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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 14:47:42 -0500, "Dutch Flyer"
wrote: "spamfree" wrote in message nk.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? Ah yes, Atlanta. Overcrowded, low quality hub of a run down airline teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, and gateway to a dreary provincial city. I've had the unpleasant experiences of arriving at, departing from, and transferring at ATL, and of having to spend time in the most depressing city. 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. There seems to be quite an industry over there in churning out stories that the 380 must be a failure because Buffalo dung, Idaho, International Airport isn't going to upgrade it's facilities to cater for the aircraft! --==++AJC++==-- |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
AJC wrote:
Indeed it's an attitude problem. You don't hear airport managers at Heathrow, Dubai, Changi, wringing their hands saying oh dear its too difficult for us, they see there is demand from their customers, In fact, Heathrow sees the 380 as the cheapest option to grow passenger numbers with the least amount of infrastructure development. Increasing airport capacity can be a very expensive and lengthy process. Whether you pay to accomodate the A380, or you increase number of gates by 35%, you still have to grow luggage carrousels, check-in areas etc etc because in the end, if the airport is to grow, it needs to accomodate more passengers. The A380 allows this to happen with fewer flights, thus much less congestion airside. And consider that IF they can turn around a 380 in rougly the same amount of time as a 747, it means that you can increase throughput by 35% compared to a 747 without increasing gate occupancy, and the same gate then then process other flights. So the money you spend upgrading a terminal to handle the A380 in fact goes a lot further than if you were to spend it to handle more 767 or 777 planes. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:04:21 -0500, nobody wrote:
AJC wrote: Indeed it's an attitude problem. You don't hear airport managers at Heathrow, Dubai, Changi, wringing their hands saying oh dear its too difficult for us, they see there is demand from their customers, In fact, Heathrow sees the 380 as the cheapest option to grow passenger numbers with the least amount of infrastructure development. Increasing airport capacity can be a very expensive and lengthy process. Whether you pay to accomodate the A380, or you increase number of gates by 35%, you still have to grow luggage carrousels, check-in areas etc etc because in the end, if the airport is to grow, it needs to accomodate more passengers. The A380 allows this to happen with fewer flights, thus much less congestion airside. And consider that IF they can turn around a 380 in rougly the same amount of time as a 747, it means that you can increase throughput by 35% compared to a 747 without increasing gate occupancy, and the same gate then then process other flights. So the money you spend upgrading a terminal to handle the A380 in fact goes a lot further than if you were to spend it to handle more 767 or 777 planes. Absolutely, for airports like LHR the 380 is the most attractive form of growth, and along with Changi and others, it is all about investing for the future, purely good business sense. For the passenger there is also going to be the advantage that with dedicated 380 gates there will be consitent high quality service levels at the airports. Those arriving on smaller aircraft will still find they could end up at a remote gate with bus transfers, as happens all too often at LHR, FRA, CDG, SYD, and others. --==++AJC++==-- |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Question about the 380:
One of the big advantages of the 380 would be the ability for a passenger to run to one end, change floor, walk to the other end, change floor, walk back to seat. And the front lobby in front of the "grand staircase" would be a great place for people to congregate/meet/chat while standing/stretching one's legs. However, since premium classes will be up front, does this mean that airlines will reserve this area only to premium passengers and that coach pax will not have access to this area in flight ? Perhaps airlines that put all coach downstairs (and premium upstairs) would in fact be better since it would open the front hallway to coach passenger use. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote in message ... That said, there's well less than a handful of airports in the US that will see scheduled A380 service in the next decade. In fact there are well less than 50 airports arround the globe (I believe something like 37) that today charter for more than 75% of 747 movements. So unless you - defragmentation or not - believe that the trafic between places like HKG and LHR, LAX etc is going to go down, there will still be a significant market for the A380. It is interresting, that only few of those airports that today handle a significant number of 747s is located in the US. Nik |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
AJC wrote:
nobody wrote: AJC wrote: Thanks, everybody - an AVIATION thread! |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 03:26:37 GMT, Adam Weiss
