Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Getting SFO Ready For The A380  
User currently offlineUALbrat From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2 posts, RR: 0
Posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2728 times:

Today's San Francisco Chronicle has an article about what SFO is doing to get ready for the super-jumbos; it is on their SFGate web site,

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2002/06/20/BU232718.DTL



25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 27
Reply 1, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2683 times:

"Boeing, by contrast, is betting that domestic travel, with its need for smaller, faster planes, will dominate air travel in the near-term. Boeing is building what it calls a sonic carrier, emphasizing speed over size. It also plans to add sections to its workhorse 747, rather than build a new airplane. ". . . .

Does the SF Chronicle know something we don't, or are they going off of outdated news?

Good article though, pretty thorough. Glad to see SFO gearing up, that will be some sight to see the A380 over the bay out there.



Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineUALbrat From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2661 times:

Does the SF Chronicle know something we don't, or are they going off of outdated news?

Hard to tell, DIA; David Armstrong is a fine reporter so I'm guessing he didn't make this up.

And yes, it would be so cool to see the A380 at SFO, especially on takeoffs!


User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 27
Reply 3, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2646 times:

Reading my post again, I think I should clarify. Is Boeing back into studying the 747-500/600 again? If they are, excellent; but I think it is still in the "on hold" bin.


Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineGoingboeing From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4875 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2640 times:

Just curious, but what happens if a 380 is coming into SFO from Tokyo only to find the airport is below minimums? What airport would this thing divert to?

User currently offlineDIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 27
Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2621 times:

Edwards AFB would be my guess. Maybe even Las Vegas.


Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
User currently offlineFrequentFlyKid From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2614 times:

I was wondering that myself, I guess they would have to be capable of making LAX.

User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5569 posts, RR: 36
Reply 7, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2579 times:

Goingboeing: An A 380 can land where ever a 747 can land, there is no problem. Perhaps an airport has not a gate big enough but in case of emergency they perhaps have to use two (BTW the 380-800 is shorter than the 340-600 and the wingspan is less than 80 meters, it fits into the usual 80x80 meter box). The runways and taxiways don't have to be stronger because the 380 has more wheels. The weight per wheel is not more than at a 777. Making an airport capable for A 380, only means making it capable for daily use, to load and unload passengers quickly. For an exception a 380 can land at any major airport.

User currently offlineI LOVE EWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 852 posts, RR: 8
Reply 8, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 2557 times:

Very good article but inthreaded in the article is why I think the A380 will fail. Please I LOVE Airbuses as well as Boeing aircraft this is not a bash, just my thoughts.

Airlines also say that they are going to have flying restaurants, casinos, and other things in the Airplane. I doubt that. The airlines are going to pack the full amount of 550 people on the plane to make the most money possible off a flight. With all of those people come the longer waits for security, check-in, boarding, and other delays are going to be incurred with these aircraft.

To accomadate the aircraft airports need to make big changes. Seventy million at SFO? Seven Hundred Million at LAX? Those figures are just to start. With airport projects they are always late and/or over-budget. Who is going to pay for these imporvements? The airport, the airline, or even Airbus? Or better yet the airports are going to do what Canada does and give the PAX a Facility Improvement Fee before you leave the airport. How many airports are going to be needed to improve to accomadate the A380 and how much is it going to cost?

I also think that there is an X factor in this. Boeing has a lot of Lobbyists in Washington. They are lobbying very hard to the Transportation Committee and other government officials NOT to give the money to the airports to improve the airports to accomade this money and other bs items needed to operate the A380 at airports.

Like I said before I love the Airbus as well as Boeing aircrafts. When I fly I just love to fly from point A to B. I hope one day I will be able to fly on the A380 but I think it faces a steep uphill battle




User currently offlineUPS Pilot From United States of America, joined May 1999, 871 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 4 days ago) and read 2513 times:

I too think the A380 will not be in much demand. This isn't an Airbus or Boeing issue. It's an issue of frequencies over capacity. For a freighter the the A380 would be nice. The question to ask though is how much will ground handling equipment cost to unload a double decker and how long will turnaround times be. Fuel burn and range hasn't been proven yet.

