Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
alasizon wrote:There certainly are sunk costs that will never be recouped but at the same time, some of the work that was done for the A380 can also carry over in the future (notably on the 777X for taxiway clearance). Other airports wasted the money and never saw the A380.
LAXdenizen wrote:Am wondering how upset airports are (such as my hometown LAX) that spent tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars on a380 infrastructure upgrades to terminals, runways to accommodate the now-shuttered a380 program?
MIflyer12 wrote:LAXdenizen wrote:Am wondering how upset airports are (such as my hometown LAX) that spent tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars on a380 infrastructure upgrades to terminals, runways to accommodate the now-shuttered a380 program?
I won't argue it was a great use of money but U.S. airports are going to cover their costs - the expenses (principal, interest, op costs) just get spread out over the landing/passenger fees of everything else. Financially it's really no different from building a new CUTE concourse with ten too many gates and discovering the demand was over-estimated and now the airport is going to see low gate utilization for the next decade. Oops!
A hundred a.net threads a week are driven by mania for over-investment and market over-saturation: new concourses, new aircraft types and sub-types, fleet turnover, new routes...
jbs2886 wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:LAXdenizen wrote:Am wondering how upset airports are (such as my hometown LAX) that spent tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars on a380 infrastructure upgrades to terminals, runways to accommodate the now-shuttered a380 program?
I won't argue it was a great use of money but U.S. airports are going to cover their costs - the expenses (principal, interest, op costs) just get spread out over the landing/passenger fees of everything else. Financially it's really no different from building a new CUTE concourse with ten too many gates and discovering the demand was over-estimated and now the airport is going to see low gate utilization for the next decade. Oops!
A hundred a.net threads a week are driven by mania for over-investment and market over-saturation: new concourses, new aircraft types and sub-types, fleet turnover, new routes...
Although I doubt we will get any actual insight here, it is an interesting question if airports regret (?) spending a lot to accommodate A380s? But as noted by you and others in the thread, some costs are totally lost as there are positive impacts for other operations and spending money is part of the investment that sometimes doesn't pay off (heck, look at all the incentive deals governments give away that don't work out).
LAX and JFK certainly have had a number of operators retire their A380s, but Emirates, Qantas, BA, and LH will still have them (as currently planned).
ZK-NBT wrote:jbs2886 wrote:LAX and JFK certainly have had a number of operators retire their A380s, but Emirates, Qantas, BA, and LH will still have them (as currently planned).
LH is certainly doubtful but not an outright no, 6 retired permanently and the other 8 are in long term storage and may not fly again all depends on the recovery
jbs2886 wrote:But as noted by you and others in the thread, some costs are totally lost as there are positive impacts for other operations and spending money is part of the investment that sometimes doesn't pay off (heck, look at all the incentive deals governments give away that don't work out).
lightsaber wrote:Most of the improvements improve the speed other aircraft may operate. The large gates will be consolidated. In my opinion, airports fell into three categories:
1. Minimal accomodation. A gate or two modified for the A380 and maybe a taxiway intersection.
2. Moderate improvement where a few gates were added that were needed anyway and perhaps an early runway rebuild.
3. An excuse to perform needed runway work including building a heavier duty runway and some extra terminal or concourse space.
I cannot think of one airport that couldn't economically repurpose the A380 stuff. Well, perhaps excluding over expansion at the ME3...
MIflyer12 wrote:jbs2886 wrote:But as noted by you and others in the thread, some costs are totally lost as there are positive impacts for other operations and spending money is part of the investment that sometimes doesn't pay off (heck, look at all the incentive deals governments give away that don't work out).
That's the thing: costs aren't lost - they get paid for by other operations. U.S. airports are not-for-profit entities owned by cities and counties (and the state for PVD); they aren't evaluating projects for direct shareholder ROI.
What airports were called upon to construct A380-capable facilities and refused?