wrote: 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 I can't speak to the widening of runways, being in the architecture business and not in civil engineering, but it doesn't seem to me like major reconstruction would be necessary to the terminal buildings to accomodate an A380. Well, according to a CNN article, you're wrong: "Airports mull new superjumbo hassles Tuesday, February 15, 2005 Posted: 9:39 AM EST (1439 GMT) story.a380.jpg Four U.S. airports are working on plans to accept the new superjumbo. What's this? Save up to 70% Off-Site Airport Parking Save up to 70% at convenient and secure airport parking facilities at most USA... www.longtermparking.com Seattle Airport Hotel Parking Packages Get one to two weeks free parking and complimentary round trip airport transfers... www.buyreservations.com Seattle Airport Parking Seatac Park offers parking and continuous shuttle service to and from Seattle... www.seatacpark.com Seattle 1-star Properties from $35 Find a wide selection of Seattle hotels sorted by star rating, distance and... www.orbitz.com BUSINESS TRAVELLER Are you an executive on the go? Click here for stories OTHER NEWS What irritates business travelers YOUR SAY Do you have a problem keeping fit when you travel for business? Why? Have your say QUICKVOTE When traveling for business, what factor makes keeping fit difficult? Not enough facilities Different routine Not enough time Different diet VIEW RESULTS YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS Biz Traveller Airlines or Create your own Manage alerts | What is this? SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- 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 SAS's new superjumbo A380 in anything other than an emergency would require major construction. Runways would need widening and terminals would need upgrades to load and unload the double-decker plane easily. Even with those improvements, airports might need to curtail other airport traffic to let the big jet lumber through the airfield. And some officials worry the weight of the A380 would collapse tunnels and buckle overpasses. What is more, some airport officials say they just are not seeing the demand for the A380 that would warrant such cost and inconvenience. "Let us do a cost/benefit analysis: Are you really going to spend millions of dollars (when) you might have two of them a day fly in?" said aviation analyst Mike Boyd. Stretching about three-quarters of the length of a football field, the A380 isn't much longer than Boeing Co.'s latest version of the 747, the largest commercial airplane in the skies until the A380 enters service next year. But the A380's 78-meter (261-foot) wingspan is 15 meters (50 feet) wider than the 747, broader than many runways and taxiways were built to accommodate. The airplane also weighs in at a maximum of 540,000 kilograms (1.2 million pounds), 30 percent more than the biggest 747. The Federal Aviation Administration says just four U.S. airports -- John F. Kennedy in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Miami -- are formally working with regulators on plans to accept the new plane for passengers. Another two -- Anchorage and Memphis --are working with the FAA to take the cargo version. Airbus says it also has talked with many other U.S. airports and anticipates several more will be able to land the plane on a regular basis by 2011. Worldwide, the company also says plenty of airports will see the A380 in the next five years, but it's unclear how many of those airports will be ready by 2006. Outside the United States, those that are making preparations include London's Heathrow -- which is spending more than $800 million on renovations -- Charles de Gaulle in Paris, Changi Airport in Singapore and Australia's Sydney Airport. Dan Cohen-Nir, an Airbus North America program manager, said the company is initially targeting the world's busiest airports, major hubs that are most likely to need a plane designed to carry around 555 passengers on long international routes. Still, Boyd and other analysts say the scant interest among U.S. airports could be trouble for Toulouse, France-based Airbus, which has 139 firm orders for the A380 so far. "For the next decade this is a niche aircraft," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. Executives at Boeing's Seattle-based commercial airplanes division, which makes the competing 747, will not have to worry about the A380 literally darkening their doorstep. To take the A380 for anything other than an emergency, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport would have to spend tens of millions of dollars just on terminal upgrades. The airport also would have to curtail some other airplane traffic while the plane was on its airfield. Mark Reis, managing director of SeaTac, said the geometry of the airport "just does not lend itself to operation of the aircraft of that size on a regular basis." No airline has expressed a desire to fly the A380 to Seattle, Reis said. