Should Airports Stop Building for 380 sized Aircraft?

jfklganyc · Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:40 pm

With 380 production ending, when do airport projects than enable 380 capability end?

Do airports building new international facilities include 380 sized gates? If yes, is the investment worth it?

For example at JFK, they have widened several runways, reconfigured taxiways, strengthened taxiway bridges and rebuilt gate areas. Currently, they are making 31L 380 capable. This costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

Was the 380 a 20 year blip or will a new VLA utilize these investments?

WorldFlier · Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:44 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
With 380 production ending, when do airport projects than enable 380 capability end?

Do airports building new international facilities include 380 sized gates? If yes, is the investment worth it?

For example at JFK, they have widened several runways, reconfigured taxiways, strengthened taxiway bridges and rebuilt gate areas. Currently, they are making 31L 380 capable. This costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

Was the 380 a 20 year blip or will a new VLA utilize these investments?

Here's a quick back of the envelope math:

Q1) Will an A380 gate get you a flight that would otherwise not be served by an airline like Emirates?

A1) No. They can still fly 1-2x 777-300ER

Therefore, the marginal benefit is the ability to serve X more passengers assuming that the airline will not fly 2x daily 777-300ERs. If the airport is not space or gate constrained, the A380 gates are a waste of money in my humble opinion right now.

So, back to back of the envelope. Assuming you get 250 more passengers from an A380 than a 777-300ER.

Over 20 years, at 1 flight per day, you will have a marginal passenger increase of 1.325M passengers.

So up-front investment being offset by ~91k pax per year. Throw in some additional assumptions such as multiple carriers. If you're at capacity from a gate perspective, other planes can use the A380 gate to make this analysis better.

However, it's a really hard sell with just 1 A380 and arguing that Emirates won't fly to your 3-rd tier airport unless you build them a whale gate.

VSMUT · Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:48 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
With 380 production ending, when do airport projects than enable 380 capability end?

Do airports building new international facilities include 380 sized gates? If yes, is the investment worth it?

For example at JFK, they have widened several runways, reconfigured taxiways, strengthened taxiway bridges and rebuilt gate areas. Currently, they are making 31L 380 capable. This costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

Was the 380 a 20 year blip or will a new VLA utilize these investments?

No, they shouldn't stop. Airport congestion is a real thing that will only get worse. Planes will get bigger, heavier and feature greater wingspans. Those gates, runways and taxiways will see plenty of use in the future, it is just a matter of when.
The 777-9 is well up in the VLA category anyway (not to mention the hypothetical 777-10).

MIflyer12 · Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:48 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Was the 380 a 20 year blip or will a new VLA utilize these investments?

It's hard to argue to spend now for something that might not come (that being one of the few A380s to your airport, or an aircraft at some point in the future that needs that gate size). The whole Field of Dreams - Build it and they will come - character of the A380 has been disastrous financially.

CarlosSi · Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:54 pm

I assume airstairs would be an alternative option, but not very appealing or as practical.

AirBoat · Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:55 pm

Johannesburg has 4 gates for A380 (I think) with double boarding ways.
This can be used on any aircraft, like the LH 747-8 and speeds up boarding, so will definitely be a benefit to any airport.
On domestic flights at JNB they use the one jet-way for the front and the back half pacs walk down the stairs to outside and in through the rear door using a mobile stair to speed boarding, so 2 jetways is definitely a benefit.

blockski · Mon Jun 03, 2019 1:56 pm

Depends on the costs, IMO.

If you're already building new gates, then why not plan for an aircraft of that size? However, it hardly seems worth it to bend over backwards (to great cost) to widen all the taxiways, etc. if you're an airport like SEA, for example.

AirKevin · Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:13 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Currently, they are making 31L 380 capable. This costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

That would actually be 13L/31R. 31L is already A380 capable.

bob75013 · Mon Jun 03, 2019 2:31 pm

VSMUT wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
With 380 production ending, when do airport projects than enable 380 capability end?

Do airports building new international facilities include 380 sized gates? If yes, is the investment worth it?

For example at JFK, they have widened several runways, reconfigured taxiways, strengthened taxiway bridges and rebuilt gate areas. Currently, they are making 31L 380 capable. This costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

Was the 380 a 20 year blip or will a new VLA utilize these investments?

No, they shouldn't stop. Airport congestion is a real thing that will only get worse. Planes will get bigger, heavier and feature greater wingspans. Those gates, runways and taxiways will see plenty of use in the future, it is just a matter of when.
The 777-9 is well up in the VLA category anyway (not to mention the hypothetical 777-10).