MIflyer12 wrote:LAXdenizen wrote:Am wondering how upset airports are (such as my hometown LAX) that spent tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars on a380 infrastructure upgrades to terminals, runways to accommodate the now-shuttered a380 program?
I won't argue it was a great use of money but U.S. airports are going to cover their costs - the expenses (principal, interest, op costs) just get spread out over the landing/passenger fees of everything else.
USAirALB wrote:How many airports that saw A380s are unlikely to ever see them again?
In the US, ATL/BOS/ORD/DFW/HNL/IAH/LAX/MIA/JFK/SFO/IAD all saw regular A380 operations. ATL will probably never see regular A380 ops again, and I would say the same is likely true for IAH/DFW/MIA/BOS.
ZK-NBT wrote:jbs2886 wrote:LAX and JFK certainly have had a number of operators retire their A380s, but Emirates, Qantas, BA, and LH will still have them (as currently planned).
LH is certainly doubtful but not an outright no, 6 retired permanently and the other 8 are in long term storage and may not fly again all depends on the recovery
On Thursday morning, Lufthansa Group presented its full results for the year 2020. The company reports losses amounting to 5.5 billion Euros.
As an adjustment to the ongoing Coronavirus crisis, the airline group has announced plans to phase out eight long-haul aircraft types. This includes the already grounded Airbus A340-600 and Airbus A380 that will not return to service, according to CEO Carsten Spohr.
lightsaber wrote:Most of the improvements improve the speed other aircraft may operate. The large gates will be consolidated. In my opinion, airports fell into three categories:
1. Minimal accomodation. A gate or two modified for the A380 and maybe a taxiway intersection.
2. Moderate improvement where a few gates were added that were needed anyway and perhaps an early runway rebuild.
3. An excuse to perform needed runway work including building a heavier duty runway and some extra terminal or concourse space.
I cannot think of one airport that couldn't economically repurpose the A380 stuff. Well, perhaps excluding over expansion at the ME3...
ZK-NBT wrote:USAirALB wrote:How many airports that saw A380s are unlikely to ever see them again?
In the US, ATL/BOS/ORD/DFW/HNL/IAH/LAX/MIA/JFK/SFO/IAD all saw regular A380 operations. ATL will probably never see regular A380 ops again, and I would say the same is likely true for IAH/DFW/MIA/BOS.
ATL depends on KE if they keep them then maybe.
IAH EK at some point
DFW EK at some point, QF if things go well
MIA big market for BA who had 2 daily at times
BOS BA sent them there, did EK? Not sure on BOS for future A380 operations
USAirALB wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:USAirALB wrote:How many airports that saw A380s are unlikely to ever see them again?
In the US, ATL/BOS/ORD/DFW/HNL/IAH/LAX/MIA/JFK/SFO/IAD all saw regular A380 operations. ATL will probably never see regular A380 ops again, and I would say the same is likely true for IAH/DFW/MIA/BOS.
ATL depends on KE if they keep them then maybe.
IAH EK at some point
DFW EK at some point, QF if things go well
MIA big market for BA who had 2 daily at times
BOS BA sent them there, did EK? Not sure on BOS for future A380 operations
Were DFW/IAH that big of stations for EK? They were off/on between A380 and 77W for the past couple of years.
KE's ATL route was primarily an 747-8I route IIRC, and was only occasionally operated by the A380.
USAirALB wrote:ZK-NBT wrote:USAirALB wrote:How many airports that saw A380s are unlikely to ever see them again?
In the US, ATL/BOS/ORD/DFW/HNL/IAH/LAX/MIA/JFK/SFO/IAD all saw regular A380 operations. ATL will probably never see regular A380 ops again, and I would say the same is likely true for IAH/DFW/MIA/BOS.
ATL depends on KE if they keep them then maybe.
IAH EK at some point
DFW EK at some point, QF if things go well
MIA big market for BA who had 2 daily at times
BOS BA sent them there, did EK? Not sure on BOS for future A380 operations
Were DFW/IAH that big of stations for EK? They were off/on between A380 and 77W for the past couple of years.
