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

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

 



In a message dated 11/30/2003 8:11:00 PM Pacific Standard Time,
exatc@xxxxxxxxxx writes:

<< Who is going to pay to redo each airports taxiways.  I don't know the
 turninf radius on the A380.  Many airports cannot handle the 747 because of
 the wide gear and turning radius.  The AN124? that landed at Cleveland
 several weeks ago (and was a topic here) had to be load/unloaded on the
 runway because it couldn't make the turns.  Even ORD has taxiway
 limitations.  Each airport has an design category aircraft that defines
 taxiway widths and clearances etc.  It's a lot easier said than done or
 funded.  What return on investment would the airport sponsor get.  The
 larger and heavier the max gross weight of the aircraft would require
 additional spacing for aircraft following the 380.  This would nulify any
 gain afforded by increasing the passengers. >>

Ok, here is the thing with LAX.  It is probably the least equipped of the
A380 airports to handle the bird.  Because of NIMBY and the developmental
restrictions of the airport, it is squeezed into a smallish box.  It leads the US in
runway incursions and has really tight taxiways as it is.  They spent a lot of
money redesigning for the 744 15 years ago, and there is really not space
left, unless the 5 runway master plan finally gets through and they can respace
the runways, the A380 is not going to fit.  Also, the terminals are over
capacity, even with the current down turn.  They wont be able to use the remote
gates, because they will no longer exist with the west gate expansion.  Those gate
could be made to accomidate A380, and I believe will, but you have to get the
plane to them, and without closing half the airport.

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