Airbus said it better when it announced the whalejet, and it was wrong..

AIRT0M · Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:11 pm

No it's not wrong. Airport/airspace congestion is reality.

lightsaber · Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:29 pm

blockski wrote:
Depends on the costs, IMO.

If you're already building new gates, then why not plan for an aircraft of that size? However, it hardly seems worth it to bend over backwards (to great cost) to widen all the taxiways, etc. if you're an airport like SEA, for example.

I believe this is the answer. I also believe much of the A380 work (taxiway work) was to increase other opperations masked as getting A380 ready.

High cost adaptations won't get A380 ready. SEA is a wonderful example on why folding wingtips provide value.

If building gates, there will be another VLA. With so many airports ready for 80m*80m, some future aircraft will design for that box.

Lightsaber

jfklganyc · Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:36 pm

AirKevin wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Currently, they are making 31L 380 capable. This costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

That would actually be 13L/31R. 31L is already A380 capable.

Yes that is what I meant

31R is the only runway not capable for 380 ops

Even after re construction it will need an FAA waiver

Geoff1947 · Mon Jun 03, 2019 5:51 pm

What projects ......

Waterbomber2 · Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:29 pm

The question is how much is the real cost of those facility upgrades?

A boarding bridge doesn't cost hundreds of millions.
Widening taxiways and runways is not always necessary, and where necessary, it can be limited to a single runway and taxiway.

Hundreds of millions is grossly exagerated.
Making an airport A380 ready with 1 or 2 gates would cost 5-10 millions at most. If you need to widen the runway, you can do it as part of the next resurfacing and the supplemental cost is again about 10 millions.
Remember that the the A380 doesn't necessarily need the upper deck boarding bridge. All it does is speed up boarding/deplaning.
For an aircraft that has a 2-3 hour turn around time, this is hardly a factor.

mxaxai · Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:46 pm

lightsaber wrote:
If building gates, there will be another VLA. With so many airports ready for 80m*80m, some future aircraft will design for that box.

This.
The trend is going to higher aspect ratios. Airports may not see too many A380s but future widebodies will be less cautious about the 65 m wingspan limit. The 77X is only the beginning.

9Patch · Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:50 pm

ANC spent millions getting ready for the A380F, widening taxiways etc., after FedEx and UPS ordered them.
Of course, they never saw a single A380 land at the airport.

JayinKitsap · Mon Jun 03, 2019 7:55 pm

Any current airport project that has entered the bidding stage or further will probably keep the A380 features in its design as taking it out once priced is a $.60 on the dollar kind of thing. The big costs with A380 is separation distances between runways, taxiways and planes parked at the gates. Improvements to pavement loadings and separation will probably continue. Projects starting design today will consider the 80x80 box if greenfield, won't be added if not easily done, as there are higher priorities.

At least in the US, an airline wanting to make improvements to be A-380 compatible, or most other work ends up paying in either fees or paying for the project so a revenue source is needed. If no A-380 flights planned, no money to upgrade to A-380.

jayunited · Mon Jun 03, 2019 8:13 pm

They should keep investing, keep strengthening the taxiways, runways and envelope. Make sure the passenger area or gate is large enough to accommodate passengers and baggage claim belts can handle over 600 bags. The only think airports no longer need to invest in is the upper deck jet bridge. What we are witnessing is the end of the 4 engine double decker aircraft but we still have Boeings 777-9 that is on the horizon and if the reports and/or rumors are to be believed Airbus might be exploring stretching out their A350 again to make it even larger than the current A35J.

PSAatSAN4Ever · Mon Jun 03, 2019 9:37 pm

I think it depends on what is being questioned:

If we are specifically talking about the A380 and the double-deck boarding gates, I would say probably not. Any airport that has A380 service already has them, and future expansion is going to be very limited (I think most of the airports in the world that see the A380 are already identified and updated). SAN is never going to have scheduled service, for example, even though the runway can easily handle the weight and its distribution.

If we are talking about preparing airports for heavier and longer equipment, such as 777 stretches, then perhaps that is a discussion the airport board might want to have. What can your runway and taxiways handle?

SEPilot · Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:37 pm

Airports generally have very limited space for gates, taxiways, and runways. It looks highly unlikely that anything larger than the 779 is going to be built in the foreseeable future, and if it is, it likely will have folding wingtips as well. A380 capable gates take more space than 779 capable ones, and it is highly unlikely that they will be needed within the lifetime of current renovations. So make sure runways can handle the unfolded wingtips, and maybe a bit more, but if gates and taxiways will handle the 779 that is all that is needed.

ikramerica · Mon Jun 03, 2019 10:41 pm

The marginal costs of a third jetway probably arent worth it. The marginal cost of having the second jetway able to reach the second floor probably are.