If you look at aircraft over the last 15 years the A300's, A330, A340, A320, A319 ect from Airbus. The 777, 767,757,737 fly more flights than the 747. You have to look at the majority of air carriers now days are flying twin jets across the Atlantic and Pacific more than the 747 even the current 400 version. It just seems strange that airlines are going more towards smaller twins than using larger jumbos.

I'm not saying that the A380 won't be any good. I just feel that there is a limited need and I don't know how Airbus will get the R&D money back from limited sales.


User currently offlineFlybulldog From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

So where is the money going to come from? Don't tell me that there will be an added surcharge on all SFO/LAX tickets to pay for the 380 inhancements.

User currently offlineScottysAir From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2491 times:

Hey Guys,

DIA want to know ask you something about with B747-500/600 on the this posts: Reading my post again, I think I should clarify. Is Boeing back into studying the 747-500/600 again? If they are, excellent; but I think it is still in the "on hold" bin.

And this is plans will be great to get fly into SFO/LAX as for new superjumbo by A380. I can't wait to see it as for next of 4 more years later into the near of future. And maybe I will able go to see it as for visits into SFO airport as for some of my day off in near of future as myself. And I knew read with the newspaper said that about SQ will have begin new nonstop from SIN-SFO as for A380 and as for A345 will be flying from SIN-LAX nonstop. Hope this is great to be first-ever as for long-hauls nonstop. Well, this is it as for right now!!


User currently offlineSllevin From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 3376 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2463 times:

I would imagine that there wouldn't be a problem with an A380 bouncing over to OAK and offloading pax at a remote stand. It wouldn't be as pretty as everything, but it'd be a possibility that would work. Failing that, I think SMF has enough runway.

However, if they start charging additional airport fees to cover the money they are spending, it'll be just another reason to avoid SFO(G)

Steve


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2498 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 2423 times:

I just don't know if the A380 will succeed or fail. I must admit that I always, and still do feel it as a fantastic aircraft. When it comes to aircraft, I have an typical American attitude: BIG IS BETTER!! But off course this is no warrant whatsoever that it will be successful...

Some remarks and thoughts I have:

List price A380.
The article list the A380 at $ 130M. This can not be true! The list price of a 773 is close to $170M. A couple of years ago when Boeing was trying to launch the 747-500/600, it was rumoured that its list price would be well over $200M. In fact this was an important reason why it didn't make it [too expensive!!]. At the same time Airbus was announcing that the A3XX would sell for under $200M. I believe [correct me if I'm wrong] that the A380-800 list price is somewhere around $220M, but reportedly Airbus sold the first 100 with up to 40% discount [which is not unusual at all for launching a new aircraft program].

Frequencies.
I agree that frequencies are king. However I'm not sure if it's really that important to most pax if a 10 hr transatlantic flight is flown two or three times daily. As long as he or she can choose what day he or she is flying, I would think that is sufficient choice frequency wise. I mean, for 1-3 hr flights frequencies do matter, but the longer the flight, the less important frequencies are, as long as it is at least a daily flight. On the other hand, more daily frequencies will mean that more daily banks are fed at the hub airport, increasing the appeal of the hub, and increasing efficiency of the hub. So I'm not sure how important frequencies are for long haul flights, but certainly not as important as on the short haul flights!

One daily A380-800 has approx the same capacity as two daily 777s. But the cost for double daily 777 would be 25-40% higher than a single daily A380 [according to Airbus]. Not sure your average Joe is prepared to pay the premium for the extra frequency choice. Furthermore, again according to Airbus claims, the 380 will provide 15-20% more space per pax compared to the current generation aircraft [744/767/777/330/340]. So flying the A380 is not only cheaper, but also more spacious/luxurious [not taking into account unrealistically wild ideas like bars, gyms etc.]. This may become a very valuable selling point keeping DVT discussion in mind.

