airportplan
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 12:36 am

U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:53 am

Aviation Daily
U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Lufthansa
By Steve Lott
03/09/2004 10:36:20 AM


Lufthansa executives declared yesterday that the largest U.S. airports are not ready to accept the Airbus A380 and a lot of work must be done before the carrier can feel comfortable from an operational perspective landing the plane on U.S. soil.

Even though the airline won't begin operating the super jumbo aircraft until 2007 and a lot of improvements can be made in three years, Executive VP-Operations Carl Sigel said only a few airports around the world could handle the A380 and he has his doubts if some facilities in the U.S. and Asia can tackle the problems.

While there has been a lot of focus on how an airport's runways and taxiways will be able to accommodate the plane, Sigel believes gates pose the most significant problem.

Sigel told reporters in Frankfurt yesterday that he would prefer airports have at least two loading bridges and preferably three on two different levels. The double-decker A380 will carry 35% more passengers than the Boeing 747-400, and Sigel said it could take more than two hours to turn an A380 under current conditions. He noted that Los Angeles and New York Kennedy are not yet ready for the A380 and need gate upgrades.

The good news is that Lufthansa's two main Frankfurt and Munich hubs are already prepared for the A380. Frankfurt has several gates that allow loading and unloading on two floors. Sigel said the airline has a special project group of about 40 staffers preparing for the A380 and is working with local airport authorities around the world. Sigel suggested that the resistance to upgraded gates at U.S. airports might be both a political and a funding issue.

It is not only a U.S. problem, he added, because the airline has some questions about airports in Asia, as well.



 
starrion
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says

Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:01 am

The real question is who pays for these upgrades. If the airlines want to fly the A380, should they be responsible for the infrastructure costs to operate them or do the taxpayers get stuck with the bill.

I work with a number of airports and a common refrain I'm hearing is that money is very tight right now and they're mostly focused on their security budget chewing up $ for capital improvements.

If the runways and taxiways can bear the load they may have to put up with the 2 hour loading times.
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
ScottB
Posts: 5457
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says

Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:06 am

Well, the solution to this problem is simple -- Lufthansa pays to upgrade the upgrade the gate areas it plans to use for A380 operations. It certainly does not make sense to have government-owned airports like JFK and LAX subsidizing LH's A380 operations by putting up the money to upgrade, especially in light of the European Union's view on government subsidies to airlines.

Very few other airlines operating to airports in the U.S. will require these facilities, so it makes sense to have the limited set of A380 operators pay for them. The airports gain little to no benefit from having A380 operations vs. 747's, A340's, 777's, etc., which are all compatible with existing facilities.
 
Tom in NO
Posts: 6725
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 1999 10:10 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:10 am

This topic has come up a couple of times, especially regarding LAX and the A380. Starrion is correct that there are basically two options as to how any upgrades would be paid for: either by the airport or by the airline. Those airports (at least those in the US) that are not yet ready for the 380 are finding it tough to be able to find the money to pay for the upgrades that would be needed. Usually upgrades that would basically not benefit all airport tenants (most often terminal improvements) would be paid for by the airline.

As an airport operator, I, for one, would encourage the airline to pay for the improvements.

For a lively discussion on this issue, checkout: http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/1295006

Tom at MSY
"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
 
Sinlock
Posts: 1631
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2000 12:55 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:12 am

.....Sigel said it could take more than two hours to turn an A380 under current conditions......

Ohh Noo!!! At that rate that will mean a pasanger Deplaneing/Boarding every 6.4 seconds.


The reason that U.S. airports arn't in a rush to Upgrade the gates is that it only takes about 3 months to install them. Make it a year if you included the Planning and Bidding portion. And an Airport is not going to spend money until on a upgrade is needed. I'm sure it's pretty much the same thing in Asia.
Taxiways and Runways are a totaly diffrent subject.
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says

Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:52 am

To quote from the other thread, the difficulties facing LAX and the A380:

1. The extreme inadequecy of the Bradley International Terminal. As it currently stands, the Bradley Terminal is already bursting at the seems trying to accommodate the large number of 747-400's flying in and out of that airport, and the A388 with its (on average) 150 more pax per plane plus luggage for those extra 150 pax is going to cause major bottlenecks in ground servicing the plane.