Widening taxiways is worthwhile in the long term if part of other improvements. Increasing ultimate load bearing of structures is not worth it as there will never be such a heavy passenger plane in the lifetime of the structure. The trend is for lighter MTOW aircraft, not heavier.

mxaxai · Mon Jun 03, 2019 11:46 pm

ikramerica wrote:
Increasing ultimate load bearing of structures is not worth it as there will never be such a heavy passenger plane in the lifetime of the structure. The trend is for lighter MTOW aircraft, not heavier.

The A380, however, spreads its weight over a large area. The trend for smaller jets has been towards higher MTOW with the same, smaller gear. So strengthening structures should, in general, be worth the investment. AFAIK some operators of the 77W were disappointed when it started tearing up the runway at MTOW.

twaconnie · Tue Jun 04, 2019 4:23 pm

I think LAX did the smart thing and make only one runway A380 capable.After all there are only about 10 or so A380 operations a day,if that..

.

XT6Wagon · Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:01 pm

I think planning for 80M wingspan will be... insufficient without folding wings becoming common. A single deck 12Y plane will likely want the 80M length if not more.

So whenever and whichever manufacturer makes the new hotness to replace the 777x in the market will likely want that 80m x 80m box if not more. Capacity being needed to make the economics work compared to just spending a bit more to buy two smaller planes.

Thus If you are redoing your airport, I can see it being sensible to plan for atleast a small number of big planes if your city already sees comparable planes today. I wouldn't spend a dollar to do this unless you are already replacing/upgrading things.

michi · Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:01 pm

Again, lots of inaccuracies regarding the A380 in this thread :banghead:

Airports did not start widening stuff for the A380. The 773 or the A346 also needed taxiway adjustments. The inner side of taxiway curves needed fillets in order to enable use of sharp turns. The distance between the NLG (Nose Landing Gear) and the MLG (Main Landing Gear) plays a big role here.

Gatewise the 80m x 80m box defined by ICAO is good for an A380 but also good for 2 737's or A320 sized aircraft. Only the upper deck bridge would be an extra for the A380. So there is no need to stop building those types of gates.
This setup is used by a lot of modern airports respectively terminals.

Runways where not widened by itself. The A380 is capable using any 150ft (45m) wide runway. There is a small restriction for takeoff however, which is covered by a flight crew procedure (using thrust on the outer engines later during takeoff run). This can be eliminated by implementing reinforced runway shoulders. This has been done at some places. But thats it.

The biggest issue operating A380 an aerodromes is the wingspan respective the separations between centerlines etc. As US airports are rather small or narrow in this regard, some work was done in order to make A380 ops safe.

edit: bad writing

Revelation · Tue Jun 04, 2019 6:31 pm

lightsaber wrote:
blockski wrote:
Depends on the costs, IMO.

If you're already building new gates, then why not plan for an aircraft of that size? However, it hardly seems worth it to bend over backwards (to great cost) to widen all the taxiways, etc. if you're an airport like SEA, for example.

I believe this is the answer. I also believe much of the A380 work (taxiway work) was to increase other opperations masked as getting A380 ready.

High cost adaptations won't get A380 ready. SEA is a wonderful example on why folding wingtips provide value.

If building gates, there will be another VLA. With so many airports ready for 80m*80m, some future aircraft will design for that box.

Really?

Difference between 80M wingspan and 65M wingspan is 23%.

Cost of future VLA is, uhm, untenable for at least the lifespan of 779 IMHO.

I dare to venture that BER will open before we ever see a new VLA requiring an 80x80m box.

Who is going to willingly add ~23% to the cost per gate or reduce the number of widebody gates by ~23% just to support a hypothetical airliner?

The only way I could see this play out is on a greenfield project if there is an excess of funds in the FAA's airport development slush fund.

SteelChair · Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:18 pm

AIRT0M wrote:
No it's not wrong. Airport/airspace congestion is reality.

Imho, the question is what defines "congestion?"

A massive new airport like the one in Turkey will likely steal connecting passengers from DXB, thus relieving perceived congestion there

ORD is still reconfiguring its airport and adding terminals and runways. ATL is planning for the 6th runway. DFW and DEN are far from maxed out, nor is IAD for that matter maxed out (and the train line will open soon for IAD).

HKG and KIX each have plans for another runway. HND's new runway has only been open a short time, and they still have NRT as a reliever airport. And widebody twins are increasingly overflying Japan in any event.

