Airbus 380: the new Concorde

wrote:

Anyway. The same group people who supported the Boeing 747 is now
currently supporting the Airbus A380.

Juan Trippe of PanAm was the major supporter of the 747, the launch
customer, and his airline flew the first revenue flight with the plane.
Neither Juan Trippe, nor his airline, are still in existence. British
Airways (BOAC) was also an early customer, and they haven't yet ordered
the A-380.

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?

They are firm orders. If they don't follow through, there are big
financial penalties.

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!

In the first place, the A380 only handles 35 percent more passengers,
not double. In the second, bi-level gates would not be a major
problem. In Amsterdam, as an example, they now use two entries for
existing 747s. You enter the ramp from one gate, and the flow is
divided part way to the plane. One goes to the front entrance, and the
other passes up and over the wing to the rear entrance. It would be
fairly easy to direct it to the upper level instead.

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?

They aren't confused about the double entrances in Amsterdam. It is not
an issue.

nobody wrote:

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.

Furthermore, while Airbus likes to point out that the A380 is roughly the same
length as a B747, they don't dwell on the fact that outboard engines are
significantly further outboard, driving a requirement for wider taxiways. The
weight is also significantly greater, so runways that are marginal for a 747 may
not accomodate an A380.

That said, there's well less than a handful of airports in the US that will see
scheduled A380 service in the next decade.

"Clark W. Griswold, Jr." wrote:

That said, there's well less than a handful of airports in the US that will see
scheduled A380 service in the next decade.


Initially New York and Los Angeles (and Montreal in Canada).

Later on, I can see Chicago and San Francisco in USA and Vancouver in
Canada. Other cities just aren't big or strategic enough for foreign
airlines to run such a beast to it.

Delta may balk at the big planes, but it is part of Skyteam, and if Air
France can offer to operate a 380 flight where the per seat costs to
Delta will be less, how could Delta refuse ? If the market betwene Paris
and Atlanta warrants 555 seats per day, why not ?

On the other hand, if there is no competition on the ATL-CDG run, then
Delta would have no incentive to code share with its partner on a more
efficient aircraft and Delta would want to split the market between AF
and DL metal, both on smaller planes.

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.

In fact, it seems like it'd be strikingly easy to do. All they'd need
to do is redesign the passenger boarding bridges. Design for the end of
them to be able to rotate a full 180 degrees and go high enough to reach
the upper deck of an A380. Then work it out so that the A380 can
straddle two gates at an existing terminal. One gate deplanes and
boards the lower deck of the aircraft; the other the upper deck. (Of
course the new bridges could rotate back around and drop down for use
with other aircraft).

Doing this would logically accommodate the wingspan of the A380 but it'd
also mean less crowded terminal gates - a concern raised in the
Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Moreover, it'd mean faster boarding times, because effectively you'd be
boarding two single deck planes with 275 to 400 seats, rather than one
double decker with 550 to 800 seats. Most of all, however, I think it's
safe to assume that the cost a pair or two pairs of new passenger
boarding bridges would be much cheaper than a whole new airport
terminal, which is what all of the airport managers seem to be talking
about.

In article , Clark W.
Griswold, Jr. says...
Furthermore, while Airbus likes to point out that the A380 is roughly the same
length as a B747, they don't dwell on the fact that outboard engines are
significantly further outboard, driving a requirement for wider taxiways. The
weight is also significantly greater, so runways that are marginal for a 747 may
not accomodate an A380.

The wings are 15m longer than a B747's, so they might interfere with
operations on nearby runways and taxiways. Worst case would be two of
these things passing wingtip to wingtip.

In fact, it seems like it'd be strikingly easy to do.

No problem. All it takes is money: lots of it. What all of you are
forgetting is how airports are expanded. If a runway needs to be
extended, there are environmental studies that must be completed.
No matter which side you fall on environmental issues, the reality
is that these studies take many years and lots of money to complete.
There is a good reason why there is no highway running through
San Francisco (well, maybe not a good reason, but a real, eco-one).
Expanding Chicago is an ongoing soap opera and it will be the same
at any airport.

The other reason everyone ignores is Airbus manufacturing. If they
don't sell many planes, they won't be able to keep a good number
of assembly areas going. That is what killed a few McDonnell-
Douglas and Boeing planes in the last ten years. The 380 will be
financially sound for a few years building Asian market planes.
Then we'll see how long the demand lasts, without the largest air
market in the world.


Casey

In article et,
spamfree says...
The 380 will be
financially sound for a few years building Asian market planes.
Then we'll see how long the demand lasts, without the largest air
market in the world.

Hmmm. May I humbly suggest that Asia isn't quite the poverty-stricken
backwater with a limited future you imagine it to be?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 05:25:55 GMT, "spamfree"
wrote:

In fact, it seems like it'd be strikingly easy to do.

No problem. All it takes is money: lots of it. What all of you are
forgetting is how airports are expanded. If a runway needs to be
extended, there are environmental studies that must be completed.
No matter which side you fall on environmental issues, the reality
is that these studies take many years and lots of money to complete.
There is a good reason why there is no highway running through
San Francisco (well, maybe not a good reason, but a real, eco-one).
Expanding Chicago is an ongoing soap opera and it will be the same
at any airport.

The other reason everyone ignores is Airbus manufacturing. If they
don't sell many planes, they won't be able to keep a good number
of assembly areas going. That is what killed a few McDonnell-
Douglas and Boeing planes in the last ten years. The 380 will be
financially sound for a few years building Asian market planes.
Then we'll see how long the demand lasts, without the largest air
market in the world.


Casey


Sigh. I assume that last comment is meant to refer to the US market. A
market in decline, a market riddled with poorly managed, financially
insecure airlines. The A380 is designed for the markets that are
growing, the markets that are already needing the extra capacity, the
markets that will continue to grow at a phenomenal rate for years to
come. The 380 doesn't need to sell to the (nearly) bankrupt US
carriers, it needs to sell to successful, expanding carriers with a
future like EK, SQ, MH, QF. It doesn't need to be able to land at
every provincial airport in the US, it needs to be able to land at
Heathrow, Dubai, Singapore, Shanghai, Sydney, Los Angeles.
--==++AJC++==--

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:32:23 +1100, Peter wrote:

In article et,
spamfree says...
The 380 will be
financially sound for a few years building Asian market planes.
Then we'll see how long the demand lasts, without the largest air
market in the world.

Hmmm. May I humbly suggest that Asia isn't quite the poverty-stricken
backwater with a limited future you imagine it to be?

ROTFLMAO. Yes, some people are going to have a nasty shock in a few
years time aren't they?
--==++AJC++==--

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.

In fact, it seems like it'd be strikingly easy to do. All they'd need
to do is redesign the passenger boarding bridges. Design for the end of
them to be able to rotate a full 180 degrees and go high enough to reach
the upper deck of an A380. Then work it out so that the A380 can
straddle two gates at an existing terminal. One gate deplanes and
boards the lower deck of the aircraft; the other the upper deck. (Of
course the new bridges could rotate back around and drop down for use
with other aircraft).

Doing this would logically accommodate the wingspan of the A380 but it'd
also mean less crowded terminal gates - a concern raised in the
Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Moreover, it'd mean faster boarding times, because effectively you'd be
boarding two single deck planes with 275 to 400 seats, rather than one
double decker with 550 to 800 seats. Most of all, however, I think it's
safe to assume that the cost a pair or two pairs of new passenger
boarding bridges would be much cheaper than a whole new airport
terminal, which is what all of the airport managers seem to be talking
about.

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.





--==++AJC++==--