KE's ATL route was primarily an 747-8I route IIRC, and was only occasionally operated by the A380.
9Patch wrote:ANC spent money preparing for the A380Fs that UPS and FedEx ordered.
9Patch wrote:ANC spent money preparing for the A380Fs that UPS and FedEx ordered.
MIflyer12 wrote:What airports were called upon to construct A380-capable facilities and refused?
ikramerica wrote:There were many of us for years lambasting US Airports for overdoing A380 accommodations at great expense when it was never necessary.
Examples:
Installing 3 jetways when you never bothered to operate 2 jetways for other wide bodies much of the time (IAH? You listening?)
Reinforcing ALL runways and bridges at a field and respacing all taxiways, inconveniencing every travelerwith delays for years in the process, when, short of a major accident, ops would NEVER require the use of all the runways for A380s (looking at you LAX).
asuflyer wrote:The A350-1000 has lots of taxiway restrictions at many airports even though it is still classified at as CODE E aircraft.
lx2iah wrote:Don’t forget LH flew the 380 (daily) to IAH long before the pandemic - they sometimes subbed it with the 748 and are now flying a 330. Will we see the 380 back in IAH? Time will only tell…
Zidane wrote:These upgrades can still pay themselves off. Strengthening and widening pavements could future proof the aerodrome for years to come. An A380 gate can also park two A321s/B757s simultaneously, see LHR. The upper deck jetway may be a waste of money, AKL being one that didn't bother installing them, but could be used elsewhere.
USAirALB wrote:How many airports that saw A380s are unlikely to ever see them again?
In the US, ATL/BOS/ORD/DFW/HNL/IAH/LAX/MIA/JFK/SFO/IAD all saw regular A380 operations. ATL will probably never see regular A380 ops again, and I would say the same is likely true for IAH/DFW/MIA/BOS.
USAirALB wrote:How many airports that saw A380s are unlikely to ever see them again?
In the US, ATL/BOS/ORD/DFW/HNL/IAH/LAX/MIA/JFK/SFO/IAD all saw regular A380 operations. ATL will probably never see regular A380 ops again, and I would say the same is likely true for IAH/DFW/MIA/BOS.
Elkadad313 wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:What airports were called upon to construct A380-capable facilities and refused?
ORD wanted to but caved.
TWA772LR wrote:ikramerica wrote:There were many of us for years lambasting US Airports for overdoing A380 accommodations at great expense when it was never necessary.
Examples:
Installing 3 jetways when you never bothered to operate 2 jetways for other wide bodies much of the time (IAH? You listening?)
Reinforcing ALL runways and bridges at a field and respacing all taxiways, inconveniencing every travelerwith delays for years in the process, when, short of a major accident, ops would NEVER require the use of all the runways for A380s (looking at you LAX).
I was a CSA for LH in IAH. The 2 A380 gates (D9 and D11) each have 2 bridges, one for each deck.
ikramerica wrote:There were many of us for years lambasting US Airports for overdoing A380 accommodations at great expense when it was never necessary.
LAXdenizen wrote:lightsaber wrote:Most of the improvements improve the speed other aircraft may operate. The large gates will be consolidated. In my opinion, airports fell into three categories:
1. Minimal accomodation. A gate or two modified for the A380 and maybe a taxiway intersection.
2. Moderate improvement where a few gates were added that were needed anyway and perhaps an early runway rebuild.
3. An excuse to perform needed runway work including building a heavier duty runway and some extra terminal or concourse space.
I cannot think of one airport that couldn't economically repurpose the A380 stuff. Well, perhaps excluding over expansion at the ME3...
Ok, so what I'm hearing is that while the a380 was arguably a bust for Airbus, the improvements to accommodate its unique size isn't necessarily a loss for the major airports as the upgrades help them in the long run (77X) and the a380 may have accelerated improvements that airports would otherwise have done someday later. The only thing then I can think of not transferable from an infrastructure standpoint would be the elevated jetway to service the upper deck.