Baha What's the max gross weight of the A380? Al ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bahadir Acuner" <bahadiracuner@xxxxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 8:31 PM Subject: Re: AIRLINE Digest - 28 Nov 2003 to 29 Nov 2003 (#2003-196) > 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 > > > > >