2. The fact the south east-west runways may be inadequate to handle the massive load of the A388, especially the Sepulveda Boulevard underpass.

3. The need to widen taxiways to accommodate the wider stance of the A388.

We're talking a project that could run way over US$1 billion to complete. LAX officials should have realized this like back in the late 1990's when Airbus was already in serious design definition phase of the plane

As someone who's worked at LAX for the last 16 years, this post is a BINGO!!! It goes well beyond the capability of TBIT (or any other terminal, for that matter) to accomodate an A380. The whole friggin' airfield needs a revamp to accomodate it.

Side issue here - are all the terminals owned by the airport, or are some owned by individual airlines?"
Terminals are usually owned by the airport, leased to the airlines on a long-term basis (usually a 30-year lease).

Tom in NO,
At LAX, Terminals 3 and 6 actually reverted back to LAWA control. LAWA had a plan (pre 9/11) to rebuild T-3 completely. This plan is/was outside of the LAX Masterplan debacle. Not sure about T-1; T-2 is leased to LAXTWO Corp.- the consortium of AC, NW, HA, NZ, VS; T-4, AA: T-5, DL: T-7/8, UA.
Also, though SFO's new Int'l Terminal is Y-A380 compliant, SFO has similiar, if not more severe, airfield configuration issues.

Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
starrion
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2003 1:19 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says

Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:55 am

I would expect that the airlines that are purchasing the A380 have factored in the readiness of the airports they're planning to use them at into the decision.

At least I would hope so....
Knowledge Replaces Fear
 
SHUPirate1
Posts: 3428
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2003 2:53 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:56 am

Much to the chagrin of the Nobody IMportant But Yourstruly's near the airport, I can't help but shake the feeling that LGB, which is A-380 ready (biggest runway 10,000x200), will get the brunt of the international traffic that would otherwise be headed to LAX...
Burma's constitutional referendum options: A. Yes, B. Go to Insein Prison!
 
CRFLY
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 12:06 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:57 am

I'm so sorry that LH is going to retire all its 747-400's and 737's some day and become an ALL-AIRBUS operator... I'm gonna miss flying the 74' to FRA =(
With Age comes Wisdom...
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13477
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:02 am

Everything I've read about this on Airbus' website, suggests that the runway and taxiway loadings for the A380 are designed to be no more, if not less, than a 773. So if a 773 can taxi over the Sepulveda Boulevard underpass, an A380 should be able to.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
ual747den
Posts: 1472
Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 1:29 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:16 am

I know that DEN is ready for the A380 on the runways and taxiways. We do have the option of unloading pax on 2 levels. I do think that LF will eventually fly the A380 here considering they fill the 747 that currently serves DEN (747 and the A330 I think)
Other airlines that want to use the A380 on US routes could just fly into DEN and from there connect their pax on codeshares. DEN is a good central point to have such an operation.

Just a thought.......
/// UNITED AIRLINES
 
brons2
Posts: 2462
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2001 1:02 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says

Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:21 am

Everything I've read about this on Airbus' website, suggests that the runway and taxiway loadings for the A380 are designed to be no more, if not less, than a 773. So if a 773 can taxi over the Sepulveda Boulevard underpass, an A380 should be able to.

I think on a PSI loading basis on each landing gear, the A380 is similar to the 773 but on that bridge the overall loading of the plane comes into play.
Firings, if well done, are good for employee morale.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:19 am


This is going to turn into one of those silly debates, like the thread mentioned above did, about how American Taxpayers shouldn't subsidise the A380 operations. I can already see the same players from that thread here in this one ready to jump all over anyone who mentions the fact that its generally the airport, not the airline, that pays for upgrading its infrastructure. It's therefore the community, or the airports operating entity in the case of privatised airports, that raises the funds to pay for the reconfiguration.

