A380 operating questions

The A380 thread got me wondering about A380 costs to operate. One thing
I began to wonder about is if so few worldwide airports can handle the
A380 - what does the A380 do if it has to divert to an alternate airport
for whatever reason? If I recall, in the US an aircraft must carry
enough fuel for it's destination + alternate + 45 minutes of powered
flight afterward. If your destination is LAX and the nearest alternate
airport is Denver or Seattle, you've got to carry that much extra fuel
on every flight vs an aircraft that can divert to San Diego or San
Francisco.

Is that actually a consideration or concern?

Vareck Bostrom wrote:
The A380 thread got me wondering about A380 costs to operate. One thing
I began to wonder about is if so few worldwide airports can handle the
A380 - what does the A380 do if it has to divert to an alternate airport
for whatever reason? If I recall, in the US an aircraft must carry
enough fuel for it's destination + alternate + 45 minutes of powered
flight afterward. If your destination is LAX and the nearest alternate
airport is Denver or Seattle, you've got to carry that much extra fuel
on every flight vs an aircraft that can divert to San Diego or San
Francisco.

Is that actually a consideration or concern?

I think the biggest concern is whether the terminal can handle it, not
the rest of the airport. In case of diversion, they might arrange to
deplane by stairs outside of the terminal.

In article ,
mrt wrote:

Vareck Bostrom wrote:
The A380 thread got me wondering about A380 costs to operate. One thing
I began to wonder about is if so few worldwide airports can handle the
A380 - what does the A380 do if it has to divert to an alternate airport
for whatever reason? If I recall, in the US an aircraft must carry
enough fuel for it's destination + alternate + 45 minutes of powered
flight afterward. If your destination is LAX and the nearest alternate
airport is Denver or Seattle, you've got to carry that much extra fuel
on every flight vs an aircraft that can divert to San Diego or San
Francisco.

Is that actually a consideration or concern?

I think the biggest concern is whether the terminal can handle it, not
the rest of the airport. In case of diversion, they might arrange to
deplane by stairs outside of the terminal.


I thought it was also runway width, taxiway turning radius, taxiway
width, seperation between taxiways and runways and taxiway load capacity
issues?

Vareck Bostrom wrote:
I thought it was also runway width, taxiway turning radius, taxiway
width, seperation between taxiways and runways and taxiway load capacity
issues?

If the alternate is used more as an "emergency" than a convenience, then all
that really matters is whether one runway is strong enough to widthstand the
landing and current winds permit landing on that runway.

Once the beast has landed, if it can't turn by itself in a tight corner, they
may be able to use a tug to get the job done. (a tug can move plane forward
and back to make it fit into a tight curve that it might not be able to do by
itsefl moving only forwards.


It isn't only the alternate that it will be interesting to consider. If Air
France will fly the beast JFK-CDG, will it also want Boston, Halifax, Gander,
Keflavik to also be able to handle the beast ?

Will Honolulu, Nadi, Norfolk Islands, Brisbane and Cairns also need upgrading
to handle the SYD-LAX flights ? Will SFO, SEA, YVR, Anchorage and perhaps some
runway in the Alaeutians as well as Korea, Tokyo, Taipei also be able to
handle the 380 for LAX-HKG flights ?

In article , nobody
wrote:

Vareck Bostrom wrote:
I thought it was also runway width, taxiway turning radius, taxiway
width, seperation between taxiways and runways and taxiway load capacity
issues?

If the alternate is used more as an "emergency" than a convenience, then all
that really matters is whether one runway is strong enough to widthstand the
landing and current winds permit landing on that runway.

Once the beast has landed, if it can't turn by itself in a tight corner, they
may be able to use a tug to get the job done. (a tug can move plane forward
and back to make it fit into a tight curve that it might not be able to do by
itsefl moving only forwards.


It isn't only the alternate that it will be interesting to consider. If Air
France will fly the beast JFK-CDG, will it also want Boston, Halifax, Gander,
Keflavik to also be able to handle the beast ?

Will Honolulu, Nadi, Norfolk Islands, Brisbane and Cairns also need upgrading
to handle the SYD-LAX flights ? Will SFO, SEA, YVR, Anchorage and perhaps some
runway in the Alaeutians as well as Korea, Tokyo, Taipei also be able to
handle the 380 for LAX-HKG flights ?

I don't think it's so much "emergency" as it is that airports DO get
closed frequently enough that alternates are used - when Boston was
closed this past weekend, I imagine incoming flights had to divert to
their alternates (probably NYC area airports) - I believe that airports
are closed for weather frequently enough that it shouldn't be considered
an emergency but part of day to day operations of an airline...

I don't know about enroute emergency handling, anything that would cause
a diversion while enroute is probably rare enough that there's not as
much concern.

I think mostly if you're going to operate an A380, you want at least one
diversion airport close enough that can fully service it - land,
deboard, allow the aircraft to take back off again, etc, and that
airport shouldn't be TOO far out of the way, and your aircraft could
carry enough fuel to make that airport + 45 minutes (or more).

