Nick A lot of the changes you refer to would be dictated in part by the FAA. Taxiway clear zone based on the aircraft wing span, turning radius (taxiway fillet) etc. If I recall correctly each US airport has what they call a design category aircraft. Something to so with most commonly used regulalrly scheduled aircraft. There's an FAA Advisory Circular in the 5340 series titled something like Air Carrier Airport Design. Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Laflamme" <dplaflamme@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 8:19 AM Subject: Re: Big planes vs. little ones > At 11:24 PM 5/7/2003 -0700, Jon Wright wrote: > >I've never understood why so many fees and wages associated with > >commercial aviation are based upon the weight of the plane. > > > >Take landing fees. How does a 747 cost and airport more than a 737 to handle? > > It might not take much more to handle the 747, but it takes more > infrastructure to handle the 747. The runways have to be longer and have to > support more weight per aircraft wheel. The gates that will handle the 747 > need more room to park the behemoths. I suspect the taxiways need more > clearance from surrounding buildings. > > Take the A380 (please! :-) ). Even though Airbus constrained its width and > length to 80m in each direction, airports are still going to need to > upgrade some of their facilities for the sheer size of the beast. If an > airline could replace a couple of 767 runs with an A380 run at no > additional cost from the airport, suddenly the airport is responsible for > infrastructure upgrades with no corresponding increase in landing fees. > > Possibly one could tie landing fees to the passengers or cargo on board, > but that leads to all sorts of bookkeeping nightmares, and even so, the > empty weight of the A380 would still dictate some infrastructure upgrades. > > Nick >