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport is in the midst of a $6 billion airport expansion, but the major upgrade does not include plans to accommodate routine A380 flights. The airport is not willing to make the necessary changes without seeing more airline interest in the A380, spokeswoman Felicia Browder said. "In the foreseeable future, we don't think it's worthwhile," Browder said. Denver International Airport would only need minor improvements to land the A380 on more than just an emergency basis. But spokesman Chuck Cannon said there are no plans to make even the minor upgrades. Officials have not heard that any airlines are interested in bringing the plane to Denver, a busy domestic hub that doesn't see many of the long-haul international flights the A380 was designed for. Decades ago, some airports also had to make changes to accommodate Boeing's 747 and other jumbo jets, which caused a revolution in cheaper air travel. Since then, improvements in aircraft technology have created smaller planes that could fly farther. Still, some of the largest U.S. airports say the A380 is worth the hassle. The runways at San Francisco International Airport are so close together that the airport will only be able to land one A380 at a time, and traffic restrictions will be required to let the plane maneuver around the airfield. But spokesman Mike McCarron said the airport plans to take up to six A380s a day, perhaps beginning in the fall of 2006. The airport already has spent just under $1 billion to build a new, 23-gate terminal that includes five gates to handle the A380. "We have a huge Asian market, (and) we see the A380 as a growth area to the Asian market," McCarron said. John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York is spending around $120 million for upgrades including widening one runway and reinforcing taxiway bridges that go over major area roadways. But spokesman Tony Ciavolella said any terminal improvements would have to be done by the airlines who lease those properties. At Chicago's O'Hare, spokeswoman Annette Martinez said the airport is working on interim changes that will enable it to accommodate the plane by the end of 2007, while hoping for approval of a big expansion that would make it practical to take the A380 in the long term. And Los Angeles International Airport plans to spend $53 million on airport-wide improvements, including $2.25 million to make sure underground structures don't buckle under the A380's weight. That is fine for Los Angeles, officials at Las Vegas's McCarron International Airport say, as long as those A380s do not plan to make any unscheduled stops in Sin City. Randall Walker, the Las Vegas airport's aviation director, said he rebuffed an Airbus request to become an emergency alternative airport for A380s destined for Los Angeles. Walker said it's not even clear that the airport's underground tunnels could handle the weight of the airplane. A bigger problem is that one runway would have to be shut down for the A380 to land on another, creating big scheduling headaches for regularly scheduled flights." |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 03:26:37 GMT, Adam Weiss
wrote: 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 I can't speak to the widening of runways, being in the architecture business and not in civil engineering, but it doesn't seem to me like major reconstruction would be necessary to the terminal buildings to accomodate an A380. Well, according to a CNN article, you're wrong: "Airports mull new superjumbo hassles Tuesday, February 15, 2005 Posted: 9:39 AM EST (1439 GMT) story.a380.jpg Four U.S. airports are working on plans to accept the new superjumbo. What's this? Save up to 70% Off-Site Airport Parking Save up to 70% at convenient and secure airport parking facilities at most USA... www.longtermparking.com Seattle Airport Hotel Parking Packages Get one to two weeks free parking and complimentary round trip airport transfers... www.buyreservations.com Seattle Airport Parking Seatac Park offers parking and continuous shuttle service to and from Seattle... www.seatacpark.com Seattle 1-star Properties from $35 Find a wide selection of Seattle hotels sorted by star rating, distance and... www.orbitz.com BUSINESS TRAVELLER Are you an executive on the go? Click here for stories OTHER NEWS What irritates business travelers YOUR SAY Do you have a problem keeping fit when you travel for business? Why? Have your say QUICKVOTE When traveling for business, what factor makes keeping fit difficult? Not enough facilities Different routine Not enough time Different diet VIEW RESULTS YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS Biz Traveller Airlines or Create your own Manage alerts | What is this? SEATTLE, Washington (AP) -- 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 SAS's new superjumbo A380 in anything other than an emergency would require major construction. Runways would need widening and terminals would need upgrades to load and unload the double-decker plane easily. Even with those improvements, airports might need to curtail other airport traffic to let the big jet lumber through the airfield. And some officials worry the weight of the A380 would collapse tunnels and buckle overpasses. What is more, some airport officials say they just are not seeing the demand for the A380 that would warrant such cost and inconvenience. "Let us do a cost/benefit analysis: Are you really going to spend millions of dollars (when) you might have two of them a day fly in?" said aviation analyst Mike Boyd. Stretching about three-quarters of the length of a football field, the A380 isn't much longer than Boeing Co.'s latest version of the 747, the largest commercial airplane in the skies until the A380 enters service next year. But the A380's 78-meter (261-foot) wingspan is 15 meters (50 feet) wider than the 747, broader than many runways and taxiways were built to accommodate. The airplane also weighs in at a maximum of 540,000 kilograms (1.2 million pounds), 30 percent more than the biggest 747. The Federal Aviation Administration says just four U.S. airports -- John F. Kennedy in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Miami -- are formally working with regulators on plans to accept the new plane for passengers. Another