The most vehemont members of the last threads debate would rather see 1000 more WN movements at LAX than a single A380 flight I'd bet. Anyway if you want my opinions read the thread mentioned above.
 
aaway
Posts: 1239
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:07 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:21 am

Tom in NO,
Your insight into airport management is valuable. This issue of upgrading facilities for larger gauge aircraft had (obviously) occurred in the past, with the 747 representing the last "next big step" in capacity and physical dimension. Do you have info as to which entity (entities) paid for 747-compliant upgrades? Did the airlines, or the airports pay for upgrades? Or was it some combination of both? Or, was decided on an airport-by-airport basis?
"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to continually be afraid you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard
 
Gemuser
Posts: 4348
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:35 am

This is silly! Airports are businesses, upgrades and everything else are paid for in the end by the airports customers, thru landing/handling fees. In the first instance it is the airlines, who then pass it on to their customers, the traveller.

The debate is really about who funds it to start with, not who pays for it. Its a pretty poor business that cant take the Airbus requirements document, run it aganist their current sitution, prepare an estimate, then make a businees decision as to if its worth while for the airports to upgrade to accept the A380 or not to do so.

And of course the answer is different for every airport. SYD will be home base for 12 of the monsters and will see at least one a day from SQ, maybe up to 3 a day and at least one a day from EK, also up to 3 and at least one a day from MH. From KE I would guess not, but who knows? So the business case for SYD to do what ever has to be done is strong, dont want QF basing them in MEL do we???


Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
as739x
Posts: 5008
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:23 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:45 am

Bons2: Actually SFO would have almost no problem in handling a A380 tommorow. As I spoke to the Airfield Safety Coordinator today. He stated that we have 2 gates on either end of the terminal that can handle the plane. The taxiways though not a preferred layout can be used. The only hinge will be that ground control will have to be on the top of its game to stagger anything wider then a 757 away from passing a A388. The 2 taxiways in question are Alfa and Bravo and will be a headache if the A388 arrived during peak rush operations. The runways of use for the A380 will be able to handle its wait as well. No worries here according to him.
ASSFO
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13223
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:50 am

I think a factor people are not considering when criticising US Airports who are hesitent about investing in new gates, ramps, taxi ways etc for the A380 is the fact that no US Airline (not including FedEx) ordered the aircraft or are likely to order the aircraft.

Why should local Governments (who control most major airports in the US) use scarce Airport improvement funds for the purpose of hosting 3 A380 flights a day from foreign carriers, perhaps they are better off not hosting the A380s at all.

It's not like Qantas, Lufthansa etc. are going to drop LAX or JFK from their route networks because they are not capable of hosting A380s, also it's not like LAX and the Port Authority of NY & NJ would see less revenues or less traffic if they did not host A380s.

The carriers such as Lufthansa, Qantas etc would just compensate with more 747, A340 flights.

The comparison of the A380 and the 747 are mute because the 747 was ordered in large numbers by both US (Pan Am, TWA, AA, UAL etc.) as well as Foreign Carriers, not one US passenger carrier has expressed interest in the A380.

Not one.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
col
Posts: 1692
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:11 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:13 am

Planes carry passengers. Passengers pay the bills for airports and are the reason they are there in the first place. Passengers arrive on airplanes of different shapes and sizes. Airlines on some routes operate more efficiently by using larger aircraft. If we have airports or people with their heads up their asses they should not be in the business. Lets stop talking a complete load of, if they fly the big Airbus they cannot use our airport, bull shit, and get on doing what we should be doing. Make the airports suitable for Passengers we pay your salaries. LAX International terminal is a disgrace, we should not be proud that this is how we welcome people to our home. JFK and others are just as bad. The A380 is not the problem, shortsighted and lack of vision is.

Sorry for the harsh words, but it upsets me when I travel globally to the new and better looked after airports in Asia and Europe, then come home and have to read the trash some people write here.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:57 am


"not one US passenger carrier has expressed interest in the A380."

Thats because the ones that would have the requirement, ie 747 operators, are either bankrupt, (UAL), or are introducing A330's and not interested in replacing 747's on their Asian runs.

Col, I completely agree with you!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tom in NO, would you therefore sell the Bradley terminal to a consortium of foreign airlines for them to upgrade????? Dont be stupid. I too work in Airport Management and know that the International Airlines dont pay for upgrades to International terminals. They are separated from Domestic Airlines who DO pay for them.
 