Airport modification cost.
The airports that face the highest modification costs to accommodate the A380 generally speaking were long due for refurbishment/upgrade anyway. LAX is a prime example. Even without the A380 an really extensive refurbishment of the runway/taxiway layout - and to a lesser degree the [international] terminals - was already long overdue. So the real question is what are the EXTRA cost to modify it to group F [80x80x80: A380,745,746] standard. If I understand correctly, even today LAX faces lots of challenges to get the multiple daily 747s around. Runway-taxiway-taxiway separation is insufficient for multiple 747 operations simultaneously due to insufficient clearance between taxiways. Also unpowered taxi-in and push back/taxi-out operations are required due to limited taxiway clearance to the terminals. So upgrading to full 747 standard was already anticipated. When doing this upgrade, the EXTRA cost to accommodate the group F aircraft would not be a big deal. Anyway, eventually the large group F aircraft will come to LAX if its not for the A380 by 2006.
Just out of curiosity, why didn't we hear any discussions on airport modifications costs when Boeing was on the verge of launching the 747-500/600 a couple of years ago. The footprint of these stretched 747 are even larger than the A380-800!

Just my two Eurocents [being a European, my opinions are off course totally unbiased whatsoever...NOT!! Big grin]

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineUPS Pilot From United States of America, joined May 1999, 871 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2385 times:

PW100,

You made some excellent points! I don't understand how Airbus figuring this out though. A380= more passengers than 777 but also equals 2 more engines to feed, maintain and replace when needed. We could go on and on but the main thing is that the A380 will take sales away from the A340 and A330 fleet. If the plan is to reduce frequencies by increasing passenger loads then that means you only need A318,319,or A320 to do the spoke hauls from the hubs.
I'm just not sure as you are if this thing would work for passenger carriers. Look At the MD-11? The 777 with 2 engines and the A330 pretty much killed that for passenger use. The MD-11 in the freighter role is great. I feel the A380 will have the same fate. I guess we'll have to wait and see. It would be nice though to see another jumbo.


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2498 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2287 times:

UPS Pilot
Thanks for your kind remarks.
I also question why the MD11 did not catch on. My best guess is that the thing basically has been thrown out the door by Boeing because it was too close to the 777 product line for comfort. A lot of airlines like the MD11 because if offers great range and good payload, without ETOPS limitations. However it can not match the economics of the newer 777.

the plan is to reduce frequencies by increasing passenger loads then that means you only need A318,319,or A320 to do the spoke hauls from the hubs
Not necessarily. Keep one thing in mind: larger aircraft are more economical than small aircraft due to the economics of scale. However, you must be able to decently fill that large aircraft to make money. And as I wrote, on short sectors [the domain of the A318,319,320] frequencies are king!
Another problem with large aircraft: due to the limited number of short haul routes that can and will sustain large [wide body] short haul aircraft, the manufacturers have designed these aircraft with large range in mind to increase their appeal. However this makes them less suitable for the short hops. The A300 was great for short haul hops, and was sold in considerable numbers. However once its range grew [A300-600R --> A330] it became less attractive for short hops. Airbus just can't make the A330-500 work because it is just too heavy for the short range hops.

Airbus is still claiming that the A380 is much more economical per seat than current generation aircraft. This remains to be seen. The majority of the airlines which have ordered it to date, did so because they face [or are inticipating] capacity constrains due to slot limitation reasons.
Airbus claims on the A380 will only become clear once it flies. If Airbus is right, I believe that they may have a great product on their hands!

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineQatarAirways From Qatar, joined Sep 2008, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2262 times:

I Love EWR
"Airlines also say that they are going to have flying restaurants, casinos, and other things in the Airplane. I doubt that. The airlines are going to pack the full amount of 550 people on the plane to make the most money possible off a flight."

