How upset are airports that spent massive $$$ on a380 infrastructure?

LAXdenizen · Mon May 10, 2021 9:16 pm

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? At least there will be a380 service returning to LAX for the foreseeable future (although in diminished quantities), but are there other airports around the globe that will never see another a380 again?

alasizon · Mon May 10, 2021 9:28 pm

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.

Opus99 · Mon May 10, 2021 9:30 pm

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.

777X will only need that clearance if folding wingtips fail, I think

WALmsp · Mon May 10, 2021 10:08 pm

The A380 line may stop producing but the plane will still be in the skies for years to come, so this is not a significant loss.

MIflyer12 · Mon May 10, 2021 10:22 pm

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 · Mon May 10, 2021 10:27 pm

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 · Mon May 10, 2021 10:31 pm

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).

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 · Mon May 10, 2021 10:34 pm

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

I almost went the dramatic and said maybe only Emirates and BA have them, but was worried about getting flamed. Lol.

MIflyer12 · Mon May 10, 2021 10:36 pm

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?

lightsaber · Mon May 10, 2021 10:36 pm

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...

9Patch · Mon May 10, 2021 10:50 pm

ANC spent money preparing for the A380Fs that UPS and FedEx ordered.

LAXdenizen · Mon May 10, 2021 11:08 pm

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.

jbs2886 · Mon May 10, 2021 11:10 pm

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?

I meant to say "aren't"

Jet-lagged · Mon May 10, 2021 11:15 pm

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.

That's a interesting question. Pieces will be written for decades showcasing the A380 as a prime example of a horrible business decision, and many of those pieces will estimate how much money Airbus lost on the adventure. But I never thought of its financial impact on the flying public. As airports spread those A380 directed expenses over landing fees, when people buy tickets to or from those airports that spent that A380 money those people are still subsidising the idea of A380 operations even as the airplanes disappear. Funny!

USAirALB · Mon May 10, 2021 11:17 pm

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 · Mon May 10, 2021 11:27 pm

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

Revelation · Mon May 10, 2021 11:43 pm

I don't think airports are 'upset', as mentioned the A380 benefits were done along side other improvements and it's money spent long ago, water under the bridge.

In the US, the air side stuff is eligible for funding via the AIP.

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

As of last Thursday the LH CEO went on the record saying the A380s and A340-600s are not coming back:

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.

Ref: https://www.ifn.news/posts/lufthansa-gr ... aft-types/

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...

I think some of the upper deck jetways and related infrastructure aren't that easy to re-purpose, but most of that happened at the major hubs that will still get A380s for quite a while.

As above, I doubt airports are upset about any of this. A large percentage of the airline industry bought into the A380 hype, no use crying over spilled milk.

FLALEFTY · Tue May 11, 2021 12:28 am

Well, at least the A380 didn't spark attempts to build brand-new airports out in the middle of the Everglades like Miami tried to do during the SST days. Talk about a financial and environmental disaster!

Some of the improvements, such as widening taxiways, strengthening ramps and improving runways to accommodate the A380 are generally good things for a busy hub airport to do anyway. Besides, a major airport's construction is never really finished.

sprxUSA · Tue May 11, 2021 12:29 am

...about as upset as San Bernardino folks for building a terminal at all LOL.
Airports can remove the upper jetways and use them elsewhere on property when need arises. Use upper loading area as storage haha.

USAirALB · Tue May 11, 2021 12:33 am

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.

Ishrion · Tue May 11, 2021 12:46 am

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.

DFW hasn't seen scheduled service from Emirates' A380 since 2016 or so. They were supposed to resume A380 service in 2016, but kept it with the 777-300ER for the following years until COVID led them to switch to the 777-200LR.

TWA772LR · Tue May 11, 2021 12:49 am

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.

DXB-IAH was double daily at one point.

adam47150 · Tue May 11, 2021 1:29 am

9Patch wrote:
ANC spent money preparing for the A380Fs that UPS and FedEx ordered.

IIRC, SDF did as well.

flyPIT · Tue May 11, 2021 1:31 am

9Patch wrote:
ANC spent money preparing for the A380Fs that UPS and FedEx ordered.

That well spent money is put to use every day as ANC sees more 747-8s (also a Code F aircraft) than anywhere else in the world.

ChrisNH38 · Tue May 11, 2021 1:33 am

BOS likely won't get it again. BA will see more competition between BOS and LHR than ever, so the need for the plane really only happens if they also relinquish a frequency. And EK won't even go daily with a 77W, never mind an A380, because India is so weak.

ikramerica · Tue May 11, 2021 1:41 am

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).

Elkadad313 · Tue May 11, 2021 1:53 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
What airports were called upon to construct A380-capable facilities and refused?

ORD wanted to but caved.

Babyshark · Tue May 11, 2021 2:04 am

Did someone miss the memo that covid happened? Everything changed. A lot of things were lost.

Probably the airports who made A380 changes have made their money back in fees. They’ll live.

asuflyer · Tue May 11, 2021 2:06 am

The A350-1000 has lots of taxiway restrictions at many airports even though it is still classified at as CODE E aircraft.

lx2iah · Tue May 11, 2021 2:14 am

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…

TWA772LR · Tue May 11, 2021 2:19 am

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.

travaz · Tue May 11, 2021 2:29 am

My home airport PHX many years ago decided to not spend much money on A380 infrastructure. PHX probably had a good idea there was not going to be regular A380 service to PHX. However they did develop procedures should a 380 need to land there. There have been a few A380's that have dropped into PHX for one reason or another. There are no gates hat can accommodate a 380.

