North American Airports That Can Handle An A380?

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:

That would be a sensible response. However, it is difficult for
the more northern bases. In addition it can leave you with a
flight over some pretty empty space.

Mel3k wrote:

But aren't airlines now avoiding US connections for
Europe-central/south America flights because of the new
"security" and visa/immigration requirements for transit
passengers? Iberia shut down their Miami hub because of
that, now flying directly from Spain to central/south
american destinations

Since the USA is (or will soon be) demanding that flights that fly
over US airspace turn over passenger lists for those flights (even if
the flights don't land in the USA) the whole issue of bypassing the
USA (both physically and proceedurally) is clearly much harder to do.

The new rules are probably designed to make it less attractive to
design your routes such that you don't need to have a US stop over
(Air Canada was or is advertizing flights to Mexico and South America
that bypass stopping in the USA, for example). US airlines have
probably suffered from the diversion of passengers to these alternate
routes, and the new US rules that compel passenger lists to be vetted
by US agencies are the strongest measure that the US can do to
protest/combat this loss of revenue (aside from completely barring
overflights).

I wonder how many internal flights within Canada have to turn over
their pax lists to US authorities (even if such flights do not enter
US airspace) ?

Are US-Europe flights forced to turn over or clear their pax lists to
Canadian authorities?

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:04:44 -0400, Fly Guy wrote:

Since the USA is (or will soon be) demanding that flights that fly
over US airspace turn over passenger lists for those flights (even if
the flights don't land in the USA) the whole issue of bypassing the
USA (both physically and proceedurally) is clearly much harder to do.

I bet if other countries tried to do that with US flights there would
be hell to pay. Yet another example of the Untied States acting out
being the bully of the world.

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 12:04:44 -0400, Fly Guy wrote:

Since the USA is (or will soon be) demanding that flights that fly
over US airspace turn over passenger lists for those flights (even if
the flights don't land in the USA) the whole issue of bypassing the
USA (both physically and proceedurally) is clearly much harder to do.

I bet if other countries tried to do that with US flights there would
be hell to pay. Yet another example of the Untied States acting out
being the bully of the world.

Dave

=====

NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/

Fly Guy wrote:
I wonder how many internal flights within Canada have to turn over
their pax lists to US authorities (even if such flights do not enter
US airspace) ?

Many many flights in canada pass oevr US airspace. Montreal-Toronto
often does. Toronto-Vancouver and Toronto Calgary often does.
Toronto/Montreal to Halifax almost always does etc etc etc.

If the canadian government does not fight this stupid rule, it means
that canadians will need to start paying cash for their domestic flights
if they don't way some police state south of the bornder to tracks all
their purchases and extend US "total information awareness" policioes
beyond its own police state borders.

Are US-Europe flights forced to turn over or clear their pax lists to
Canadian authorities?

The US government seems politically immune from all the ills in the US
airline industry and no blame is focused on the negative impact of its
policies on the airline industry or tourism industry. In canada, this si
not the case, and when an airline goes belly up, fingers are
automatically pointed at the government who gets blamed. (and with
*some* validity due to the way the canmadian governmenmt has
semi-outsources airport management with has resulted in fiascsos such as
Toronto Airport which has the world's second highest fees after Narita,
or the Montreal airport stupidities).

So if the canadian governnet is seen as supporting some policy which
will hurt the airline industry, there will be strong opposition, except
for the reform party, an extremist party that supports Bush.

In article , A Guy
Called Tyketto says...

SFO. They will more than likely be the first airport to see
them in the USA, let alone N. America. How they will handle the
arrivals on 28L/R will be interesting to see, as the wingspan may cover
both the runway it's using, and the parallel runway.

They are tight, aren't they? I was there on Wednesday and checked out
the separation. Bloody close. And I selected a seat in the terminal so I
could watch operations for the hour or so before my flight to LAX was
called. Fascinating to watch.