CDG, AMS, FRA, and MUC are not yet "maxed out." I believe at least one of them has plans for an additional runway and room for more terminals.

PEK is severely constrained but the Chinese are building Daxing quickly (Londoners take note).

The only really important airports I see as truly constrained are LGA, EWR, LAX, SFO, and LHR. And there are other options available for them, not the least of which is upgauging of many smaller models currently serving them (738 to 739 or A320 to A321 for example). LHR's primary obstacles are 1) politics and 2) BA wantng to restict access to keep out competition. It could easily be expanded with sufficient political will do so. And, oh yeah, a VLA quad won't be operating to LGA ever.

So, imho, the A380 was at least 30 years too early. There is very little real congestion. But, Euro-pride had to be assuaged (no matter the cost).

Finally, airspace. The only truly congested airpsace in the world is in the NEUSA, and the problem there is political. The controllers have too much power, for examole there has been no benefit from RVSM due to outdated polices, procedures, and thinking. Every techology upgrade seems to set ZNY, ZOB, and ZDC backwards instead of forwards. We drastically need airpsace redesign imho, but Congress won't sanction it due to high paying controller jobs in their districts. In short, there are too many oxes that need to be gored. Once we get to pilotless planes with self separation, things will get A LOT better. 50 years or so.

Oh, forgot, Chinese airspace is also constrained....once again a poliical problem.. ..military has too much airspace.

gq · Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:34 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Currently, they are making 31L 380 capable. This costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

That would actually be 13L/31R. 31L is already A380 capable.

Yes that is what I meant

31R is the only runway not capable for 380 ops

Even after re construction it will need an FAA waiver

No wavier required once 31R reopens. The only reason why the A380 couldn't land 31R is because of an glide slope antenna by taxiway V which is being relocated with the realignment of that taxiway and the new high speed taxiway being built south of V

LAX772LR · Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:57 am

twaconnie wrote:
I think LAX did the smart thing and make only one runway A380 capable.After all there are only about 10 or so A380 operations a day,if that...

That's not even remotely true.... three of LAX's runways are fully A380 capable, with no interference to concurrent ops elsewhere (beyond what's typical for any heavy/super ops at that airfield)

24R handles most A380 landings
24L handles most A380 takeoffs.

QF, EK, and CZ will sometimes select 25L for takeoff, during exceptionally high temperatures, inclimate weather, or heavy loads. Sometimes the Euro carriers will use this runway for landings as well, but it's exceedingly rare.

strfyr51 · Wed Jun 05, 2019 5:58 am

SteelChair wrote:
AIRT0M wrote:
No it's not wrong. Airport/airspace congestion is reality.

Imho, the question is what defines "congestion?"

A massive new airport like the one in Turkey will likely steal connecting passengers from DXB, thus relieving perceived congestion there

ORD is still reconfiguring its airport and adding terminals and runways. ATL is planning for the 6th runway. DFW and DEN are far from maxed out, nor is IAD for that matter maxed out (and the train line will open soon for IAD).

HKG and KIX each have plans for another runway. HND's new runway has only been open a short time, and they still have NRT as a reliever airport. And widebody twins are increasingly overflying Japan in any event.

CDG, AMS, FRA, and MUC are not yet "maxed out." I believe at least one of them has plans for an additional runway and room for more terminals.

PEK is severely constrained but the Chinese are building Daxing quickly (Londoners take note).

The only really important airports I see as truly constrained are LGA, EWR, LAX, SFO, and LHR. And there are other options available for them, not the least of which is upgauging of many smaller models currently serving them (738 to 739 or A320 to A321 for example). LHR's primary obstacles are 1) politics and 2) BA wantng to restict access to keep out competition. It could easily be expanded with sufficient political will do so. And, oh yeah, a VLA quad won't be operating to LGA ever.

So, imho, the A380 was at least 30 years too early. There is very little real congestion. But, Euro-pride had to be assuaged (no matter the cost).

Finally, airspace. The only truly congested airpsace in the world is in the NEUSA, and the problem there is political. The controllers hav Perfecte too much power, for examole there has been no benefit from RVSM due to outdated polices, procedures, and thinking. Every techology upgrade seems to set ZNY, ZOB, and ZDC backwards instead of forwards. We drastically need airpsace redesign imho, but Congress won't sanction it due to high paying controller jobs in their districts. In short, there are too many oxes that need to be gored. Once we get to pilotless planes with self separation, things will get A LOT better. 50 years or so.

Oh, forgot, Chinese airspace is also constrained....once again a poliical problem.. ..military has too much airspace.