As far as short haul, high density routes are concerned, I'm wondering
if an airline wouldn't do better with two aircraft to outlying cities
rather than a single between the major hubs... but obviously someone
found enough use for A380s that they decided to buy them..

Vareck Bostrom wrote:
I don't know about enroute emergency handling, anything that would cause
a diversion while enroute is probably rare enough that there's not as
much concern.

If a fire breaks out during a flight, any plane, including the A380 will want
to land ASAP. If the nearest suitable airport is hours away, then you get a
huge crash with close to 600 fatalities (one has to factor in the crew on top
of the 555 pax).

If a fire breaks out, the plane essentially has 30 minutes to land.


I think mostly if you're going to operate an A380, you want at least one
diversion airport close enough that can fully service it - land,
deboard, allow the aircraft to take back off again, etc,

The aircraft need only be able to take off empty to reach its real airport
once it re-opens. So what really counts is that he 380 be able to land with a
full load and have airstairs and container handling equipment.

As far as short haul, high density routes are concerned, I'm wondering
if an airline wouldn't do better with two aircraft to outlying cities
rather than a single between the major hubs...

So far, I am not sure anyone has ordered the 380 for short hops. I suspect
that the japanese will wait to see how the 380 performs before buying it.

The thing is that some cities don't have that many airports and there is the
one big intl airport that acts as a huge hub and handles a lot of passengers.
Sometimes you don't have a choice because your passengers originate from one
big airport. And in cities such as Hong Kong or Singapore, you don't have much choice.

it's a GIVEN. Nothing says the airport has to be sutable for PAX
operations, BTW, just suitable for LANDING.

Some flight plans actually show the departure airport as the alternate
(return to point of origin) but it's not done all that often since it's
usually better to BUS pax in from somewhere close

"Vareck Bostrom" wrote in message
...
The A380 thread got me wondering about A380 costs to operate. One thing
I began to wonder about is if so few worldwide airports can handle the
A380 - what does the A380 do if it has to divert to an alternate airport
for whatever reason? If I recall, in the US an aircraft must carry
enough fuel for it's destination + alternate + 45 minutes of powered
flight afterward. If your destination is LAX and the nearest alternate
airport is Denver or Seattle, you've got to carry that much extra fuel
on every flight vs an aircraft that can divert to San Diego or San
Francisco.

Is that actually a consideration or concern?

you will find that if the airport is capable of handling the aircraft on the
runway, the taxiways are capable of handling the weight (usually there
aren't clearance issues where the weight is addressed - heavy aircraft are
usually BIG aircraft)
"Vareck Bostrom" wrote in message
...
In article ,
mrt wrote:

Vareck Bostrom wrote:
The A380 thread got me wondering about A380 costs to operate. One
thing
I began to wonder about is if so few worldwide airports can handle the
A380 - what does the A380 do if it has to divert to an alternate
airport
for whatever reason? If I recall, in the US an aircraft must carry
enough fuel for it's destination + alternate + 45 minutes of powered
flight afterward. If your destination is LAX and the nearest alternate
airport is Denver or Seattle, you've got to carry that much extra fuel
on every flight vs an aircraft that can divert to San Diego or San
Francisco.

Is that actually a consideration or concern?

I think the biggest concern is whether the terminal can handle it, not
the rest of the airport. In case of diversion, they might arrange to
deplane by stairs outside of the terminal.


I thought it was also runway width, taxiway turning radius, taxiway
width, seperation between taxiways and runways and taxiway load capacity
issues?

nobody wrote in message ...
The thing is that some cities don't have that many airports and there is the
one big intl airport that acts as a huge hub and handles a lot of passengers.
Sometimes you don't have a choice because your passengers originate from one
big airport. And in cities such as Hong Kong or Singapore, you don't have much choice.

Yes, but there's a lot more available in emergencies than you might
think. SIN is no problem -- KUL is perfectly near enough to serve as
an alternate. And there are many current or (especially) former
military bases that have runways perfectly strong enough to handle big
planes coming in as diversions. Just because they don't have much
traffic doesn't mean they're not capable. My wife was once
weather-diverted in a 747 that was supposed to land at LHR -- she
landed up at PIK. (Apparently there was some problem about diverting
to either LGW or MAN. Don't know why BHX wasn't considered.) Remember
PIK? It was almost dead before Ryanair arrived. Yet it can still
handle a diverted 747. I once emergency-diverted in a DC-10 to PSM
(and just after takeoff, so it was pretty heavy). Tiny passenger
terminal, two gates. But still well capable of handling bigger planes.

Will some Pacific runways require some reinforcement? Maybe. But for
true emergencies, that's all they'll need. And quite honestly if
you're in 'land in half an hour or you're dead' mode, you'll land
anywhere, including belly-flopping into the ocean. Remember that UA
777 a few months ago that lost an engine and had to fly over three
hours on one engine just to divert to KOA?

In article ,
(Alistair Bell) wrote:



anywhere, including belly-flopping into the ocean. Remember that UA
777 a few months ago that lost an engine and had to fly over three
hours on one engine just to divert to KOA?

Is ETOPS 207 allowed yet?