two -- Anchorage and Memphis --are working with the FAA to take the cargo version. Airbus says it also has talked with many other U.S. airports and anticipates several more will be able to land the plane on a regular basis by 2011. Worldwide, the company also says plenty of airports will see the A380 in the next five years, but it's unclear how many of those airports will be ready by 2006. Outside the United States, those that are making preparations include London's Heathrow -- which is spending more than $800 million on renovations -- Charles de Gaulle in Paris, Changi Airport in Singapore and Australia's Sydney Airport. Dan Cohen-Nir, an Airbus North America program manager, said the company is initially targeting the world's busiest airports, major hubs that are most likely to need a plane designed to carry around 555 passengers on long international routes. Still, Boyd and other analysts say the scant interest among U.S. airports could be trouble for Toulouse, France-based Airbus, which has 139 firm orders for the A380 so far. "For the next decade this is a niche aircraft," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group. Executives at Boeing's Seattle-based commercial airplanes division, which makes the competing 747, will not have to worry about the A380 literally darkening their doorstep. To take the A380 for anything other than an emergency, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport would have to spend tens of millions of dollars just on terminal upgrades. The airport also would have to curtail some other airplane traffic while the plane was on its airfield. Mark Reis, managing director of SeaTac, said the geometry of the airport "just does not lend itself to operation of the aircraft of that size on a regular basis." No airline has expressed a desire to fly the A380 to Seattle, Reis said. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport is in the midst of a $6 billion airport expansion, but the major upgrade does not include plans to accommodate routine A380 flights. The airport is not willing to make the necessary changes without seeing more airline interest in the A380, spokeswoman Felicia Browder said. "In the foreseeable future, we don't think it's worthwhile," Browder said. Denver International Airport would only need minor improvements to land the A380 on more than just an emergency basis. But spokesman Chuck Cannon said there are no plans to make even the minor upgrades. Officials have not heard that any airlines are interested in bringing the plane to Denver, a busy domestic hub that doesn't see many of the long-haul international flights the A380 was designed for. Decades ago, some airports also had to make changes to accommodate Boeing's 747 and other jumbo jets, which caused a revolution in cheaper air travel. Since then, improvements in aircraft technology have created smaller planes that could fly farther. Still, some of the largest U.S. airports say the A380 is worth the hassle. The runways at San Francisco International Airport are so close together that the airport will only be able to land one A380 at a time, and traffic restrictions will be required to let the plane maneuver around the airfield. But spokesman Mike McCarron said the airport plans to take up to six A380s a day, perhaps beginning in the fall of 2006. The airport already has spent just under $1 billion to build a new, 23-gate terminal that includes five gates to handle the A380. "We have a huge Asian market, (and) we see the A380 as a growth area to the Asian market," McCarron said. John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York is spending around $120 million for upgrades including widening one runway and reinforcing taxiway bridges that go over major area roadways. But spokesman Tony Ciavolella said any terminal improvements would have to be done by the airlines who lease those properties. At Chicago's O'Hare, spokeswoman Annette Martinez said the airport is working on interim changes that will enable it to accommodate the plane by the end of 2007, while hoping for approval of a big expansion that would make it practical to take the A380 in the long term. And Los Angeles International Airport plans to spend $53 million on airport-wide improvements, including $2.25 million to make sure underground structures don't buckle under the A380's weight. That is fine for Los Angeles, officials at Las Vegas's McCarron International Airport say, as long as those A380s do not plan to make any unscheduled stops in Sin City. Randall Walker, the Las Vegas airport's aviation director, said he rebuffed an Airbus request to become an emergency alternative airport for A380s destined for Los Angeles. Walker said it's not even clear that the airport's underground tunnels could handle the weight of the airplane. A bigger problem is that one runway would have to be shut down for the A380 to land on another, creating big scheduling headaches for regularly scheduled flights." |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Indeed it's an attitude problem. You don't hear airport managers at Heathrow, Dubai, Changi, wringing their hands saying oh dear its too difficult for us, they see there is demand from their customers, the airlines, they see the potential for generating extra revenue from the increase in passenger numbers, and they do what all good businesses do, they find a solution to meet their customers needs, and keep them happy. Right. That's what made the Concorde such a success wasn't it? |
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 |