Not sure of what you mean by the Air Traffic Controllers have too much "Power".. Have you ever worked at a TRACON? If NOT? Then might I suggest you try and Visit one for a Shift Because I have when Bay TRACON was in Fremont Ca. And those guys work their Butts off! Just the sheer Number of flights that have to be handled Letter Perfect is a tremendous strain mentally. Their authority is well EARNED!!

twaconnie · Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:06 am

LAX772LR wrote:
twaconnie wrote:
I think LAX did the smart thing and make only one runway A380 capable.After all there are only about 10 or so A380 operations a day,if that...

That's not even remotely true.... three of LAX's runways are fully A380 capable, with no interference to concurrent ops elsewhere (beyond what's typical for any heavy/super ops at that airfield)

24R handles most A380 landings
24L handles most A380 takeoffs.

QF, EK, and CZ will sometimes select 25L for takeoff, during exceptionally high temperatures, inclimate weather, or heavy loads. Sometimes the Euro carriers will use this runway for landings as well, but it's exceedingly rare.

Did LAX spend millions tearing up 24L/R or were they already A380 capable?

Armadillo1 · Wed Jun 05, 2019 11:09 am

how about gates for airplanes with wings on different level over ground?

dtw2hyd · Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:08 pm

michi wrote:
The A380 is capable using any 150ft (45m) wide runway.

Maybe on its final landing. Can it take off after that, or need at least 2 new engines.

With the supersized drama, some airport operators were forced to spend on Code-F expansions for a handful of Code-F movements. ORD is one such example. They will never recover the sunken cost.

DL717 · Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:20 pm

AIRT0M wrote:
No it's not wrong. Airport/airspace congestion is reality.

And airport real estate is at a premium. A380s benefit peak hub banks, nothing else. Wake turbulence separation requirements negate the capacity benefits. You can fit two 777s in nearly the same approach and departure airspace as you can one A380. A380 to anything smaller increased separation from 2.5/3.0 miles to between 5 and 8 miles.

Meanwhile smaller aircraft make more efficient use of uncontested periods and are more flexible in an economic downturn.

DL717 · Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:33 pm

twaconnie wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
twaconnie wrote:
I think LAX did the smart thing and make only one runway A380 capable.After all there are only about 10 or so A380 operations a day,if that...

That's not even remotely true.... three of LAX's runways are fully A380 capable, with no interference to concurrent ops elsewhere (beyond what's typical for any heavy/super ops at that airfield)

24R handles most A380 landings
24L handles most A380 takeoffs.

QF, EK, and CZ will sometimes select 25L for takeoff, during exceptionally high temperatures, inclimate weather, or heavy loads. Sometimes the Euro carriers will use this runway for landings as well, but it's exceedingly rare.

Did LAX spend millions tearing up 24L/R or were they already A380 capable?

The airfield at LAX was not A380 ready, Runway to Taxiway separation was insufficient requiring the runway modifications. It supports the A380 with waivers to this day and requires specific briefings with the airport before an operator can introduce it. The 748 has similar problems, but they are generally limited to places it can taxi.

225623 · Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:36 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
michi wrote:
The A380 is capable using any 150ft (45m) wide runway.

Maybe on its final landing. Can it take off after that, or need at least 2 new engines.

May I point your attention to this topic from 12 years ago?
Or could you please have a look at this. Page 4 should be of special interest for you.
Yes, The A380 can use 45m wide runways and regularly does so eg. in MAN or BHX.

SteelChair · Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:50 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
SteelChair wrote:
AIRT0M wrote:
No it's not wrong. Airport/airspace congestion is reality.

Imho, the question is what defines "congestion?"

A massive new airport like the one in Turkey will likely steal connecting passengers from DXB, thus relieving perceived congestion there

ORD is still reconfiguring its airport and adding terminals and runways. ATL is planning for the 6th runway. DFW and DEN are far from maxed out, nor is IAD for that matter maxed out (and the train line will open soon for IAD).

HKG and KIX each have plans for another runway. HND's new runway has only been open a short time, and they still have NRT as a reliever airport. And widebody twins are increasingly overflying Japan in any event.

CDG, AMS, FRA, and MUC are not yet "maxed out." I believe at least one of them has plans for an additional runway and room for more terminals.

PEK is severely constrained but the Chinese are building Daxing quickly (Londoners take note).

