I see I stirred up a little discussion with my remarks on who should pay for the improvements necessitated to accommodate the A380. It was actually somewhat tongue in cheek, since I do not believe in protectionism. What really worries me is the competitive disadvantage that the US carriers will be placed in. This disadvantage will only occur if the foreign carriers actually realize the lower seat/mile costs possible by the A380 when fully loaded. While I believe that most pax would rather not fly in a 450 seat cattle car configuration with correspondingly long loading/unloading times, they will do so if it is cheaper. The 380 will then allow airlines to make money for ticket prices lower than what on 380 carriers need to charge. The US airlines are also not in a financial position to order any 380s. Some US carriers argue that there will be an advantage offering more frequent departures. That may be true for domestic operations, bu for most intercontintal traffic the is only a relatively narrow time slot suitable for departures. Herman >Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:57:57 +0800 >From: Russell Ng <russng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: AIRLINE Digest - 28 Nov 2003 to 29 Nov 2003 (#2003-196) > >Dear Friends > >I don't think that keeping the A380 out by not providing adequate airports >is the answer. Like it or not, this is progress and you either go with it >or get left out. As long as the A380 operators are willing to fly to the >U.S., the airports should be more accommodating. Having larger aircraft >would help solve the overcrowding problem as there would be less aircraft >movements. Passenger taxes would increase due to the larger loads. Instead >of building more terminals to accommodate more aircraft and thereby taking >up more valuable land, all Branson is asking is for modifications to be >made to take a larger two level aircraft. > >Instead of stifling the competition by denying it access, the U.S. should >meet the competition head-on and overcome it. Like it or not, foreign-made >goods are sometimes better. Just look at the cameras used by professional >photographers. If the Americans were forced to buy American, they would >still be using Kodaks, Anscos, and Graflexes instead of 11Mb Canon digitals. > >"It might actually be a good idea if no US airport could take the A380" >sounds like an indirect attempt at protectionism, especially when Herman >adds .."since no US airline has any on order." Would this change if a US >carrier ordered one? The Concorde was flown exclusively by foreign airlines >yet it was gladly accomodated by JFK and other US airports. Using the >argument that no U.S. carriers will be flying the A380 and therefore the >U.S. would not benefit from modifying airports is short sighted. For one, >the economy would benefit from each planeload of 550 people. More visitors >would mean more revenue and with those familiar with getting visitors to >pay for their sports stadiums would know what I mean. Judging from the >number of people who relish the opportunity of flying the B747, I think >there will be a similar response to the A380. > >My two cents worth. > >Russell Ng >SIN > >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 >>> >>> >>> > >------------------------------ > >Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:57:05 -0500 >From: Geert Marien <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: Seat Cushion Question > >Folks, > >On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:25:29 -0800, Michael C. Berch <mcb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >wrote: > > > >>OK... I'll ask: what's the significance of March 31? >> >> > > I wonder if a member of the "Blue-Haired Crowd" might deduce that it is >because the next day is March 32nd :-)? > >/Geert > >------------------------------ > >Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 23:08:05 -0500 >From: Allan9 <exatc@xxxxxxxxxx> >Subject: Re: AIRLINE Digest - 28 Nov 2003 to 29 Nov 2003 (#2003-196) > >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. >Al > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Russell Ng" <russng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >Sent: Sunday, November 30, 2003 9:57 PM >Subject: Re: AIRLINE Digest - 28 Nov 2003 to 29 Nov 2003 (#2003-196) > > > > >>Dear Friends >> >>I don't think that keeping the A380 out by not providing adequate airports >>is the answer. Like it or not, this is progress and you either go with it >>or get left out. As long as the A380 operators are willing to fly to the >>U.S., the airports should be more accommodating. Having larger aircraft >>would help solve the overcrowding problem as there would be less aircraft >>movements. Passenger taxes would increase due to the larger loads. Instead >>of building more terminals to accommodate more aircraft and thereby taking >>up more valuable land, all Branson is asking is for modifications to be >>made to take a larger two level aircraft. >> >>Instead of stifling the competition by denying it access, the U.S. should >>meet the competition head-on and overcome it. Like it or not, foreign-made >>goods are sometimes better. Just look at the cameras used by professional >>photographers. If the Americans were forced to buy American, they would >>still be using Kodaks, Anscos, and Graflexes instead of 11Mb Canon >> >> >digitals. > > >>"It might actually be a good idea if no US airport could take the A380" >>sounds like an indirect attempt at protectionism, especially when Herman >>adds .."since no US airline has any on order." Would this change if a US >>carrier ordered one? The Concorde was flown exclusively by foreign >> >> >airlines > > >>yet it was gladly accomodated by JFK and other US airports. Using the >>argument that no U.S. carriers will be flying the A380 and therefore the >>U.S. would not benefit from modifying airports is short sighted. For one, >>the economy would benefit from each planeload of 550 people. More visitors >>would mean more revenue and with those familiar with getting visitors to >>pay for their sports stadiums would know what I mean. Judging from the >>number of people who relish the opportunity of flying the B747, I think >>there will be a similar response to the A380. >> >>My two cents worth. >> >>Russell Ng >>SIN >> >>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 >>>> >>>> >>>> > > >