FRA-Runway
Posts: 76
Joined: Mon Jul 26, 1999 11:47 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says

Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:59 am

STT757:
What if NW or UA would decide tomorrow to buy some A380?
If LAX wouldn't like to invest, UA could use it from SFO or DEN.
Same with LH, i suppose that for most of LH's passengers LAX is not their final, therefore they don't have to go your proposed way to add an additional 747/A340 flight to LAX, but increase routing their passengers through SFO or DEN, saving a lot of money.

Or, to be provocative, is it just that US airport facilities want to protect US airlines from foreign airlines who can achieve cheaper operating costs by using the A380 ?  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
ScottB
Posts: 5457
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says

Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:41 am

"Planes carry passengers. Passengers pay the bills for airports and are the reason they are there in the first place. Passengers arrive on airplanes of different shapes and sizes. Airlines on some routes operate more efficiently by using larger aircraft."

Explain to me the benefit to all passengers of paying higher rents and landing fees through their ticket prices to subsidize the operations of a few airlines which use larger aircraft. Passengers pay the bills for airports and are best served by the airport doing its best to keep its capital and operating costs under control - thus decreasing per-passenger operating costs. It isn't fair to "spread the pain" of A380 upgrades to passengers and carriers which will obtain no tangible benefit from them. It's not fair for jetBlue (as the largest user of JFK) to have to subsidize airfield and/or terminal improvements for the A380 from which they will obtain absolutely no benefit. I fail to see why it would be fair for Virgin Blue to pay for upgrades at SYD which only benefit its competitor. In many situations in the U.S., the airlines DO pay for their own terminal improvements. CO built itself new terminals at IAH and CLE and new facilities at EWR, DL is building a new terminal at BOS, US built an addition for its BOS terminal, AA extensively refurbished its terminal at LAX, and a consortium of foreign carriers built Terminal 1 at JFK.

It is a matter of sound fiscal policy on the parts of the airports. I would assume (and hope) that the relevant authorities at FRA, MUC, etc. analyzed their traffic numbers and found that A380 improvements would bring in more revenue long-term than the cost of the improvements. It's not clear that the cost of the improvements are outweighed by the benefits for most U.S. airports, particularly if those benefits show up primarily in the bottom line of airlines which do not pay taxes in the United States. If the European Union feels that the U.S. shouldn't subsidize its airlines, then the U.S. certainly shouldn't be subsidizing foreign airlines by footing the bill for airport improvements.

If LH, AF, QF, SQ, VS, etc. are unhappy with LAX or JFK or any other airport not offering A380-compatible facilities, they are free to use other equipment or to withdraw/move their services in protest. LH could channel New York-bound passengers through YYZ or LAX-bound passengers through SFO.
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says

Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:47 am

I agree with STT757 110%!
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
aaway
Posts: 1239
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:07 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:01 am

"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 or YVR 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]
"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to continually be afraid you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:14 am


ScottB - VirginBlue isn't paying for the upgrades to Sydney airport, Southern Cross Holdings, who is the parent entity of the airport, is!!!!!

Once again, very shortsighted. I agree with you that the domestic airlines in most countries pay for the upgrades to their terminal facilities. Do you think LAX will sell the Bradley Terminal to Foreign Carriers or let them build their own terminal???? Of course they wont!!! The reality is that airlines pay for improvements to their own domestic facilities but rarely do for improvements at common user International facilities. Besides which you have higher landing charges and gate usage fees for the A380 plus the additional passengers bought in spend more in the airport shops, require more space in airport lounges, require additional check-in counters, increase turnover in the carpark or a hike in fees if no carpark expansion takes place etc etc all of which means more revenue for the airport operator.

"cost of the improvements are outweighed by the benefits for most U.S. airports"

Just how many airports do you think will have A380 service???? I count only 3 being LAX, SFO, JFK. I could also understand Dulles and O'Hare making a provision for them as well but not many others. Your only talking about major US gateway cities having airlines use A380's to operate into them. Your Federal government gave a $900 million loan to US Airways so clearly they have money to burn.