The only really important airports I see as truly constrained are LGA, EWR, LAX, SFO, and LHR. And there are other options available for them, not the least of which is upgauging of many smaller models currently serving them (738 to 739 or A320 to A321 for example). LHR's primary obstacles are 1) politics and 2) BA wantng to restict access to keep out competition. It could easily be expanded with sufficient political will do so. And, oh yeah, a VLA quad won't be operating to LGA ever.

So, imho, the A380 was at least 30 years too early. There is very little real congestion. But, Euro-pride had to be assuaged (no matter the cost).

Finally, airspace. The only truly congested airpsace in the world is in the NEUSA, and the problem there is political. The controllers hav Perfecte too much power, for examole there has been no benefit from RVSM due to outdated polices, procedures, and thinking. Every techology upgrade seems to set ZNY, ZOB, and ZDC backwards instead of forwards. We drastically need airpsace redesign imho, but Congress won't sanction it due to high paying controller jobs in their districts. In short, there are too many oxes that need to be gored. Once we get to pilotless planes with self separation, things will get A LOT better. 50 years or so.

Oh, forgot, Chinese airspace is also constrained....once again a poliical problem.. ..military has too much airspace.

Not sure of what you mean by the Air Traffic Controllers have too much "Power".. Have you ever worked at a TRACON? If NOT? Then might I suggest you try and Visit one for a Shift Because I have when Bay TRACON was in Fremont Ca. And those guys work their Butts off! Just the sheer Number of flights that have to be handled Letter Perfect is a tremendous strain mentally. Their authority is well EARNED!!

We are at about 80-85% of the traffic peak in Y2K, yet delays are worse than ever. All attempts to improve the performance of the air traffic control system have inevitably failed. The inmates are in charge of the asylum. They don't want to "work the traffic," they want everyone on fixed routes, any changes still have to be negotiated and worked on a flight by flight basis. ZNY will shut down a departure route because a green radar return is on the SID. They apparently think the airplanes can't get wet. Lack of departure routes drives excessive GDPs. Traffic to NYC from close-in destinations is held indefinitely on the ground with no TMI in place because of no spot "in the overhead stream." No one can fix it. Its a national disgrace really. The airlines don't say very much.

airbazar · Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:15 pm

michi wrote:
Again, lots of inaccuracies regarding the A380 in this thread

Airports did not start widening stuff for the A380. The 773 or the A346 also needed taxiway adjustments. The inner side of taxiway curves needed fillets in order to enable use of sharp turns. The distance between the NLG (Nose Landing Gear) and the MLG (Main Landing Gear) plays a big role here.

Gatewise the 80m x 80m box defined by ICAO is good for an A380 but also good for 2 737's or A320 sized aircraft. Only the upper deck bridge would be an extra for the A380. So there is no need to stop building those types of gates.
This setup is used by a lot of modern airports respectively terminals.

Runways where not widened by itself. The A380 is capable using any 150ft (45m) wide runway. There is a small restriction for takeoff however, which is covered by a flight crew procedure (using thrust on the outer engines later during takeoff run). This can be eliminated by implementing reinforced runway shoulders. This has been done at some places. But thats it.

The biggest issue operating A380 an aerodromes is the wingspan respective the separations between centerlines etc. As US airports are rather small or narrow in this regard, some work was done in order to make A380 ops safe.

Best answer ever.
About the only A380 unique modification was/is the installation of an upper deck jetbridge which is more of a "nice to have" than it is a requirement.

dtw2hyd wrote:
With the supersized drama, some airport operators were forced to spend on Code-F expansions for a handful of Code-F movements. ORD is one such example. They will never recover the sunken cost.

Please. You're trying to tell me that ORD embarked on a multi-billion runway realignment project just because of the A380? How much did it really add up? Peanuts.
The drama and inflated costs were primarily (only?), a U.S. thing due to politics, corruption, and antiquated airport infrastructure. A lot of people got very rich out of those "high costs" of conversion. Our airports could barely handle 747's back then. Terminals were undersized and it was rare to see double jetways being used on widebodies. We were operating on 3rd world airport infrastructure. The improvements made for the A380 will make operating widebody aircraft of any size at U.S. airports significantly easier and above all safer for decades to come.
Look at LAX TBIT's today and compare it to TBIT before the A380, just as an example.

So to answer the OP, I suspect all future greenfield airport construction will take into account today's Code F specifications.
For example, BOS is building 5 new "A380" gates (or is it 3?), but they are flex gates in that they can accommodate 1 widebody or 2 narrowbodies. So space-wise the airport doesn't lose much.

ikramerica · Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:27 pm

mxaxai wrote:
ikramerica wrote:
Increasing ultimate load bearing of structures is not worth it as there will never be such a heavy passenger plane in the lifetime of the structure. The trend is for lighter MTOW aircraft, not heavier.

