fewer than five times daily.
The lack of more 380 infrastructure at ORD will undoubtedly cost LH a little bit of time, but the paucity of 380s there means that building more infrastructure would not have been worth the cost.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Jlbmedia From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3388 times:
If the airports build it (A380 Gates) will they (A380) come? I do not want tax money spent on a gate that may or may not be used a little, or at all. As demand increases, and more A380s are scheduled to come to the US, Airport managers may be able to fiscally justify the expense. Until then, the money should be used elsewhere.
I would venture to guess that the biggest reason US airports are not defined as A380 ready is because there are no US carriers with A380's so thus there is not a reason for the US carriers to encourage airports to spend the money to renovate, construct, etc the facilities and infrastructure necessary.
US airports are essentially supported by the users, the airlines. So if you are say United at DEN who probably pays more then 50% of the bills why would you want to support additional costs for something you probably won't use.
Granted there are some airports that need to accommodate the A380, LAX and JFK, but until there are commitments from international airlines to add additional A380 service to more airports or US carriers start adding A380's I doubt you will see a big push for airports to spend the money to become A380 capable.
There are a lot of airports that are already A380 capable it just depends on from what aspect you are looking at it. ANC has spent money to adjust taxiways to provide separation but has done nothing around the terminals as there is no need. I doubt ANC will be seeing A380 passenger service anytime soon.
Its not a simple "is an airport A380 ready" question.
FlyMIA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7350 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 3192 times:
MIA is A380 ready also.
As for why airports are slow in getting ready. Look at how many US airports the A380 goes to. I highly doubt it will be much higher than maybe 7-10 in the next 10 years. MIA,LAX,SFO,JFK and ORD are A380 ready. Who else might see the A380? I dont see many others. EWR,BOS,ATL. There is no reason for an airport to spend millions getting ready for a plane that might not even fly there. That is why. It has nothing to do with people in the US not wanting it here. US airlines are not going to buy the A380 because it makes no sense for them to buy it for the type of airlines they are.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
Par13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7966 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3127 times:
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1): One US senator even introduced a bill to congress, under the pretext of security, making it mandatory for all aircraft 'capable of carry over 500 passengers' to have on board anti-missile defense systems.
Any chance 911 had anything to do with that comment, I'll bet that it did, especially since the US is one of the larger users of Airbus a/c if thats here your comment was going.
Quoting OzGlobal (Reply 1): I don't recall any such opposition to the 747 outside the US when it was introduced. The only parallel was again the US opposition to the Concord in the 1970's
The B-747 was a large a/c, the Concorde was supersonic, if my memory serves correctly, the US was not the only country to ban the a/c, ironically, the US was the only country to see successful regularly scheduled service that was profitable, you should probably thank them for that rather than throw a bone.
No US airline has bought the A380, and so far over 200 have been sold, just as the US is not the cebter of the universe, you can rest assured that the A380 will be fine and a successful a/c, the project may be in doubt but the a/c is ok and meeting and or beating all expectations and will do fine flying all over the world.
Brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4470 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2962 times:
Not a lot of A380's are going to fly to the U.S. to other then the airports that have been mentioned above(JFK, LAX, ORD,) at this time or in the forseeable future. When a U.S.based carrier orders and takes delivery of the A380 then you may see more airports ponying up the coin to make thier airports A380 ready.