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

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.

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++==--

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.

In article ,
says...
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.

shrug The same airports that did all that stuff for the B747 a
generation ago will happily do the same for the A380. If they want the
business. It's a commercial thing.

"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.

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.

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?

wrote:
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.

Not every runway in the USA is capable of handling a 747. In fact, some
can't handle CRJs and this is why Dash-8s are used.

Lets say Northwest were to buy A380s. Lets say that Minneapolis were
more opened to accomodating 380s than Seattle. Northwest would then move
flights from Seattle to Minneapolis to run its 380 flights from there.
Seattle would lose traffic and thus revenus.

In the end, that is how it will work.

Airlines that have enough demand to fill the 380 on a city pair will
find ways to convince the target airports to handle the 380. And since
such cities are likely to be congested already, chances are that the
airport may find it easier to simply upgrade facilities than to have to
build extra runways to handle more flights.

A 380 allows roughly a 35% increase in passenger carried over a 747 on a
single flight. A congested airport would prefer adapting to the 380
rather than seing a 35% increase in number of 747 flights.

In article .com,
says...
Anyway. The same group people who supported the Boeing 747 is now
currently supporting the Airbus A380.

Airlines, by the look of it. I think Airbus has picked a winner.