The A380, however, spreads its weight over a large area. The trend for smaller jets has been towards higher MTOW with the same, smaller gear. So strengthening structures should, in general, be worth the investment. AFAIK some operators of the 77W were disappointed when it started tearing up the runway at MTOW.

You need to look up the meaning of ultimate load.

dtw2hyd · Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:31 pm

airbazar wrote:
Please. You're trying to tell me that ORD embarked on a multi-billion runway realignment project just because of the A380? How much did it really add up? Peanuts.
The drama and inflated costs were primarily (only?), a U.S. thing due to politics, corruption, and antiquated airport infrastructure. A lot of people got very rich out of those "high costs" of conversion. Our airports could barely handle 747's back then. Terminals were undersized and it was rare to see double jetways being used on widebodies. We were operating on 3rd world airport infrastructure. The improvements made for the A380 will make operating widebody aircraft of any size at U.S. airports significantly easier and above all safer for decades to come.
Look at LAX TBIT's today and compare it to TBIT before the A380, just as an example.

Are you saying ORD can make more money on one 3hr30min A380 turn over 6x A320/737 one hour turns, using the 80x80 box (A380=2x737/A320) formula? Maybe I am exaggerating a little bit, but you get the point.

The multi-billion investment is required to support the growth and will be recovered, the $millions spent on Code-F enhancements will not be recovered.

airbazar · Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:59 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Please. You're trying to tell me that ORD embarked on a multi-billion runway realignment project just because of the A380? How much did it really add up? Peanuts.
The drama and inflated costs were primarily (only?), a U.S. thing due to politics, corruption, and antiquated airport infrastructure. A lot of people got very rich out of those "high costs" of conversion. Our airports could barely handle 747's back then. Terminals were undersized and it was rare to see double jetways being used on widebodies. We were operating on 3rd world airport infrastructure. The improvements made for the A380 will make operating widebody aircraft of any size at U.S. airports significantly easier and above all safer for decades to come.
Look at LAX TBIT's today and compare it to TBIT before the A380, just as an example.

Are you saying ORD can make more money on one 3hr30min A380 turn over 6x A320/737 one hour turns, using the 80x80 box (A380=2x737/A320) formula? Maybe I am exaggerating a little bit, but you get the point.

The multi-billion investment is required to support the growth and will be recovered, the $millions spent on Code-F enhancements will not be recovered.

If ORD it allowing an A380 to sit at the gate for 3hrs30mins that's their problem not the A380's. The $millions spent on Code-F enhancements where part of the multi-billion runway realignment investment. They would have been spent with or without A380's. If ORD wants to pad its finances to line the pockets of construction company bosses, that's ORD's problem not the A380's.

flyPIT · Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:38 pm

9Patch wrote:
ANC spent millions getting ready for the A380F, widening taxiways etc., after FedEx and UPS ordered them.
Of course, they never saw a single A380 land at the airport.

ANC would have needed this anyway to handle the B748.

dtw2hyd · Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:45 pm

airbazar wrote:
If ORD it allowing an A380 to sit at the gate for 3hrs30mins that's their problem not the A380's. The $millions spent on Code-F enhancements where part of the multi-billion runway realignment investment. They would have been spent with or without A380's. If ORD wants to pad its finances to line the pockets of construction company bosses, that's ORD's problem not the A380's.

What is your expectation to turn a 525 seat aircraft? Let's say, two hours. I have read a minimum of 3 hrs but I am going with efficient airport theory. I am sure even with 300+ staff per departure EK at DXB takes more than 2 hrs.

Four 189 seat A320/737s can be turned in two hours. With four turns and 756 pax, the airport makes a lot more money without investing in Code-F upgrades. For the world leader in aircraft movements, which option is better for ORD.

MGC1191 · Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:15 pm

Imho the airports who are currently building A380 gates etc.. should finish up. The airports who are planning on it shouldn’t, unless they have very good reason.

capitalflyer · Wed Jun 05, 2019 4:42 pm

CarlosSi wrote:
I assume airstairs would be an alternative option, but not very appealing or as practical.

Don't sell ground boarding short. Can't wait to see A380 at 35X at DCA soon.

DL717 · Thu Jun 06, 2019 12:40 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Please. You're trying to tell me that ORD embarked on a multi-billion runway realignment project just because of the A380? How much did it really add up? Peanuts.
The drama and inflated costs were primarily (only?), a U.S. thing due to politics, corruption, and antiquated airport infrastructure. A lot of people got very rich out of those "high costs" of conversion. Our airports could barely handle 747's back then. Terminals were undersized and it was rare to see double jetways being used on widebodies. We were operating on 3rd world airport infrastructure. The improvements made for the A380 will make operating widebody aircraft of any size at U.S. airports significantly easier and above all safer for decades to come.
Look at LAX TBIT's today and compare it to TBIT before the A380, just as an example.

