Re: AIRLINE Digest - 28 Nov 2003 to 29 Nov 2003 (#2003-196)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



It must be the Heineken. :) Let us not forget that the airlines pay landing
fees by the weight of the aircraft. Also, airlines you mentioned carry
100-150
pax at a plane load and they restrict their services to 3-4 flights a day.
Even with those numbers they will be paying less to the airport authority
compared to the one giant A380 carrying 700 pax. :)

BAHA
Fan of flying villages :P

-----Original Message-----
From: The Airline List [mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
B787300@xxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 8:22 PM
To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AIRLINE Digest - 28 Nov 2003 to 29 Nov 2003 (#2003-196)


But the improvements needed will run in the hundreds of millions of dollars
for most airports and even after spending huge sums there will be
restrictions
on other large aircraft taxiing or using runways adjacent to the big beast.

Why should other airlines, particularly the narrowbody operators like
Southwest, AirTran, JetBlue and Spirit, have to pay increased airport fees
for all
these required modifications and restrictions to benefit a few other
carriers
with minimum operations daily?  All of the airlines will pass their
increased
fees on to the flying public so we'll all end up paying for a stupid
decision to
build an aircraft too large to operate safely at most airports.

Jose Prize
Fan of Virgin but they and other A380 buyers should pay 50% of the airport
construction  costs

In a message dated 11/30/2003 7:30:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
katana.flyer@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

> Subj: Re: AIRLINE Digest - 28 Nov 2003 to 29 Nov 2003 (#2003-196)
>  Date: 11/30/2003 7:30:43 PM Eastern Standard Time
>  From: <A
HREF="mailto:katana.flyer@xxxxxxxxxx";>katana.flyer@xxxxxxxxxx</A>
>  Reply-to: <A
HREF="mailto:katana.flyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>katana.flyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>
>  To: <A
HREF="mailto:AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A>
>  Sent from the Internet
>
> Well airports need traffic to stay in business. I'm suprised LAX isn't
> making plans becasue quite a few carriers using the airport have the A380
on order
> and it's surely in the airports interests to have as many passengers per
> plane as possible coming thorough (more revenue per movement).
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> On Sunday 30 November 2003 05:33, Herman R. Silbiger wrote:
> >They just should ask Branson to pay for the improvements he wants. In
> >any case I don't understand why airport authorities are forced to
> >accommodate any plane than wants to come in. It might actually be a good
> >idea if no US airport could take the A380, since no US airline has any
> >on order.
> >
> >Herman
> >
>

[Index of Archives]         [NTSB]     [NASA KSC]     [Yosemite]     [Steve's Art]     [Deep Creek Hot Springs]     [NTSB]     [STB]     [Share Photos]     [Yosemite Campsites]