You might actually be surprised but at least one airline, Qatar Airways will have some of the features mentioned. Including Bar/Restaurant, Library, Lounge and shopping area. You can check the CEO's comments here http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHeft/FRH0206/FR0206e.htm. QR have also promised extra space for all passengers. Virgin Atlantic also has similair plans IIRC for their A380s. Some might argue that to make the biggest earning potential from the A380 they will need to cram it with seats upto the limits. But because of the economic savings airlines can offer better products while keeping costs low.

One last point I want to mention about the airport modifications. Most of the time they are just slight. When the 747 came to existense much more modifications were underway and many people were skeptical at that time too and look at the success Boeing has with the 747.


Regards,
QatarAirways


User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined exactly 13 years ago today! , 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2256 times:

You guys seem to forget that this is a long-term investmenet.Sure airlines want frequency over capacity but you can't go adding slots forever.Time will come,when the bigger airports will need the 380

User currently offlineI LOVE EWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 852 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (12 years 4 months 3 days ago) and read 2234 times:

QatarAirways - I hope you are right. I would love to see airlines put Libraries, Lobbies, and Bar/Restaurants in the A380s. I guess you just have to remember though, what a CEO of an airline tells us now could always be changed down the road. Many times we are told one thing when in reality it turns out differently.

PW100 - For Airbus to say that the "A380 will only become clear once it flies" is a risky statement to say to airlines given the current economic conditions. If I am a CEO of an airline, to hear that from Airbus would put many red-flags in my mind. Why would I put Billions down on a plane that may work rather than going with an airplane that I know will be economical to me?

Like I said I hope the A380 does fly but it faces a very hard battle


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2498 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (12 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2214 times:

I LOVE EWR
Your absolutely right! Airbus will tell everybody who wants to hear it [also who doesn't want to hear it...] that the A380 is going to be a tremendous money maker and that the world requires an aircraft larger and more economical than a 35 year old design. Ironically, this was the same point that Boeing was making when they tried to launch the 747-500/600. Boeing has now made a U-turn and emphasizing frequencies and speed [SC????].
I see the SC as the only real threat to the A380. But I sincerely doubt if it can be developed, build and operated at an economical level. If it doesn’t sell in large numbers, I think the A380 will follow the 747 series in number of sales. Like Donder10 mentioned, this aircraft is designed for the future, so the real sales and benefit for Airbus will come beyond 2010. However they already sold 100 of them, which shows that there must be more than just a little confidence from the market!

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineWilax From United States of America, joined Jun 2002, 465 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (12 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2213 times:

I don't want to be a downer but with today's airport screening and security checks, it will take forever to process and load 550 pax onto one flight. 550 pax is still a conservative number because charter airlines are currently packing that many people onto 747's, and what ungodly, slave-ship-like passenger roster will those carriers cram into a 380? Insurance costs have got to be stellar. Just imagine 650 plus families suing your airline for letting a shoe bomber onto your new A380 because you didn't want to "profile" him. R&D costs for Airbus will undoubtedly take a long time to recoup at less than 200 "meal tickets" per plane. This plane will not be profitable for many years. There is no way my airline would be in line for this Edsel, sight unseen. I really hope I am dead wrong about this for the sake of everyone with their underwear already on the table, but I just don't see it.

User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2498 posts, RR: 12
Reply 21, posted (12 years 4 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2154 times:

UPS Pilot
* Look At the MD-11? The 777 with 2 engines and the A330 pretty much killed that for passenger use...
* A380= more passengers than 777 but also equals 2 more engines to feed, maintain and replace when needed...


This thought just crossed my mind:
Two daily 777s flight provide about the same capacity as one daily A380. Therefore the A380 will do the same job that two aircraft can do. The A380 may have two more engines to feed, to maintain and replaced when needed, but two daily 777 flights gives me the same number of engine hours [2 flights x 2 engines = 4 engine trips] to haul the same amount of pax compared to a single A380 flight [1 flight x 4 engines = 4 engine trips]...!
To take it a step further, one A380 flight will carry much less components/systems/etc that can [and will] fail than two 777s...! This is one of the main reasons making larger aircraft more economical.
The other main point off course is that one A380 flight requires one cockpit crew [2], and one set of cabin crew, whereas two 777s flights will have virtually double the crew cost [for the same amount of pax]. Therefore the sheer size of the A380 will more than compensate for the additional cost of four engines versus two.