BN727227Ultra · Tue May 11, 2021 2:57 am

KSTL's 11/29 says hi.

Aesma · Tue May 11, 2021 2:58 am

asuflyer wrote:
The A350-1000 has lots of taxiway restrictions at many airports even though it is still classified at as CODE E aircraft.

The 777W is/was also a runway/taxiway breaker that caused airports to upgrade things.

ZK-NBT · Tue May 11, 2021 3:27 am

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…

From LH? Given they have effectively retired them your best bet would be EK.

Zidane · Tue May 11, 2021 3:46 am

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.

alasizon · Tue May 11, 2021 4:13 am

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.

Almost all group V gates can accommodate two group III aircraft, being A380 capable wasn't required for that.

kordcj · Tue May 11, 2021 7:12 am

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.

ORD didn’t have regular A380 service. If I’m not mistaken, EK sent an A380 to ORD twice and on the last visit they ran a gate or vehicle into the craft. LH didn’t want to give up T1 departures for A380 service. BA had seasonal summer service only.

Noshow · Tue May 11, 2021 7:38 am

Will future new airports still be built to A380 standards or will the size requirements shrink now without any new A380s coming off the line?

MAH4546 · Tue May 11, 2021 8:11 am

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.

British Airways resumes A380 service on July 1st, and Miami will be the only destination served by the type (outside Heathrow of course) for the first few weeks.

wingflex744 · Tue May 11, 2021 8:50 am

Apart from the US, which other airport around the world do you think will probably not see the 380 again?

jcwr56 · Tue May 11, 2021 10:37 am

Elkadad313 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
What airports were called upon to construct A380-capable facilities and refused?

ORD wanted to but caved.

ORD didn't cave until BA publicly admitted it was flying the 380 to ORD. Brought BA teams in to assess the T5 facility and give guidance on it being built out. EK said it was always looking, but the demand wasn't there to make the swap over. One other reason ORD built out, was it being a diversion city for plenty of fly overs when the aircraft was actively flying.

Even still, T5 will have 2 - 380 gates after the expansion. The question is, will the OGT once built?

micstatic · Tue May 11, 2021 10:43 am

I wonder what the economics of the A380 would have looked like if it weren't built with all the extra weight to accommodate a future stretch that obviously never happened.

aircountry · Tue May 11, 2021 10:51 am

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.

The correct is gate 9 and 12. They used gate 11 for temporary from 2nd bridge stretched from gate 12 to 11 at same time lower bridge connect to gate 11.

vhtje · Tue May 11, 2021 11:17 am

Your question makes it sound like they invested in the upgrades ten minutes ago. The A380 entered service in October 2007, so has been in service for nearly 14 years. With the last built airframe only just recently had its maiden flight, the A380 will continue to utilise airports around the world for 20+ years to come. That will mean it will accumulate 34+ years of service; nothing to sneeze at. Admittedly, it won't be every airport that invested in A380 reconfigurations that sees A380 service for the next twenty years, but still, it has been an investment for a long time already.

Having said that, I am curious to see what happens with gates that were configured to handle upper deck boarding.

Noshow · Tue May 11, 2021 11:36 am

Wing span keeps on growing with new efficiency goals for sure. And then wait for Blended Wing Bodies. So wide bays and taxiways will be usable and maybe jetbridges to exotic heights or distances. The weight per wheel is highest on aircraft like 777-200LR and A340-500 not on the A380.

muralir · Tue May 11, 2021 2:04 pm

I'm only familiar with ORD (and that too, not too familiar :-)

) but I don't think the expense was huge. This article says the cost was $4.8mil to reconfigure the gate:
https://aeronauticsonline.com/chicago-o ... 0-service/

I believe they took 2 gates and converted them into one A380 gate. They don't have an upper-level jetway, just 2 jetways, which means the gate can be repurposed for 777s that would benefit from faster boarding / deplaning through 2 jetways.

And the taxiway and runway improvements were probably all done as part of the their ongoing runway reconfiguration project so probably didn't cost much if anything beyond what they were already intending to do.

That said, I'm surprised ORD never really saw much service even after the gate was built. BA would send a summer season A380, and that was it. Emirates always teased the possibility but never did. And LH never made sense because they fly out of T1 and that ease of connections was far more valuable than bringing in extra seats on an A380.

MIflyer12 · Tue May 11, 2021 2:16 pm

ikramerica wrote:
There were many of us for years lambasting US Airports for overdoing A380 accommodations at great expense when it was never necessary.

Many of us? You mean U.S. carriers that didn't want the competition? U.S. airports are mandated to be non-discriminatory, public-use facilities. The DOT is charged with encouraging competition as a public benefit.

Back more directly to the OP's assertion (framed as a question): There's no point in regrets in public spending once the $ is sunk in illiquid, immoveable assets.

aaflyer777 · Tue May 11, 2021 3:07 pm

BA mentioned BOS as one of the destinations where the A380 worked really well. I think we'll see them put it back on one of the BOS-LHR frequencies at some point. Don't see EK putting the A380 back on BOS-DXB anytime soon, at least not until business traffic recovers.

lightsaber · Tue May 11, 2021 3:30 pm

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.

The elevated jetways can be lowered to serve an A35K or 77W/779.

There is some loss, but not nearly what airlines took on the airframes.

I look at LAX, the heavier duty runway was needed, but that was so beat up by freighters it had to be done before the A380 arrived.

They spent $121 million early. I don't really see not recouping other ways.

https://www.latimes.com/travel/la-trw-a ... story.html

Lightsaber

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net