If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Airbus 380: the new Concorde
"It is one thing to build a really, really big airplane. It is quite another
to find a place for it to land. U.S. airports from Seattle to Atlanta say accommodating Airbus's new superjumbo A380 in anything other than an emergency would require major construction." http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/02/15....ap/index.html Looks like Airbus forgot to do its homework. The 380 may only fly in the USA at airports that service the Asian market and other specific international markets: SFO, LAX, JFK, MIA, maybe ORD. FedEx may pay for improvements to its corporate home base airport for cargo. Casey |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article t,
spamfree wrote: € "It is one thing to build a really, really big airplane. It is quite another € to find a place for it to land. U.S. airports from Seattle to Atlanta say € accommodating Airbus's new superjumbo A380 in anything other than € an emergency would require major construction." € € http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/02/15....ap/index.html € € Looks like Airbus forgot to do its homework. The 380 may only fly € in the USA at airports that service the Asian market and other specific € international markets: SFO, LAX, JFK, MIA, maybe ORD. FedEx € may pay for improvements to its corporate home base airport for cargo. € € Big plane, big passenger loads, big hubs. Sounds to me like they targeted the niche pretty well. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:47:43 GMT, "spamfree"
wrote: "It is one thing to build a really, really big airplane. It is quite another to find a place for it to land. U.S. airports from Seattle to Atlanta say accommodating Airbus's new superjumbo A380 in anything other than an emergency would require major construction." http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/02/15....ap/index.html Looks like Airbus forgot to do its homework. The 380 may only fly in the USA at airports that service the Asian market and other specific international markets: SFO, LAX, JFK, MIA, maybe ORD. FedEx may pay for improvements to its corporate home base airport for cargo. Casey No, Airbus didn't forget to do it's homework, you just don't understand the market for the 380. Other US airports are not relevant, why do you think they would be? They are not the target market for the 380, it is designed for, and will be operated on routes within Asia, and from Asia to major cities in Europe, North America, and Australia. These are the routes that already have strong growth, and will experience even stronger growth in the future. --==++AJC++==-- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 18:54:23 +0100, AJC wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 15:47:43 GMT, "spamfree" wrote: "It is one thing to build a really, really big airplane. It is quite another to find a place for it to land. U.S. airports from Seattle to Atlanta say accommodating Airbus's new superjumbo A380 in anything other than an emergency would require major construction." http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/02/15....ap/index.html Looks like Airbus forgot to do its homework. The 380 may only fly in the USA at airports that service the Asian market and other specific international markets: SFO, LAX, JFK, MIA, maybe ORD. FedEx may pay for improvements to its corporate home base airport for cargo. Casey No, Airbus didn't forget to do it's homework, you just don't understand the market for the 380. Other US airports are not relevant, why do you think they would be? They are not the target market for the 380, it is designed for, and will be operated on routes within Asia, and from Asia to major cities in Europe, North America, and Australia. These are the routes that already have strong growth, and will experience even stronger growth in the future. --==++AJC++==-- Then all they have to do is get all these airports to pay to reinforce their runways just for them and to build two story high gates to load and unload them--just for them. And wait until there's and emergency and they try to get 800 passengers all out at once. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"spamfree" wrote in message k.net... "It is one thing to build a really, really big airplane. It is quite another to find a place for it to land. U.S. airports from Seattle to Atlanta say accommodating Airbus's new superjumbo A380 in anything other than an emergency would require major construction." http://www.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/02/15....ap/index.html Looks like Airbus forgot to do its homework. The 380 may only fly in the USA at airports that service the Asian market and other specific international markets: SFO, LAX, JFK, MIA, maybe ORD. FedEx may pay for improvements to its corporate home base airport for cargo. Atlanta(blandest hole I have ever had the misfortune to visit btw) and Seattle won't accomodate the A380, hence Airbus didn't do their homework? How about Savannah and Deep ****, GA? That's the funniest thing I have read in a long time. The A380 was built for major international hubs. All the airports that serve this market have the necessary changes underway to accomodate the big bird. As much as some people in the us want to see the demise of the A380, the A380 was never designed and does not depend on the us market. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dutch Flyer says...
As much as some people in the us want to see the demise of the A380, the A380 was never designed and does not depend on the us market. It wouldn't fly. US passengers want frequent flights so they can pick a convenient time, and they want smaller aircraft so they don't spend a lot of time waiting to board and deplane. I think the major complaint now is security inspection times, which can be pretty horrendous. The A380 will be hugely successful on long haul ops around the world including flights to and from the USA, I'm thinking. If those figures for economy are correct, then it would give current B747 operators an incentive to buy A380s and give passengers a bit more room on the same sectors for the same cost, thereby resulting in happier customers and more business. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Er... It's driven by politics, business has nothing to do with it
(other than soft bribery and so on). Just like the building of Tier One (SpaceShip One and White Knight) was driven by politics (to defame the government and so on) and not business sense. If Airbus is let to do things on their own, I doubt that they would even want to build the A380. Anyway. The same group people who supported the Boeing 747 is now currently supporting the Airbus A380. The problem is that, will they be willing to support the Airbus all the way? Or did they just pretend to support Airbus and dropped the support midway in order to weaken Airbus and take over it? Just imagine if the airliners, airports, and so on that ordered and supported the A380 suddenly face some 'difficulties' and have to remove the A380 out of their agenda. As for the airport accomodation. Well... Building a gate that is capable of handling twice the normal capacity is NOT the same as building a bi-level gate that is capable of handling a bi-level / double decker airliner! No, it wouldn't be like what happened in the 60's and the 70's when the Boeing 747 was introduced. Remember that there are reasons on why the early concepts of the Boeing 747 being a double decker airliner were rejected in the 60's. And also remember that people are more horizontally oriented than vertically oriented. People are already quite confuse enough on which aisle they should take, can you imagine on how confuse they are to know on which level they should take? And so on. Not to say that double deckers won't have their places. There are double decker trains, buses, and so on. Personally, I see the future of bigger airliner is more aisles (three aisles and so on) and preferably multiple jetways connected to both sides (left and right) of the airliner. This kind of airliner can be accomodate much easier by airports around the world than a double decker airport. On the other hand, the Airbus A380F seems to be fine with me. Though it's too bad that it doesn't have a nose that can be opened, or maybe it should have tail that can be opened? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Airbus bets billions that really big plane will take off | Siva | Air travel | 15 | December 22nd, 2004 07:14 AM |
Airbus to offer 2 models of 350 | nobody | Air travel | 35 | December 17th, 2004 10:17 AM |
A380 - Flying in on a wing and a flair | taqai | Air travel | 19 | April 7th, 2004 04:51 AM |
[NEWS]: BA looks to keep one Concorde on life-support | James Anatidae | Air travel | 18 | October 25th, 2003 10:50 PM |
Passengers tell of Concorde horror | Chanchao | Air travel | 7 | September 22nd, 2003 04:04 AM |