They always have the smaller aircraft slightly ahead to minimise effects
of disturbance on the adjacent runway. Presumably a 747 will cope with
whatever turbulence an MD-80 leaves behind but the reverse might be
trickier.

I would imagine that when operating 380s they would continue the
procedures in place for parallel landing and takeoff but take a great
deal of care when moving aircraft on the ground. I took a photograph of
the airport as we passed over and it looks like a 380 wingspan wouldn't
even reach to the centre of the area between the runways, let alone hang
out over the adjacent runway. But the taxiway separation is a lot
tighter.

In article , Geoff
Glave says...

I don't think we'll see the 380 here for a loooong time.

Maybe. But I reckon that the USA will see the A380 as soon as it's in
service.

For my part, I'm looking forward to them. They will have more room and
amenities and I would be extremely surprised if the seat pitch doesn't
grow by a few centimetres in economy.

In article , Mika says...

If they can fill a 380 transatlantic, good for them.

Are you nuts? Last week I flew LGW-DFW over the North Atlantic. I looked
out my window and I could see six other contrails. There's a LOT of
traffic across the Atlantic. Using bigger aircraft to fly more
passengers using the same number of slots makes economic sense. That's
why they brought in the 747 a generation ago.

Peter wrote in
:

In article , A Guy
Called Tyketto says...

SFO. They will more than likely be the first airport to see
them in the USA, let alone N. America. How they will handle the
arrivals on 28L/R will be interesting to see, as the wingspan may cover
both the runway it's using, and the parallel runway.

They are tight, aren't they? I was there on Wednesday and checked out
the separation. Bloody close. And I selected a seat in the terminal so I
could watch operations for the hour or so before my flight to LAX was
called. Fascinating to watch.

They always have the smaller aircraft slightly ahead to minimise effects
of disturbance on the adjacent runway. Presumably a 747 will cope with
whatever turbulence an MD-80 leaves behind but the reverse might be
trickier.

I would imagine that when operating 380s they would continue the
procedures in place for parallel landing and takeoff but take a great
deal of care when moving aircraft on the ground. I took a photograph of
the airport as we passed over and it looks like a 380 wingspan wouldn't
even reach to the centre of the area between the runways, let alone hang
out over the adjacent runway. But the taxiway separation is a lot
tighter.

The runways at SFO are 750' apart (measured centerline to centerline).
They are 200' wide. That leaves 550' of grass between the parallel
runways.

--
Marty Shapiro
Silicon Rallye Inc.

(remove SPAMNOT to email me)

"Peter" wrote in message
...
In article , Mika says...

If they can fill a 380 transatlantic, good for them.

Are you nuts? Last week I flew LGW-DFW over the North Atlantic. I
looked
out my window and I could see six other contrails. There's a LOT of
traffic across the Atlantic. Using bigger aircraft to fly more
passengers using the same number of slots makes economic sense.
That's
why they brought in the 747 a generation ago.

Makes economic sense only if slot limitations hurt. IIRC they just
created a lot of new slots (reduced spacings because of navigation
improvements).

What fraction of North Atlantic service is by twin-engined planes?
Isn't it around 60%. And lots of it is by 767 / A330. Even some
757s. Heck, there are even 737s (BBJ) and A319 doing scheduled
transatlantic passenger service.

"Peter" wrote in message
...
In article , Mika says...

If they can fill a 380 transatlantic, good for them.

Are you nuts? Last week I flew LGW-DFW over the North Atlantic. I
looked
out my window and I could see six other contrails. There's a LOT of
traffic across the Atlantic. Using bigger aircraft to fly more
passengers using the same number of slots makes economic sense.
That's
why they brought in the 747 a generation ago.

Makes economic sense only if slot limitations hurt. IIRC they just
created a lot of new slots (reduced spacings because of navigation
improvements).

What fraction of North Atlantic service is by twin-engined planes?
Isn't it around 60%. And lots of it is by 767 / A330. Even some
757s. Heck, there are even 737s (BBJ) and A319 doing scheduled
transatlantic passenger service.