This is why Airbus is openly claiming that the A380 will be 15-20% more economical than the current generation 744. Besides that, the A380 offers a 35% increase in pax capacity, and 49% more floor space when compared to the 744. This should give airlines opportunities to dramatically increase pax space [DVT!!], or even further improve the economics by pushing in even more pax with comparable comfort levels as the 744.

I guess that this could make the A380 a winner. So the question remains, how important are frequencies on 8 - 12 hr flights. Does it really matter if such a flight is offered once daily or 2 or 3 times daily. I'm not sure, However I'm quite sure that there are a lot of routes out there that would support a daily A380 flight, even today.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (12 years 4 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2115 times:

I personally think that the far-sightedness of the architects that designed the new International Terminal at SFO will mean this airport will be among the first airports to get A380-800 service starting in the spring of 2006.

Look at the gates at the end of Concourses A and G; they already conform to the 80 x 80 meter standard needed to park the A388. The other gates on these two concourses that face towards San Francisco Bay can be pressed into use for the A388, though that means you will have to temporarily sacrifice adjacent gates.

If you have read Airbus' .PDF file about the ground servicing of the A380 series, the plane is designed to be as compatible with the gates used by 747-400's as possible. Note that the spacing of the front two doors on the main deck of the A380 is almost identical to that used on the 744; also, Airbus designed the interior so when you enter the front doors of the plane you're at the bottom of the wide stairway that accesses the upper deck, which may alleviate the need to build jetwalks that directly connect both the main and upper decks.

With only minor upgrades to the taxiways connecting Runways 28L/28R, you know that SFO will not only get A388 service early, but also very likely that we might even see the A388 prototype do some test flying out of SFO during 2005.


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2498 posts, RR: 12
Reply 23, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2058 times:

RayChuang
How many A380 compatible gates does the new International Terminal at SFO have, and how many could be [easily] modified to accept the A380. How many A380 could SFO handle simultaneously?

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineUAL_777_Pilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2022 times:

Another issue for the A380 is evacuation times . We have enough trouble evacuating a B777 or B747. Just imagine the time it must take to evacuate everyone safely on a A380!

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 25, posted (12 years 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2002 times:

PW100,

As for SFO, there are four gates (two each at the end of Concourses A and G) that have the 80 x 80 meter spacing to part the A380-800 with no problems.

The A388 could in theory use the gates on Concourses A and G that face towards San Francisco Bay, but such usage may temporarily block access to adjacent gates especially if you try to park a 747-400 or 777-200ER next to it.


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...
KLAX Getting Ready For The A380...Finally! posted Mon Apr 24 2006 11:15:05 by EK413
Is NRT Ready For The A380? posted Sun Apr 24 2005 13:21:40 by Leelaw
Are We Ready For The A380? posted Mon Sep 6 2004 10:06:52 by Jalalabad
Zurich (ZRH) Is Getting Ready For The A 380 posted Thu Oct 26 2006 13:55:08 by ZRH
No Wake Constraints For The A380 posted Thu Sep 28 2006 19:24:57 by BoomBoom
Narita To The US: Not A Market For The A380 posted Thu Aug 31 2006 20:01:23 by Incitatus
If It Wasn't For The A380 Where Would Airbus Be? posted Wed Jun 28 2006 16:49:57 by Art
"Heavy-Heavy" Callsign For The A380? posted Sat May 27 2006 23:31:16 by RIXrat
Breaking News: Another Delay For The A380 posted Thu Apr 6 2006 13:41:02 by NorCal
What Will SQ's Initial Routes Be For The A380? posted Sun Feb 19 2006 05:25:01 by KDTWFlyer