Airbus 380: the new Concorde

On 15 Feb 2005 14:53:40 -0800, wrote:

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.


You need to get out more. It is driven by a need for extra capacity on
busy routes, extra capacity at busy airports, and massive growth in
certain areas.



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


No, they are mostly dead now.


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.


Indeed it wouldn't. The leap from the 707/DC8/V10 to the 747 was far
greater than the step up from the 744 to the 380.



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.


Yes the 747 as it was, almost doubled capacity, any more would have
been way too much to cope with in one go.



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.


Yes, and so on with more of your fantasy problems. There will be none
of this mystery confusion of yours, passengers will get a gate number
as they do now, they will go to that gate as they do now, they will
board as they do now, crew will indicate where to go on board as they
do now. Where is the confusion? Passengers are not going to have to
decide which level they take, I've never seen anyone confused at
Schiphol at the 2 level gates that have been in operation there for
several years, have you? It is already well planned, that airports
will either have gate lounges on separate levels, and passengers will
board directly to the level on which they will be seated through 2 or
3 air bridges, or they will board through 2 doors on the lower level,
with one leading directly to the staircase to the upper level. Of
course this has been explained to you before, but you can't seem to
accept it.
--==++AJC++==--

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++==--

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.

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++==--

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.

"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

AJC wrote:
nobody wrote:
AJC wrote:

Thanks, everybody - an AVIATION thread!

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."

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."

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?