"The A380 is not the problem, shortsighted and lack of vision is."
Errr....I'm not sure this is totally accurate. Using LAX
as an example: First discussions regarding expansion (which included modifications for Group VI
aircraft), 1991. Initial spate of expansion alternatives introduced in 1996. Now, if the process had not been sidetracked (hijacked!!!), the timeline would be as follows: Selection of preferred alternative, 1997; Final EIS/EIR preparation/completion for preferred alternative, 1999; submission to L. A. City Council for approval, 2000; submission to FAA for approval 2001.
Groundbreaking 2002-2003, with first phase completion by 2006.
So convince me, a plan was put forth. Does that reek of a lack of vision? You be the judge.
Transportation, particularly air transport, is a transborder activity. Because of this pecularity, accomodations have been made for advances in size, speed, and capacity regardless of what borders were crossed.
Because air transport (airlines and airports) are competitive, there is going to be pressure on ill prepared facilities. Think that SFO
isn't going to tout themselves as A380 compliant versus LAX
Ultimately, the question for airports is at what cost do we not upgrade? Is that cost the inconvenience of ground delays? Is it the inconvenience of passengers clogging that single level jetway; clogging the baggage claim area? Is it the inconvenience of inadequate baggage and passengers holdrooms for A380 operators.
No comparison between the A380 and 747? You be the judge.
A380 will fly scheduled service, SOON, on the routes deemed most appropriate for it's operators. Airports that have adequate runway length and strength will see it.
[Edited 2004-03-10 01:11:54]
[Edited 2004-03-10 01:24:34]