"which do not pay taxes in the United States"

Of course those airlines dont have employees in the US that pay taxes??? Nor do they buy fuel in the US that has tax on it??? Nor do they buy food which has tax on it??? Nor interline with US airlines who do pay taxes??? Nor do their passengers spend any money in the US on products and services that attract tax??? Thats a silly argument to make.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13223
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:20 am

"STT757:
What if NW or UA would decide tomorrow to buy some A380?
If LAX wouldn't like to invest, UA could use it from SFO or DEN."

That's different because in that case there would be a "hub" for the A380, FRA is willing to upgrade their facilities for the A380 because LH will base them there, as will Qantas in Sydney.

LAX, JFK etc are not hubs for the A380s, they are spokes.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:25 am


Heathrow is also upgrading its facilities for the A380 yet its biggest operator isn't buying them.

If you think about it both LAX and JFK WILL be hubs for the A380's. If you count the number of airlines that will use the A380's for their services and the frequencies they currently have then LAX will probably have as many A380 services as someone like Sydney does.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13223
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:33 am

"Heathrow is also upgrading its facilities for the A380 yet its biggest operator isn't buying them"

No but it's second biggest operator Virgin Atlantic is buying them.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:38 am


Thats true but Virgins operation at LHR is no-where the scale of BA's who would account for the bulk of LHR's passengers and flights. If we apply the argument that people are making here to LHR then BA would be subsidising Virgin and others to fly the A380 from there. Do you hear BA complaining about it??? Do you hear BMI complaining about it??? Of course you dont because their interline partners will be operating it and they know that the A380 brings more revenue for the airport and more passengers for their own services.
 
UALAX
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:35 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:46 am

Aaway,

It seems that TBIT expansion and A380 related improvements are the least controversial part of the LAX masterplan. Could they take out these improvements from the master plan and begin these sooner?

Regards

UALAX
 
5T6
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 12:20 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:53 am

An A380?? Heck...here in ELP we get giddy if anything bigger than an MD80 shows up!! Big grin

I know for sure that there's ONE American airport that isn't ready for the 380, and if one DID show up, we'd have to build another Motel 6 just to accommodate the passengers!

Regards,

Mike
I see my Cats as Companions. My Cats see Me as Furniture!
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13223
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:54 am

Im sure Memphis is upgrading their facilities because FedEx will be basing their A380s there, it's in their economic interests to upgrade the airport for the new aircraft.

Im just wondering how many A380 flights each day would JFK and LAX get, what other airports will A380s fly to in scheduled service?..

I would think of the US Airports LAX would get the most flights, but how many?
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
PVD757
Posts: 3032
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:23 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:04 am

I've been saying this since the last year on previous A380 subjects. It is going to cost more and be more difficult than people think. Security is more important to major airports than getting a few more fringe flights in on a very unique plane that will not sell more than probably 500 units in its lifetime. Until the airports can release the funding for upgrades, you will see significcant ground delays while the plane is taxiing and hogging up rampspace. Think about an airport environment that is busy, say JFK for instance. It's dinnertime and everyone is trying to either leave or get ready to internationally; now add Cat III vis at about 1200 ft. Now you can't see anything, SMGCS is in effect and there are incredible delays with an extra large aircraft and low visibility. I'm sorry, but if you think the airports don't have a choice but to just accept the larger aircraft, you have another thing coming. There are a lot of things that they can probably do financially to hinder its use, at least until modifications are made.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:32 am


STT - Just look at who has ordered.

I think practically all the airlines that have ordered A380's will operate them to either JFK or LAX. Combining QF and all the Asian airlines that have ordered plus AF and LH you could probably expect around 8-12 daily services being A380 at LAX. That number will rise as airlines like JAL etc decide on their future fleet requirements.

As for JFK I would imagine that QF, LH, AF, Emirates plus SQ will operate the A380 into it. So thats at least 6 daily flights.

For other airports Sydney will definitely see A380 service from QF plus probably from Virgin, Malaysian, SQ and Emirates.

Heathrow will see more A380's than all the rest though. Practically every airline that has ordered, apart from LH and AF, cites LHR as their primary destination. I'm not even going to try to calculate the services from LHR. But if you count MAS, SQ, QF and Emirates alone then I would say there are 12 daily services there plus all of Virgins will be based there.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:41 am

PVD - I have to make a few points on what you wrote.

