Your take is wrong again Baha. This is not some US vs. EU war over who has the biggest jetliner in the sky. If Boeing had built this flying pig there would be the same problems with not enough land at airports to move taxiways. A lot of airport just can't create additional land to provide the necessary clearances between runways and taxiways, taxiways and taxiways, taxiways/taxilanes and terminals, etc. We're talking a difference of about 50 feet of additional wingspan. The 747's wingspan fortunately did not create as many problems for airports as the A380 will. What do you mean by your statement that RIC can't handle 747's? Are you talking runways lengths and widths, clearance limits between runways and taxiways, taxiways and taxiways, taxiways/taxilanes and the terminal, or the fact that they can't put a jetbridge on it at a gate? Please specify why they can't handle 747's yet seem to do so on diversions. And there's one heck of a difference between 747's causing minor inconvenience, if any at all, to the relatively few flights that RIC has to major inconvenience to other operators at a tremendously busy airport like LAX. RIC is a pathetic example to use in this case. Jose Prize Fan of airports In a message dated 3/11/2004 8:58:35 AM Eastern Standard Time, bahadiracuner@xxxxxxxxx writes: > Subj: [Sky-1] RE: U.S. Airports Not Ready For Airbus A380, Says Lufthansa > Date: 3/11/2004 8:58:35 AM Eastern Standard Time > From: bahadiracuner@xxxxxxxxx > Reply-to: Skyone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To: AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Skyone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent from the Internet > > My take on this: > This is turning to a US vs. EU war where US is too proud to admit that the > biggest jetliner will not be B747 anymore. > > Airbus is not dumb. They decided to go ahead with this plane because there > is a demand for it. Yes, US airlines are in bad economical shape to order > these huge birds, but as it will come as a surprise, there are 3 billion > people who live outside of US. :) > > Highest traffic and pax increase will be seen in Southeast Asia where > population and economical growth will be phenomenal for years to come. If > you are an airport and say that "we are landlocked", this is not the Airbus' > problem, it is the problem of the airport authority. > > Couples of arguments about diversions are not valid points as well. I have > seen many times a BA or LH 747 diverting to RIC because of weather in IAD. > Now, RIC is not able to handle 747s, but I haven't seen people crying to > Boeing and telling them stop making those 747s. :) > > Lastly people mentioned similar problems with 747s when they first came out. > Go to LAX, SFO, JFK, IAD, ORD and watch those airports handle 747s as easy > as 717s. > > BAHA > Fan of adopting to change >