Are you saying ORD can make more money on one 3hr30min A380 turn over 6x A320/737 one hour turns, using the 80x80 box (A380=2x737/A320) formula? Maybe I am exaggerating a little bit, but you get the point.

The multi-billion investment is required to support the growth and will be recovered, the $millions spent on Code-F enhancements will not be recovered.

I’m sure Denver could have shaved a few feet off Runway 16R/34L. I’m not even sure it was used for the one A380 they’ve handled in a divert. Otherwise, a lot of drama in the post you responded too. Things like fillets (which are much larger and more costly than those for a 777), Runway relocations, taxiway reconstruction for weight bearing, signage relocations etc.... They all have cost. In the millions for each airport that made modifications to support the A380.

That said, ORD work was done for operational efficiency and had nothing to do with the A380. The airfield arrangement was shit. This created a delay prone nightmare.

airbazar · Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:15 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
What is your expectation to turn a 525 seat aircraft? Let's say, two hours. I have read a minimum of 3 hrs but I am going with efficient airport theory. I am sure even with 300+ staff per departure EK at DXB takes more than 2 hrs.

Four 189 seat A320/737s can be turned in two hours. With four turns and 756 pax, the airport makes a lot more money without investing in Code-F upgrades. For the world leader in aircraft movements, which option is better for ORD.

An A380 can easily be turned in 90-120 mins. SQ does it every day at FRA, just to name one example.
As for your second issue, that's the beauty of building flex gates, isn't it? If an A380 comes to town you have a place to put it. If it doesn't, even better you can just park 2 narrow bodies there. So where exactly is the loss for the airport?
By the way I'm not sure that there are that many A320/737's at the international terminal in ORD. I'm going to guess most gates are Group D/E gates where you cannot park 2 narrowbodies so your scenario actual favors the Code F gate.

AirKevin · Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:20 pm

airbazar wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
What is your expectation to turn a 525 seat aircraft? Let's say, two hours. I have read a minimum of 3 hrs but I am going with efficient airport theory. I am sure even with 300+ staff per departure EK at DXB takes more than 2 hrs.

Four 189 seat A320/737s can be turned in two hours. With four turns and 756 pax, the airport makes a lot more money without investing in Code-F upgrades. For the world leader in aircraft movements, which option is better for ORD.

An A380 can easily be turned in 90-120 mins. SQ does it every day at FRA, just to name one example.

Not necessarily a fair comparison. That A380 runs from SIN to JFK with a stop in FRA, so more than likely not all the bags in the cargo hold are coming off the plane. Also, given the length of FRA-JFK, the refueling for that flight won't take nearly as long as it would for, say, a flight twice its length.

airbazar · Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:22 pm

AirKevin wrote:
airbazar wrote:
dtw2hyd wrote:
What is your expectation to turn a 525 seat aircraft? Let's say, two hours. I have read a minimum of 3 hrs but I am going with efficient airport theory. I am sure even with 300+ staff per departure EK at DXB takes more than 2 hrs.

Four 189 seat A320/737s can be turned in two hours. With four turns and 756 pax, the airport makes a lot more money without investing in Code-F upgrades. For the world leader in aircraft movements, which option is better for ORD.

An A380 can easily be turned in 90-120 mins. SQ does it every day at FRA, just to name one example.

Not necessarily a fair comparison. That A380 runs from SIN to JFK with a stop in FRA, so more than likely not all the bags in the cargo hold are coming off the plane. Also, given the length of FRA-JFK, the refueling for that flight won't take nearly as long as it would for, say, a flight twice its length.

What about DEL and PEK with a full turn around? Is that a fair comparison?
In BOM they turn around in 100 mins.

AirKevin · Thu Jun 06, 2019 7:24 pm

airbazar wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
airbazar wrote:
An A380 can easily be turned in 90-120 mins. SQ does it every day at FRA, just to name one example.

Not necessarily a fair comparison. That A380 runs from SIN to JFK with a stop in FRA, so more than likely not all the bags in the cargo hold are coming off the plane. Also, given the length of FRA-JFK, the refueling for that flight won't take nearly as long as it would for, say, a flight twice its length.

What about DEL and PEK with a full turn around? Is that a fair comparison?

Fair enough.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net