"Security is more important to major airports than getting a few more fringe flights in"

Thats true but major airports around the world are doing both A380 mods and increasing security. Are you saying that US airports cant manage both??

"Think about an airport environment that is busy"

Substitute LHR for JFK. LHR will get way more A380's than JFK ever will plus LHR is a smaller airport in land size than JFK. Geographically its also a far more important hub for Europe than JFK is for America. They are still planning for the A380 and are incorporating its future operations at their airport. Again, are you saying a major airport like Heathrow can plan for it successfully while airports like LAX and JFK are unable and unwilling to???

This really is a very American argument. None of our carriers have ordered it, (because they ones who might find it attractive are broke), and its not a Boeing product, so we will bury our heads in the sand and refuse to make allowances for airlines to operate it. Forget the fact that all the worlds airports had to modify themselves for 747 operations without sending Boeing the bill.
 
PVD757
Posts: 3032
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2003 8:23 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:42 am

I thought LHR's second largest operator was BMI. If the airlines want the airplane to operate at these airports, they should have to incur higher costs for bringing it in. with the clout and influence that the major US carriers have with the federal governement, they will not be fooring the bill. If anyone thinks that the biggest obstacle will be a stupid jetbridge, you're kidding yourself.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:48 am


It doesn't matter if its BMI or Virgin, neither of them have anywhere near the operation that BA has at LHR.

I dont think anyone has said the biggest obstacle will be the jetbridge. What I'm saying is that other airports around the world are planning the introduction of the A380 by strengthening specific taxiways, modifying terminals and aircraft parking spaces, strengthening runways etc. Such things are planned for as part of any long term infrastructure plan for an airport. Airports thoughout Asia, the Middle East, Australasia and Europe are planning and modifying facilities to allow A380 operations. It appears that the only people with an inability to either plan for or get their plan into action is the US. "All our legacy carriers are broke and you could fit 10 southwest 737's in the place of 1 A380" I hear them cry. Well you know what, in the future foreign tourists WILL fly into your country on the A380 so you might as well get ready for it. If LAX & JFK aren't then the tourist dollars, the tax revenue, the airport charges and the jobs that the airlines create will go to other cities where they can plan!!!!

"with the clout and influence that the major US carriers have with the federal governement, they will not be fooring the bill"

Exactly right. But then if your government can afford to waste $900 million on US, and still have it go under, then a billion dollars to upgrade LAX and JFK wont be that hard to get and would be a better investment. Besides which your federal budget is $500 odd billion in deficit so another 1 on top of that isn't very much!!!!!

 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:56 am

But then if your government can afford to waste $900 million on US, and still have it go under, then a billion dollars to upgrade LAX and JFK wont be that hard to get and would be a better investment.

Our government hasn't invested a dime in US, nor have they/will they lose a penny.

N
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24601
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:01 pm

No problem, just send all the A380s over to Miami. The new Star Alliance Terminal will have 3 A380 capable gates, and an A380-capable maintenance hanger/bay will be ready in about three years, IIRC.
a.
 
ORDnDFW777
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2004 9:02 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:04 pm

Don't expect to see one at DFW or ORD for quite some time.
 
Sydscott
Posts: 3086
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:50 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:32 pm

"Our government hasn't invested a dime in US, nor have they/will they lose a penny"

I didn't say you had invested nor that you would lose it. I said you've wasted it propping up an airline that looks as if its still going to go under anyway. The fact the govt gets its money back is irrelevant to the fact that it could have spent it better to start with.

MAH - I take it back, so there is 1 airport in the US that has a plan and is taking action. How many A380 flights are they expecting in Miami anyway???
 
rjpieces
Posts: 6849
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 8:58 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says

Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:35 pm

Can't airlines still choose to operate A380 flights to JFK and LAX, they just shouldn't expect a quick deboarding process and might have to use stairs and bus the pax to the terminal?

So much for a world class transport!
"Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon"
 
m404
Posts: 1875
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 4:43 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:31 pm

Isn't this the same argument that Boeing had against the bigger aircraft?
Less sarcasm and more thought equal better understanding
 
Areopagus
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2001 12:31 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:47 pm

So, how is Heathrow paying for the A380 upgrades? Is it raising landing fees for all classes of airplanes, or getting moola from the national government, or what?
 
Mir
Posts: 19108
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:08 pm

Can't airlines still choose to operate A380 flights to JFK and LAX, they just shouldn't expect a quick deboarding process and might have to use stairs and bus the pax to the terminal?

So much for a world class transport!


So much for a world class airport.
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:15 pm

I think that the airlines should be the ones paying for upgrades in the U.S. out of their customers. Why should the airports have to shell out all that money and how do the airports know for SURE that the A380 is really coming or not? I think this A380 project is just ridiculous and the aircraft itself is just way too big. And why should pax from the airlines who have not and/or will not order the A380 pay for the upgrade that wont benefit them? That does not make economically sense at all for an airline who is not intersted or is not going to even buy the aircraft and still having to help pay for the upgrade that is useless to them.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
antonovman
Posts: 426
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2001 12:45 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says

Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:36 pm

"If the airlines want the airplane to operate at these airports, they should have to incur higher costs for bringing it in."
This is exactly what they are doing
the landing fees/parking fees/handling fees will all be more expensive for this
aircraft plus there will be a lot more passengers so more passenger taxes
All the high landing and parking fees will go to the airport authority, thats how
other airports fund upgrades
 
T prop
Posts: 912
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2001 4:33 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:40 pm

One billion + dollars just to upgrade LAX to handle the 380, is this true? If any politician wants to spend that much of MY tax dollars to upgrade any airport just to handle this airplane, I will be voting against them come next election.

Flame away!

T prop.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:57 pm

Look, too often, as exemplified by sydscott's posts in particular, the externalities of this issue gets oversimplified in ignorance of the larger context at work.

I can't speak for situations at O'Hare, JFK, et al, but if one knew the political anathema the word 'expansion' brings to Los Angeles County politicians, they would understand why grand visions have repeatedly been brought to their knees. There isn't a lack of willpower - but there is a lack of leadership, resolve, and strong footing against NIMBY hijackers of the public process. *Every* capacity issue becomes lost in the overall discussion of operations, which in turn gets lost in the ever-proliferating debates on pollution and noise.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
nwa man
Posts: 1752
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 1999 3:24 am

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:25 pm

One billion + dollars just to upgrade LAX to handle the 380, is this true? If any politician wants to spend that much of MY tax dollars to upgrade any airport just to handle this airplane, I will be voting against them come next election.

Flame away!



I wish I could flame you... but your argument makes too much sense. People who believe that the U.S. government should subsidize billions of dollars in airport improvements for an aircraft that won't be operated by a U.S. carrier are out of their f*cking minds. Any airline that wants to operate the A380 into non-capable airports will have to pay for the improvements themselves, either by their lonesome or in a consortium of other A380 operators (a la T1 at JFK). Let Star Alliance waste their money on 3 (!) gates capable of handling this jet at Miami when only one A380-ordering Star member serves the city (LH). Newsflash- this is a free market economy, not socialism. Accept the consequences of your business decisions.

And believe this when I say it- the A380 will be an American bust. It may work on the densely traveled routes in Japan, or as a "flying cruiseship," but the "brand-new anachronism" will arrive about twenty years too late in the United States. If you haven't noticed, frequency is the key. The market has spoken, and it wants fourteen DC9s between MSP and ORD per day, not three 747s. Northwest and United, the only carriers that would feasibly order this behemoth, understand the importance of frequency, and would rather operate double-daily 747s to NRT than one A380.

It all comes down to this- time is money, and the convenience of multiple flights, at least in the U.S., will win over the luxury of the A380.



N-Dub
Create your own luck.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24601
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Luft

Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:29 pm

MAH - I take it back, so there is 1 airport in the US that has a plan and is taking action.

Well, it is not really that they are "taking action". It is more that when they knew the A380 was a go, they still had time to modify thier plans for thier new terminals.

How many A380 flights are they expecting in Miami anyway???

Air France, Virgin Atlantic, and Lufthansa are all likely going to bring A380s here. Both Air France and Lufthansa have publicly stated Miami is the type of market that they bought the A380 for. And there have always been rumours that Iberia is looking at leasing A380s from A380 customer ILFC. Those would likely fly to Miami too.
a.

Who is online